How's the C2D E4600?

[Cerb]

I'm upgrading ASAP. Unfortunately I've gotten myself into a few fincancial set-backs, so my Grand Plan of an E6750 + SI-128 SE, Samsung 203B + enclosure, passive 8600GTS, etc. aren't in the cards, yet. So, I need to make due, and my Athlon XP's current mobo died, and found that it took some RAM with it, now that I tried changing that all out (grrr!). Said AXP PC has been on life support and even had one fan fix literally done with shoe string (improvised fan mounting for well-used heatsink). It's been time to move on for months, but now it's time to actually do it.

Video: $35 shipped for a nice little GF 6/7.
Motherboard: I'm pretty well set on Gigabyte's GA-P35-DS3R, now that I found Abit's IP35-E won't undervolt. The G33M-S2H is close, but with the 16x slot not running as a 16x...eh, no thanks.
RAM: AData 2x2GB DDR2-800 (1.8v, 5-5-5-?), which I have on hand.
PSU: Seasonic S12 380W, my current PSU (24-pin, but no PCI-e).

The E4300 and E4500 have reviews aplenty, but how does the E4600 stack up, and how do the E4xxx scale? In terms of OCing/UCing, can I reduce the multiplier to get a little edge where it seems bandwidth-limited (though I guess that will impact power saving some), or is the cache the main issue in the cases where the E6xxx really pull ahead? IoW: if it's mostly FSB, I think I'll be fine lowering the multiplier.

 

[myocardia]

Nobody knows how well the E4600 overclocks, it just went on sale either yesterday or today, so nobody evens has one in their hands yet. We'd be interested in finding out how they overclock, though, if you decide to buy one. And yeah, you can lower the multiplier on any C2D, but you have to turn off EIST and C1E, if you're overclocking with it lowered.

 

[Cerb]

Ah, OK. I was a bit surprised to see a 2.4 E4xxx chip...no wonder, if it's that new.

My OCing would be fairly limited. Once I have a decent HSF, I don't intend to run any fan to even 1000 RPM...but, I am not averse to overclocking in general. I'm mostly concerned with how the other E4xxx fair against their E6xxx cousins in many (admittedly, not 'most') benchies. Is the disparity typically more from the FSB being lower (-25% v. 1066, and -40% v. 1333), or the smaller cache? This should be the same for all the previous E4xxx CPUs, too. I just haven't found the magical simple set of keywords to find that info, I imagine.

If it's FSB/RAM more than cache, then it appears I can fix things right on up (300*8, 400*6), and save $40 with the most mild overclock I will have ever attempted. If it's cache more than FSB/RAM, then I'd be better off to shoo away my impatience, and wait to get a E6750.

 

[hans007]

e4600 is m0 stepping just like the e4500. i would imagine it overclocks similarly.

m0 is basically g0 stepping with 2mb cache instead of 4mb.

 

[myocardia]

Actually, Cerb, the performance difference between the E2x00's, the E4x00's, and the E6x00's is because of the cache, not because of the FSB. You'd be much better off with an E6750, and a good heatsink with a quiet fan.

 

[tno]

If you're looking into a quiet computer then cooling is definitely a concern and E4x00's, with their lower FSB and smaller cache, should at stock run a little cooler and thus be easier to run with a slow fan. Depending on what you're doing you might not see a lot of difference between a similarly clocked E4x00 or E6x00, and like myocardia said it's all due to the cache not the FSB.

tno

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Actually, Cerb, the performance difference between the E2x00's, the E4x00's, and the E6x00's is because of the cache, not because of the FSB. You'd be much better off with an E6750, and a good heatsink with a quiet fan.

I have to disagree, both cache size and FSB has an effect on performance.

2MB -> 4MB has an average performance gain of 3.5%. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipse...howdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

1066FSB -> 1333FSB has an average performance gain of 2.4%.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipse...howdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6

Considering we are talking about 800FSB vs 1333FSB in the case of E4x00 vs E6x50 chips, I'd say that, overall, the faster FSB has a similar impact on improving performance as the larger cache.

 

[Denithor]

For gaming and video encoding, cache has a large impact: link.

FSB also has an impact, albeit smaller: link.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I have to disagree, both cache size and FSB has an effect on performance.

2MB -> 4MB has an average performance gain of 3.5%. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipse...howdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

1066FSB -> 1333FSB has an average performance gain of 2.4%.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipse...howdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6

Considering we are talking about 800FSB vs 1333FSB in the case of E4x00 vs E6x50 chips, I'd say that, overall, the faster FSB has a similar impact on improving performance as the larger cache.

Yeah, I should have specified that I only know about some types of software (the ones that matter to me, of course), and not made it sound like it's that way with all software.

 

[Cerb]

Eh, it looks like I should wait, then. Maybe the E4600 would do fine, but even several replies later, it's as much a maybe as when I started, I just know more variables.

