Is 3.0Ghz in one C2D the same as 3.0Ghz in another?

[TmBlackFlag]

I'm trying to build a gaming PC and the e2140 has caught my eye. I have read it can clock to 3.0Ghz rather easily. Besides the cache, what is the difference in me buying say an e6750 and overclocking to 3.0Ghz then buying the e2140 and doing the same?

My ultimate goal here is to build a gaming PC on the cheap and the e2140 really fits the bill.

My use of the computer includes:

downloading usenet while playing WoW at the same time. I have a 24" LCD that I plan on running an 8800GT 512 to.

Will the e2140 do that, assuming I buy adequate cooling and OC to 3.0-3.2Ghz?

 

[sutahz]

Drunk as I am let me say:
WoW is an old as crap game that hasnt had its 'core' updated... what.. ever?
So OC that SOB w/ that "way more of a Gfx chip then you need for WoW" video card and go hog wild

 

[TmBlackFlag]

got any stats to back that up?

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: TmBlackFlag
Will the e2140 do that, assuming I buy adequate cooling and OC to 3.0-3.2Ghz?

Yes. You can also limit the download to the second core and leave WoW with the first all to itself.

 

[Denithor]

But I would suggest the e2160 or e2180 for less stress on your other components. To get an e2140 to 3GHz you have to run fsb 375 while the e2160 will make the jump to 3GHz with only fsb 333 (and fsb 300 for e2180).

Stock cooling should be good enough for this OC but instead just pick up one of these (for $2 after MIR):

COOLER MASTER RR-CCH-L9U1-GP 92mm Hyper TX2 CPU Cooler - Retail

EDIT: And if WoW is the most intensive game you play, don't bother with the 8800GT. Go for the 3850 512MB instead and save $50. My x1900gt 256MB will run WoW smooth as silk at 1600x1200 (max resolution for my LCD) with all graphics set to max. Processor and memory are more important for WoW than graphics card.

 

[Borealis7]

back to his question:

an E6750 O/Ced to E6850 speed (3GHz) would perform the same (within a 1% margin of error) as the E6850. some would argue that the 6750 would perform better at 3GHz because higher FSB means more memory bandwidth which in turn gives better performance in specific tasks.

im too lazy to dig up AT articles right now.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

E2140 will be fine if you have a decent board and quality 1.8V DDR2 800 RAM. Even those 1.8V DDR2 667 modules will do 400MHz with 2.0 to 2.1Vdimm.

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: Borealis7
back to his question:

an E6750 O/Ced to E6850 speed (3GHz) would perform the same (within a 1% margin of error) as the E6850. some would argue that the 6750 would perform better at 3GHz because higher FSB means more memory bandwidth which in turn gives better performance in specific tasks.

im too lazy to dig up AT articles right now.

He was asking 6750 vs 2140/60. In that case 6750 @ 3.0ghz would be up to 20% faster compared with 2140 @ 3.0

 

[Tempered81]

yeah you're right. do you want 1mb 2mb 4mb 6mb 8mb or 12mb of cache

and i would say 4 cores makes a difference over 2 cores in some games & applications.... not many though.

3.0ghz on any of the core2duos w/ 4mb cache will give you similar performance levels.
You can choose between an alandale & conroe core however... and any of the newer quad core designs.
the higher the FSB and the tighter the memory timings, the faster the system.
instead of 2140s(1mb) and 4300's(2mb) and 6300's(4mb) people sometimes select 2180s, 4500s, and 6750's for the higher Multipliers, yielding easier overclocks, or for certain batches & revisions.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Go for the E2140, it will be just fine and save you a few $$$s.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: sutahz
Drunk as I am let me say:
WoW is an old as crap game that hasnt had its 'core' updated... what.. ever?
So OC that SOB w/ that "way more of a Gfx chip then you need for WoW" video card and go hog wild

Originally posted by: TmBlackFlag
got any stats to back that up?

I'd say the requirements to play the game would show you...

http://www.blizzard.com/wow/faq/faq_tech.shtml

It really isn't that advanced of a game. You could run it on a 7900GT without a problem.

 

[Conjugal Visit]

The e6750 is a heck of a chip. O/C to 3.2GHz is a dead cinch at stock volts and stock cooling - and cool and quiet at 3.2GHz. Allows a person to run 1:1 ratios (synchronous) on cheap PC-6400 ram. Set ram to 400 (stock), CPU multiplier to X8 (stock) and 400 x 8 = 3.200GHZ. By the time you retrofit an aftermarket cooler and beef up your fans to O/C a 1.6GHz chip to 3.0GHz (which will still be considerably slower than the C2D 4mb cache e6750 at 3.2GHz) you might find you haven't saved much. And I seriously doubt you'll be as stable.

