E4400 vs E6320

[Hajpoj]

The E4400 is 140 mhz faster than the E6320, but has half as much cache.

Overclocking aside, which chip performs better at stock speeds? Does the extra 2mb cache beat out the slightly faster clock of the E4400?

 

[f4phantom2500]

I think the extra 200MHz would do more for the performance than the extra cache, but it really depends on the application. Also, the E6320 has a higher stock FSB so would get better memory performance (at least in benchmarks). Honestly, you'd probably be hard pressed to notice the difference between the two.

 

[Hajpoj]

So from a fiscal standpoint you'd be nutty to pay extra for an E6320 if you're not overclocking right?

edit: I Meant E6320

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: Hajpoj
So from a fiscal standpoint you'd be nutty to pay extra for an E6420 if you're not overclocking right?

Yes suh!

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Hajpoj
So from a fiscal standpoint you'd be nutty to pay extra for an E6320 if you're not overclocking right?

edit: I Meant E6320

yes, unless you for some bizarre reason really needed VT support.

 

[yacoub]

not to mention you can access a much higher multiplier on the E4400 (10x) if you DO oc it.

 

[perdomot]

Currently, I'm running my E4400 at 3 Ghz with 1.4vcore which isnt too shabby IMHO.