E21xx benchmarks out ...

[nyker96]

Found to be roughly 2% less than 4xxx in applications and 5% or so less in games.

Link to dailytech summary: Summary Results

Original Chinese source:
Chinese Source (Benchmarks)

More benchmarks:
From Russian Sitesite

 

[Avalon]

Hmm, that's really good considering the drop from 4MB to 2MB was slightly higher (3-5% in most apps, 8-10% in games). Then again, you were losing 2MB of cache there in comparison as opposed to just 1MB of these E2xxx chips vs. E4xxx chips.

This has got me interested, now...

 

[AkumaX]

even cheaper dual cores. what to do?!

now its time to play the overclocking game with the age old question: does less cache = higher o/cs?

 

[jpeyton]

I suspect as with the new desktop Celerons (and most Allendales), these will be limited to around 3GHz for the models released at launch. Intel is spitting these out in volume because of the ultra-low clock speeds.

Not that a $75 Core 2 CPU that can do 3GHz is anything but fast.

I had a feeling these would be the new big hit among enthusiasts.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Oh my god! This is fantastic! I think I may have a nice home for an E2160 9x multi with the "small" 1MB L2 cache making virtually no difference for a list price of $85? *drool*, that higher multi definitely makes it worth the extra $10 over the E2140 IMO. Seriously, is anyone else just floored by the potential for the 2160? I mean come on, it's like a couple frames difference between the 2160 and the 4300, and since it has less cache it, theoretically, would be better at overclocking. Even if it can "only" hit 3GHz, I'd be happy as a clam! I know that phrase just sounds super corny, but that's how excited I am for this E2160. I still don't see why they decided to call it Pentium, is Pentium the new Celeron for desktop Intel chips?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
Oh my god! This is fantastic! I think I may have a nice home for an E2160 9x multi with the "small" 1MB L2 cache making virtually no difference for a list price of $85? *drool*, that higher multi definitely makes it worth the extra $10 over the E2140 IMO. Seriously, is anyone else just floored by the potential for the 2160? I mean come on, it's like a couple frames difference between the 2160 and the 4300, and since it has less cache it, theoretically, would be better at overclocking. Even if it can "only" hit 3GHz, I'd be happy as a clam! I know that phrase just sounds super corny, but that's how excited I am for this E2160. I still don't see why they decided to call it Pentium, is Pentium the new Celeron for desktop Intel chips?

Pentium is the new name for Intel's low-end dual core processors. The Celeron name still exists, and the new Celeron chips are single-core C2D's with 512KB of L2 cache.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
even cheaper dual cores. what to do?!

now its time to play the overclocking game with the age old question: does less cache = higher o/cs?

In every instance I've ever seen, the lower cache chips don't overclock as well. Of course, that makes sense, since the larger cache chips will have higher cache latency, and higher latency nearly always equals a higher overclock.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Wow, I'm really surprised, considering that the E4300 is hardly behind the E6300 in performance.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
Oh my god! This is fantastic! I think I may have a nice home for an E2160 9x multi with the "small" 1MB L2 cache making virtually no difference for a list price of $85? *drool*, that higher multi definitely makes it worth the extra $10 over the E2140 IMO. Seriously, is anyone else just floored by the potential for the 2160? I mean come on, it's like a couple frames difference between the 2160 and the 4300, and since it has less cache it, theoretically, would be better at overclocking. Even if it can "only" hit 3GHz, I'd be happy as a clam! I know that phrase just sounds super corny, but that's how excited I am for this E2160. I still don't see why they decided to call it Pentium, is Pentium the new Celeron for desktop Intel chips?

Yes, but are clams truly happy creatures?

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Avalon
Hmm, that's really good considering the drop from 4MB to 2MB was slightly higher (3-5% in most apps, 8-10% in games). Then again, you were losing 2MB of cache there in comparison as opposed to just 1MB of these E2xxx chips vs. E4xxx chips.

You're still losing 50% of your cache.


Also, something tells me it'll get raped by higher speed, higher fsb, larger cache c2ds in SupCom.

 

[Extelleron]

I think this will be a nice CPU for general tasks but if you're going to game the added cache of the E4300 and certainly the E63/6420 is going to be important.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
I think this will be a nice CPU for general tasks but if you're going to game the added cache of the E4300 and certainly the E63/6420 is going to be important.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, we will have to see, there isn't a direct 4MB variant to compare to anyway, as those have extra clockspeed plus a FSB boost.