Regards,

 

[GundamF91]

Go with E4500 or other E4xxx with 2mb cache. You are really crippling the GPU by having 1mb cache to share. It's true that once you get over 3.0Ghz, it matters less, but overall, if you want to game, you should get 2mb cache just so it does not slow down your GPU's work.

Run a search, there's a review of cache importance, and you lose about 200mhz by going to 1mb. E6xxx with 4mb cache would be even better, but the performance hit is more severe by going from 2mb to 1mb.

E2xxx is great, but if your focus is gaming, you should definitely 1) get fast GPU, and 2) get at least 2mb cache for C2D.

 

[Pancake106]

Originally posted by: Conjugal Visit
The e6750 is a heck of a chip. O/C to 3.2GHz is a dead cinch at stock volts and stock cooling - and cool and quiet at 3.2GHz. Allows a person to run 1:1 ratios (synchronous) on cheap PC-6400 ram. Set ram to 400 (stock), CPU multiplier to X9 (stock) and 400 x 9 = 3.200GHZ. By the time you retrofit an aftermarket cooler and beef up your fans to O/C a 1.6GHz chip to 3.0GHz (which will still be considerably slower than the C2D 4mb cache e6750 at 3.2GHz) you might find you haven't saved much. And I seriously doubt you'll be as stable.

Regards,

im sure it was just a mistake but 400 x 9 = 3.6 ghz.

i just built a new system and was had the same dilemma. i ended up with
e2140 and gigabyte p35 ds3l. stock hsf and settings i worked my way up to 2.93ghz (366x8) at my stock vid 1.26 and ram at 1:1 ratio. stress testing and gaming have been rock solid. seems in alot of cases people have to add more volts so maybe i just got lucky??

 

[Conjugal Visit]

@pancake - of course, you're right - a mistake. Posting under the influence. the E6750 is an 8 multiplier chip - 400 x 8 = 3.200GHz

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: GundamF91
You are really crippling the GPU by having 1mb cache to share. It's true that once you get over 3.0Ghz, it matters less, but overall, if you want to game, you should get 2mb cache just so it does not slow down your GPU's work.

Where did you hear this from? There is very little performance difference by having less cache. Sure, it's better but not THAT much. Watch the use of the word "cripple" because to me a 20% performance drop or more would be "crippling".

 

[GundamF91]

This is one of the reports, it's not a drastic impact, but the difference is clearly demonstrated. The original poster asked if 3.0Ghz is equivalent, you can easily see that it's not between E2xxx, E4xxx and E6xxx. Check out the review, and also the conclusion on cache impact.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...5.html#game_benchmarks

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: GundamF91
This is one of the reports, it's not a drastic impact, but the difference is clearly demonstrated. The original poster asked if 3.0Ghz is equivalent, you can easily see that it's not between E2xxx, E4xxx and E6xxx. Check out the review, and also the conclusion on cache impact.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...5.html#game_benchmarks

Except that 1MB didn't cripple anything - the chips were still running games at well over 60 FPS.

 

[GundamF91]

It was not crippling because it has a powerful GPU. In any event, the smaller cache does hold back the gaming performance even with the best GPU. If you don't have a powerful GPU, there's another review that said smaller cache has even more impact on gaming.

I don't have the best GPU out there and this was a major consideration for me when I decided E4500 over E2160. I'm using my experience to help out, so take it or leave it. This has been discussed several times already, L2 cache is more than just a number, it is important in games. 1mb vs. 2mb has a 5-10% impact, and 2mb vs. 4mb has another 5-7%. So in terms of gaming power with same GPU, E2xxx needs an additional 200 mhz to equal E4xxx, and E4xxx needs another 100mhz or more to equal E6xxx. The bottom line is that 3.0Ghz in one C2D does not equal another C2D. We all love the 100% overclock E2140, and it is a fantastically fast chip, but its reduced cache does have drawbacks. For games like WOW while running 8800GT it won't matter if its E2xxx or other C2D, but if you want to play something new like SupremeCommander with all details while running on a non-high end GPU then the extra cache will help.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: GundamF91
You are really crippling the GPU by having 1mb cache to share. It's true that once you get over 3.0Ghz, it matters less, but overall, if you want to game, you should get 2mb cache just so it does not slow down your GPU's work.

