Core 2 Duo E4300 Benchmark - fresh and hot

[kknd1967]

Link

 

[cmdrdredd]

very slow site

and it won't load for me

 

[NoobyDoo]

It's in Japanese, I think. Translation ?

 

[StrangerGuy]

From the site on E4300 overclocking:

1.575V - 3709MHz (529 x7)
1.375V - 2996MHz (333 x9)
1.55V - 3294MHz (366 x9)
1.6V - 3420MHz (380 x9)

E4300 seems to like a high FSB.

EDIT: Got those voltages from the text, not from the CPU-Z screenies.

 

[NoobyDoo]

Here's what the images indicate :

E4300 (ES) with DFI Infinity 975X/G & GeIL Plus DDR2-800 4-4-4-12

Power consumption : 15W less than E6300

OC :
Voltage - Core Speed - Multiplier - Bus Speed
1.368v - 2996MHz - x9 - 333MHz
1.213v - 3294MHz - x9 - 366MHz
1.213v - 3420MHz - x9 - 380Mhz

1.138v - 3709MHz - x7 - 530MHz ( <- E6300 ? )

Looks good !

 

[coldpower27]

Doesn't work in Firefox 2.0 to my Knowledge, but works allright for IE 6 for me.

 

[Avalon]

Looks good to me
Can't wait!

 

[coldpower27]

So from the results

E6300 Eng sample goes to

3709 MHZ at 530MHZ FSB with a x7 Multiplier at 1.138V

E4300 Eng sample goes to 3420MHZ at 380FSB with a x9 Multiplier at 1.213V

 

[hardwareking]

Well i guess its gonna be the pentium d 805 of the core 2 duo series.
Sweet overclocking comes our way.Low FSB and high multiplier goodness.

 

[Duvie]

It wont open for me but I am sure those voltages are wrong...everyone knows cpu_z above a certain vcore wont show it right anyways...

 

[NoobyDoo]

Some more info :


Test : X2 3800 - E4300 - E6300
SysMark2004 : 220 - 249 - 256
S Pi Mod 1M : 41.3s - 30.5s - 29.2s
PC Mark05 : 5317 - 5736 - 5843
WinRAR : 1016 - 1084 - 1140
3D Mark06 : 7647 - 8079 - 8349

 

[Hyperlite]

so all we really need to know is whether or not those voltages are correct...

 

[JAG87]

they are not.

these seem correct
1.575V - 3709MHz (529 x7)
1.375V - 2996MHz (333 x9)
1.55V - 3294MHz (366 x9)
1.6V - 3420MHz (380 x9)

it seems the higher the fsb the less voltage you need for the same OC. anybody with a 500 FSB board should have quite some fun.

 

[Duvie]

I am sure it is not...That 1.213v is exactly what cpu_z gives me if I set my voltages above 1.45v in the bios....I hope those reviewers are smarter then that...It could even be speedstepping, though I would think they would have had to disable it to get stable overclocks

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: JAG87
they are not.

these seem correct
1.575V - 3709MHz (529 x7)
1.375V - 2996MHz (333 x9)
1.55V - 3294MHz (366 x9)
1.6V - 3420MHz (380 x9)

it seems the higher the fsb the less voltage you need for the same OC. anybody with a 500 FSB board should have quite some fun.

that seems to go against common sense...

 

[JAG87]

yep it is weird, but you can get 3.7 with 1.575v and 3.4 with 1.6v it seems...

maybe the 1.6v run was not OCd to its max...

 

[The-Noid]

It doesn't appear as if the OC is done from someone who is really skilled in OCing as well. Time will tell how the serious guys do with it.

I am just glad the chip isn't a crippled version of the E6300 with 1 meg cache like it was rumored.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

price, availability when? and didnt Intel announce price drops for the E6XXX for January? those E4xxx might become cheap cpus *fingerscrossed*

 

[Duvie]

IMO...I dont think we should expect too much from these chips...i think they will likely be very similar to the top rangeof the E6xxx series...I think what we may end up seeing is X6xxx series chips thta somewhere along the line had some failed L2 cache.

Maybe in later runs they will be advanced stepping but probably about the same time the E6xxx series would be also....

 

[Avalon]

I'm not expecting these to overclock farther than current Core 2 Duo processors, but I am expecting them to reach similar clocks without requiring a massively high FSB for $150-$160.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Avalon
I'm not expecting these to overclock farther than current Core 2 Duo processors, but I am expecting them to reach similar clocks without requiring a massively high FSB for $150-$160.

QFT!!!

I also expect them with the less cache to take the performance hit....Depending on a persons uses this may or may not be neglible to them...

 

[BladeVenom]

They are going to have the same cache as the E6400, and E6300.

 

[harpoon84]

In case people can't access the site, here is a repost on Xtremesysterms:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=126278

As expected at stock speeds it is slightly slower than an E6300, but is also slightly faster than an X2 3800+, which means the slated $163 price is justified from a price/performance viewpoint. Of course, not many people here care about stock performance, so it'll be the ability to get a decent overclock without the necessity of high speed RAM and 400FSB+ capable mobos that will be the real selling point of this chip.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Avalon
I'm not expecting these to overclock farther than current Core 2 Duo processors, but I am expecting them to reach similar clocks without requiring a massively high FSB for $150-$160.

QFT!!!

I also expect them with the less cache to take the performance hit....Depending on a persons uses this may or may not be neglible to them...

Well keep in mind they will have the same cache as the E6300 and E6400, but in comparison to the E6600 then yes, the cache could make a difference.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

E6300 vs E4300. Both have 1800MHZ, why is the E4300 slower exactly?