Obviously more cache will help but the question is how much, and does it help when the only factor of difference is the cache and not any other variable.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Extelleron
I think this will be a nice CPU for general tasks but if you're going to game the added cache of the E4300 and certainly the E63/6420 is going to be important.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, we will have to see, there isn't a direct 4MB variant to compare to anyway, as those have extra clockspeed plus a FSB boost.

Obviously more cache will help but the question is how much, and does it help when the only factor of difference is the cache and not any other variable.

The difference between 2MB and 4MB of L2 cache for C2D chips has been shown to be anywhere between less than 1% and nearly 10%. Most games seem to benefit about 3-7% from going from 2MB to 4MB of L2 cache. I would presume the performance increases going from 1MB to 2MB will be similar. Overall it doesn't sound like much but when you consider about a 10% deficit in games from the full fledged 4MB parts, cache can start to matter. As Anandtech said in their original C2D review, the higher cache processors may benefit even more as time goes on and program datasets grow.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Extelleron
I think this will be a nice CPU for general tasks but if you're going to game the added cache of the E4300 and certainly the E63/6420 is going to be important.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, we will have to see, there isn't a direct 4MB variant to compare to anyway, as those have extra clockspeed plus a FSB boost.

Obviously more cache will help but the question is how much, and does it help when the only factor of difference is the cache and not any other variable.

The difference between 2MB and 4MB of L2 cache for C2D chips has been shown to be anywhere between less than 1% and nearly 10%. Most games seem to benefit about 3-7% from going from 2MB to 4MB of L2 cache. I would presume the performance increases going from 1MB to 2MB will be similar. Overall it doesn't sound like much but when you consider about a 10% deficit in games from the full fledged 4MB parts, cache can start to matter. As Anandtech said in their original C2D review, the higher cache processors may benefit even more as time goes on and program datasets grow.

Yeah but considering the lowest 4MB cache part will be the E6320, which is going to be ~2x as costly, a 10% deficit doesn't sound so extreme. Perhaps 15%-20% at most accounting for FSB and clockspeed differences. Anyways as had been said numerous times for gaming money is better spent on getting a more powerful GPU then a CPU, unless you run into a very specific game that is terribly CPU dependent.

These processors should be more then adequate especially so when you bring overclocking into the equation for most gaming.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Extelleron
I think this will be a nice CPU for general tasks but if you're going to game the added cache of the E4300 and certainly the E63/6420 is going to be important.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, we will have to see, there isn't a direct 4MB variant to compare to anyway, as those have extra clockspeed plus a FSB boost.

Obviously more cache will help but the question is how much, and does it help when the only factor of difference is the cache and not any other variable.

The difference between 2MB and 4MB of L2 cache for C2D chips has been shown to be anywhere between less than 1% and nearly 10%. Most games seem to benefit about 3-7% from going from 2MB to 4MB of L2 cache. I would presume the performance increases going from 1MB to 2MB will be similar. Overall it doesn't sound like much but when you consider about a 10% deficit in games from the full fledged 4MB parts, cache can start to matter. As Anandtech said in their original C2D review, the higher cache processors may benefit even more as time goes on and program datasets grow.

Yeah but considering the lowest 4MB cache part will be the E6320, which is going to be ~2x as costly, a 10% deficit doesn't sound so extreme. Perhaps 15%-20% at most accounting for FSB and clockspeed differences. Anyways as had been said numerous times for gaming money is better spent on getting a more powerful GPU then a CPU, unless you run into a very specific game that is terribly CPU dependent.

These processors should be more then adequate especially so when you bring overclocking into the equation for most gaming.

Yes, if you are on an extreme budget you would be spending your money better going for a better video card, but the CPU is starting to matter more in some modern games. Supreme Commander will perform better on a dual-core CPU with a midrange card than on a single core CPU with an 8800GTX. As games feature more advanced AI and physics (Crysis, etc), the CPU will begin to matter quite a bit.

I'm probably going to go for an E4300 come April 22nd...the E2160 is attractive but I'd rather spend a little bit more for twice the L2 cache.

 

[mushroom3]

why are they releasing so many variants? arent they just hurting the e6xxx series?

 

[Hajpoj]

Most of AMD's X2 line could be sub $100 in a few months, intel needs chips at this price point to continue blowing them out of the water everywhere.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Hajpoj
Most of AMD's X2 line could be sub $100 in a few months, intel needs chips at this price point to continue blowing them out of the water everywhere.

Exactly. Right now an X2 3600+ at $65 looks very attractive especially considering it can be overclocked to around 3GHz~. Intel may dominate the midrange and high-end parts, but until they release the E21xx series, they are lacking in the low-end, budget market.