My system-stressing uses have grown and changed a good bit, I see no reason to think they won't continue to do so, and I expect whatever I get to last me at least two years--maybe more, given that I expected to have an aging A64 system by now.

 

[SickBeast]

Really the only two intel chips I find interesting are the 2140 and the Q6600/Xeon 3210.

I don't see the point in paying $50-100 more for a CPU when the most you'll gain is 20% in performance (and in a game at 1600x1200, I refuse to believe that more cache would make a difference).

The E4600 is really just a higher binned E4500,which I wouldn't consider anyways. They're too expensive compared to the 2XXX chips and way too close in price to the 6XXX chips.

If the Phenom comes in under $200 and clocks to 3ghz I'm getting one.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I don't see the point in paying $50-100 more for a CPU when the most you'll gain is 20% in performance (and in a game at 1600x1200, I refuse to believe that more cache would make a difference).

He never said he's gaming @ 1600x1200. You might be, but he's gaming right now with an Athlon XP, so I highly doubt he's running 16x12. And cache can make a pretty big difference with gaming: at least @ 1280x1024.[/quote]

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I don't see the point in paying $50-100 more for a CPU when the most you'll gain is 20% in performance (and in a game at 1600x1200, I refuse to believe that more cache would make a difference).

He never said he's gaming @ 1600x1200. You might be, but he's gaming right now with an Athlon XP, so I highly doubt he's running 16x12. And cache can make a pretty big difference with gaming: at least @ 1280x1024.

[/quote]
Well sure you gain 10-15FPS at 1280x1024...the only problem is that you're going from 159FPS to 174FPS in the best case, and your monitor is only going to be refreshing at maybe 85hz. My point is that the 2140 is going to cut it just fine in all games (for the time being), and at 3.2ghz it will hang with the best CPUs out there.

IMO just about everyone games at 1280x1024 these days as a minimum, and really if they're stuck at such a low resolution, all the more reason to save $100 on a CPU and put it toward a better monitor.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Really the only two intel chips I find interesting are the 2140 and the Q6600/Xeon 3210.

I don't see the point in paying $50-100 more for a CPU when the most you'll gain is 20% in performance (and in a game at 1600x1200, I refuse to believe that more cache would make a difference).

Make that 1680x1050. In general, I've not found FPS to be that interesting a genre in the last few years, so have a bit more leeway in terms of game performance. Also, my monitor does 1:1 over DVI, so lower resolutions down to 1280x960 are OK.

I've nothing against crazy OCing, but my needs and wants from my PC, and technology, have changed; and scaling below stock has greater priority than scaling above it (which is also why I'm not planning on a IP35-E: no undervolting). However, even that is weighed against how much I must spend, and how soon I can get it all working .

"The E2140 can hit 3+GHz, and beat all those other C2D at most everything!"
"Eh."

"These new AC PWM fans are near Nexus in quiet, use nice FDB bearings, and with a diode or two, can run at under 400 RPM with RPM monitoring."
"I WANT!"

The E4600 is really just a higher binned E4500,which I wouldn't consider anyways. They're too expensive compared to the 2XXX chips and way too close in price to the 6XXX chips.

Which is what I was checking on (with my hopes up), as I haven't looked at the E4xxx much on the Intel side since the E4300 launch.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Really the only two intel chips I find interesting are the 2140 and the Q6600/Xeon 3210.

I don't see the point in paying $50-100 more for a CPU when the most you'll gain is 20% in performance (and in a game at 1600x1200, I refuse to believe that more cache would make a difference).

Make that 1680x1050. In general, I've not found FPS to be that interesting a genre in the last few years, so have a bit more leeway in terms of game performance. Also, my monitor does 1:1 over DVI, so lower resolutions down to 1280x960 are OK.

I've nothing against crazy OCing, but my needs and wants from my PC, and technology, have changed; and scaling below stock has greater priority than scaling above it (which is also why I'm not planning on a IP35-E: no undervolting). However, even that is weighed against how much I must spend, and how soon I can get it all working .

"The E2140 can hit 3+GHz, and beat all those other C2D at most everything!"
"Eh."

"These new AC PWM fans are near Nexus in quiet, use nice FDB bearings, and with a diode or two, can run at under 400 RPM with RPM monitoring."
"I WANT!"

The E4600 is really just a higher binned E4500,which I wouldn't consider anyways. They're too expensive compared to the 2XXX chips and way too close in price to the 6XXX chips.

Which is what I was checking on (with my hopes up), as I haven't looked at the E4xxx much on the Intel side since the E4300 launch.

there is actually an e4400 stepping that is m0. hard to find though it seems.

that honestly would be the best choice if you o/c becuase it has a 10x multiplier, which is plenty with any board that can do 1333 bus, you could get 3333mhz ouot of it with some voltage (seems to be about how high m0 core o/cs).

 

[dingetje]

article on e4600 oc'ing
http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=700