Where did you hear this from? There is very little performance difference by having less cache. Sure, it's better but not THAT much. Watch the use of the word "cripple" because to me a 20% performance drop or more would be "crippling".

1mb to 2mb = 11%
1mb to 4mb = 19%

 

[RussianSensation]

Conroe Cache scaling

Influence of L2 cache on Conroe performance

E4300 vs. 2160 example

There is a performance penalty. However, the cost of 2mb conroes is almost double that of the 1mb models. From that point of view, the 1mb models represent a better bang for the buck. Having said that, I'd spend the extra $15 to go from E2140 1.6ghz $70 (newegg) to E2180 2.0ghz $85 (newegg). Pair this with something cheap and stable like Gigabyte P35-D3SL.

There are several reasons for this:

1. Overclocking is not guaranteed but more likely than not the higher clocked chip in this case will be the more likely chip to achieve your target of 3.2ghz.

2. $15 gets you 400mhz of boost, guaranteed

3. 2180 has a multiplier of 10 which means to achieve 3.2ghz, there is no need to even overclock the P35 (or other similar) chipset beyond its 333mhz specs, while with a 2140, there is additional risk associated with the motherboard going to 400mhz.

4. At the same time, if you decide to overclock beyond 400fsb, in the 2140's case, the northbridge timings will relax beyond 400 which would make the 2180 system faster if you end up going beyond 3.2ghz.

The Cooler Master TX2 is a great recommendation for an aftermarket cpu cooler for just $2 on Newegg after MIR.

 

[Tempered81]

does anyone know the difference or have any benchmarks showing the diff in 4mb 6mb 8mb & 12mb L2 Cache?

nice links russiansensation: i looked at the x3 game benches, they show about 19% diff between a 2xxx and 6xxx series core2duo.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Conjugal Visit
The e6750 is a heck of a chip. O/C to 3.2GHz is a dead cinch at stock volts and stock cooling - and cool and quiet at 3.2GHz. Allows a person to run 1:1 ratios (synchronous) on cheap PC-6400 ram. Set ram to 400 (stock), CPU multiplier to X9 (stock) and 400 x 9 = 3.200GHZ. By the time you retrofit an aftermarket cooler and beef up your fans to O/C a 1.6GHz chip to 3.0GHz (which will still be considerably slower than the C2D 4mb cache e6750 at 3.2GHz) you might find you haven't saved much. And I seriously doubt you'll be as stable.

Regards,

Very good advice here. I think using a 2140-type chip at those levels is fine but why bother when you can have so much more for another $70-$80? That's like using a Celeron. Even many of Intel's mid-range or higher-end chips are priced at levels unheard of five-ten years ago. Back in the 386 days, I remember having to buy a 386-33 for $750 and spending that much again for the mobo. $1500 for just the chip and mobo! RAM was over $60 a MEG in those days.

I think buying a 2140 is a false economy.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
does anyone know the difference or have any benchmarks showing the diff in 4mb 6mb 8mb & 12mb L2 Cache?

The 4mb is simply a full fledged Core 2 Duo processor, which we know tends to outperform the 1mb one by about 15%.

Right now there are no 6mb processors so there wouldn't be any benchmarks yet. The same goes for 12mb (unless you are talking about the top of the line Penryn core). It would be difficult to do a straight comparison of 6mb and 12mb processors to 65nm Conroes in any case since Penryn brings about a 10% performance advantage. The 8mb is simply a quad-core Kentsfield (or 2 Core 2 duos).

Here is a benchmark for Quake 4 (a game that is only optimized for dual core) where 2 cores on the quad have more cache to use and are able to outperforms an overclocked E6850 in such a scenario (although slightly) at lower clock speed LINK

Here is another comparison for CPU scaling with 8800GTX that shows us the 1mb vs. 2mb vs. 4mb Core 2 Duo processor scaling, as well as clock speed scaling. Check out the comparisons of 2mb E6300 1.86ghz vs. 4mb E6320 1.86ghz for example and E2160 1.8ghz 1mb vs. E4300 1.8ghz 2mb cache:

Company of Heroes
Far Cry
FEAR
X3: Reunion

The answer to OP's question is that it depends on the game/application. But we can see how the performance difference can be fairly significant in X3 between 1mb vs. 2mb (at least much more so than when comparing 2mb vs. 4mb processors).

Here is Tom's Hardware's benchmarks for 1mb vs. 2mb vs. 4mb => Cache dependency

Here are benchmarks for E2160 @ 3.2ghz vs. E6750 OC and stock => LINK

Cheers