 

[Zap]

The 4MB cache Conroe definately is faster than an A64 x2 at the same MHz and can overclock higher. The 2MB cache Conroe is only a bit faster (in most things), but can also overclock like mad. The Allendales might not overclock as high. Now, with even less cache and the same overclockability as the Allendales, these may end up being more or less the same as the A64 x2 overall, both overclockability and performance/MHz. Of course that's all conjecture. IF... if it is the same overall, then the deciding factor will be cost of motherboard and if you plan to upgrade in the future to true Conroe or Barcelona.

Veeely intelesting!

Go budget chips!!!!!

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Zap
The 4MB cache Conroe definately is faster than an A64 x2 at the same MHz and can overclock higher. The 2MB cache Conroe is only a bit faster (in most things), but can also overclock like mad. The Allendales might not overclock as high. Now, with even less cache and the same overclockability as the Allendales, these may end up being more or less the same as the A64 x2 overall, both overclockability and performance/MHz. Of course that's all conjecture. IF... if it is the same overall, then the deciding factor will be cost of motherboard and if you plan to upgrade in the future to true Conroe or Barcelona.

Veeely intelesting!

Go budget chips!!!!!

Only a little faster? The E6400 competes with the 5200+ quite well despite having only 2MB of LV2. Even with 1MB of cache Core micro-architecture will basically still hold an overall IPC advantage in relation to K8 Dual Core.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Yes, if you are on an extreme budget you would be spending your money better going for a better video card, but the CPU is starting to matter more in some modern games. Supreme Commander will perform better on a dual-core CPU with a midrange card than on a single core CPU with an 8800GTX. As games feature more advanced AI and physics (Crysis, etc), the CPU will begin to matter quite a bit.

I'm probably going to go for an E4300 come April 22nd...the E2160 is attractive but I'd rather spend a little bit more for twice the L2 cache.

The Pentium E series is Dual Core, but thats a separate issue entirely from halving the cache, cache while beneficial to have won't make or break a processor as it remains only 5% or so. Most people should go for Dual Core minimum, and these processor will make nearly everyone can.

For me it would be a time issue, get the E4300 on April 22nd, or wait till June for the E2160. I would rather pay less and get a E2160, but I would have to wait.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Zap
The 4MB cache Conroe definately is faster than an A64 x2 at the same MHz and can overclock higher. The 2MB cache Conroe is only a bit faster (in most things), but can also overclock like mad. The Allendales might not overclock as high. Now, with even less cache and the same overclockability as the Allendales, these may end up being more or less the same as the A64 x2 overall, both overclockability and performance/MHz. Of course that's all conjecture. IF... if it is the same overall, then the deciding factor will be cost of motherboard and if you plan to upgrade in the future to true Conroe or Barcelona.

Veeely intelesting!

Go budget chips!!!!!

Interesting theory, though largely incorrect IMO. In a comparison of gaming benchmarks between the E2140 (1.6GHz)/E2160 (1.8GHz) and X2 3600+ (1.9GHz) the E2140 was slightly faster than the X2 3600+ overall, putting it at the levels of an X2 3800+ which runs at 2GHz. So, in gaming, a 1.6GHz Pentium E is equivalent to a 2GHz X2 - obviously the Pentium E still has quite a significant advantage clock for clock (~25%).

Also quite telling is the fact that the E2160 was only ~3% slower overall compared to an identically clocked E4300, which in turn is only ~2.5% slower than a full fledged 4MB C2D at the same clockspeed, as proven by Anandtech: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

Here is the link for the gaming benches btw: http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-2106-view-Pentium-e2140-benchmark.html

Overall, I don't think the Pentium Es would be more than 5 - 6% slower than 4MB C2Ds, though some heavily cache dependent applications may see up to a 20% performance advantage on the 4MB C2Ds.

In terms of performance comparison between the budget dual core CPUs from AMD and Intel, I think the relative order would be (from slowest to fastest)

1) X2 3600+
2) X2 3800+/E2140
3) X2 4200+/E2160
4) X2 4400+/E4300

The price/performance curve between these competing CPUs are remarkably close, within 5% of each other. Of course, C2D has the advantage in power consumption (under load) and overclocking, but AM2 mobos tend to be slightly cheaper too, and so may provide a lower total cost of ownership.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Zap
The 4MB cache Conroe definately is faster than an A64 x2 at the same MHz and can overclock higher. The 2MB cache Conroe is only a bit faster (in most things), but can also overclock like mad.

