E2XXX vs E4XXX for non gaming purposes?

[migo]

I haven't played anything other than minesweeper in ages, and if I were to play something I'd do it on a console. It's looking like the E2160 and E4300 are both excellent candidates for overclocking, and have similar stock performance. From the reviews I've read it seems that they take the biggest hit in games that require a lot of L2 cache.

With usage being internet, email, chat, word processing, video conversion, audio listening and video watching of the 2 and 4 series, which would give me the best bang for my buck? The E4300 seems to be running about 50% more expensive, but I'm not seeing 50% more performance from it, and my current system's a P-M 735, so I think either one will give better performance.

Is there any big reason for me to not chose an E2160 over an E4300?

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

If you can reach a higher clock speed on a E2xxx, then the cache won't matter so much (esp if you set the fsb to 1333). The cache is mainly going to shine through with video editing/encoding, photo editing, and things like folding. From your uses, it would seem that a 2140 or 2160 oc'd to >3ghz would suit you just fine.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: migo
Is there any big reason for me to not chose an E2160 over an E4300?

No, except that you can usually get an E4500 for the same price of the E4300. If the higher multiplier is important to you, then go with the E4500. If you can hit similar bus speeds with the cheaper chip, then go cheap.

 

[Regalk]

Most E2160s should be able to 2700-3000 on stock so my answer is NO = no difference. I have both E6300 o/c to 3300 and E2160 o/c to 3160 and for day to day use both are comparable.

 

[hans007]

they both run 1.8 ghz.


the e4300 though is L2 stepping. e2160s are available in L2 or M0. if you can get an M0 one it probably will o/c more than the e4300. M0 is most of the newer ones...

i think if you just surf the web and do office apps and such you wont be able to tell the difference at all even at stock.