Only a little faster? The E6400 competes with the 5200+ quite well despite having only 2MB of LV2.

Okay, you got me there. I'm totally wrong. Now, instead of "at the same MHz" if I were to say "at stock speeds and the same selling price" then...

(pricing as of 4/8)
$169 E4300 1.8GHz 2MB cache
$169 x2 5000+ 2.6GHz 512k cache
Anandtech article on E4300
* = faster

SYSMark 2004SE - Overall
E4300 - 245
x2 5000+ - 259*

SYSMark 2004SE - Internet Content Creation
E4300 - 310
x2 5000+ - 351*

SYSMark 2004SE - Office Productivity
E4300 - 194*
x2 5000+ - 191

3dsmax 8
E4300 - 2.74
x2 5000+ - 3.05*

Cinebench 9.5
E4300 - 565
x2 5000+ - 719*

DivX 6.4 Encoding
E4300 - 101
x2 5000+ - 101

Windows Media Encoder 9
E4300 - 96
x2 5000+ - 79*

iTunes MP3 Encoding
E4300 - 47
x2 5000+ - 44*

Quake 4
E4300 - 114.4
x2 5000+ - 131.4*

Oblivion
E4300 - 72
x2 5000+ - 78.8*

Half Life 2
E4300 - 127.1
x2 5000+ - 138.8*

Comparing same street-priced CPUs, the x2 5000+ wins 9 out of 11 benchmarks, loses 1 and ties 1.

The upcoming price drops should change things because it seems as if the AMD pricing is already near/at the upcoming prices while the Intel chips should drop some.

Also, overclocking will change things because all the E4300 has to do is to reach parity with whatever the x2 5000+ can clock to, and from everything I've read the E4300 will clock the same or higher, so it wins for overclockers and loses for non-overclockers.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Zap
The 4MB cache Conroe definately is faster than an A64 x2 at the same MHz and can overclock higher. The 2MB cache Conroe is only a bit faster (in most things), but can also overclock like mad.

Only a little faster? The E6400 competes with the 5200+ quite well despite having only 2MB of LV2.

Okay, you got me there. I'm totally wrong. Now, instead of "at the same MHz" if I were to say "at stock speeds and the same selling price" then...

(pricing as of 4/8)
$169 E4300 1.8GHz 2MB cache
$169 x2 5000+ 2.6GHz 512k cache
Anandtech article on E4300
* = faster

SYSMark 2004SE - Overall
E4300 - 245
x2 5000+ - 259*

SYSMark 2004SE - Internet Content Creation
E4300 - 310
x2 5000+ - 351*

SYSMark 2004SE - Office Productivity
E4300 - 194*
x2 5000+ - 191

3dsmax 8
E4300 - 2.74
x2 5000+ - 3.05*

Cinebench 9.5
E4300 - 565
x2 5000+ - 719*

DivX 6.4 Encoding
E4300 - 101
x2 5000+ - 101

Windows Media Encoder 9
E4300 - 96
x2 5000+ - 79*

iTunes MP3 Encoding
E4300 - 47
x2 5000+ - 44*

Quake 4
E4300 - 114.4
x2 5000+ - 131.4*

Oblivion
E4300 - 72
x2 5000+ - 78.8*

Half Life 2
E4300 - 127.1
x2 5000+ - 138.8*

Comparing same street-priced CPUs, the x2 5000+ wins 9 out of 11 benchmarks, loses 1 and ties 1.

The upcoming price drops should change things because it seems as if the AMD pricing is already near/at the upcoming prices while the Intel chips should drop some.

Also, overclocking will change things because all the E4300 has to do is to reach parity with whatever the x2 5000+ can clock to, and from everything I've read the E4300 will clock the same or higher, so it wins for overclockers and loses for non-overclockers.

That will apply for about a fortnight until Intel cuts their prices, however to be fair I think a comparison post pricecut is also in order:

Xbitlabs has an in-depth look at the price/performance of both camps once the respective price cuts have been taken into consideration:

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup.html

At stock speeds it's very close.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Avalon
Hmm, that's really good considering the drop from 4MB to 2MB was slightly higher (3-5% in most apps, 8-10% in games). Then again, you were losing 2MB of cache there in comparison as opposed to just 1MB of these E2xxx chips vs. E4xxx chips.

You're still losing 50% of your cache.


Also, something tells me it'll get raped by higher speed, higher fsb, larger cache c2ds in SupCom.

Umm, did you even bother to read the benchmarks? Loss in games is going to be ~5%...not that big a deal, and not an issue at all if you bump up your res. At $75, why not?