Price notice.

[Denithor]

Don't go buying a slower chip, the e4400 is now $133 and the e4500 is $130 shipped @ Newegg.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

I see the average selling price of E4xx0 rising. Clever marketing on the part of INTC. E4300 was ~$110. Frys had a bunch of E4400 on clearance for $75. Crank up the FSB and most will top out around 3.2. to 3.4GHz.

You can get an E2160 for $80 or less. Top speed is on par with E4xx0 cause they are based on the same architechture. The additional cache is all hype once the CPU is north of 3.0GHz.

 

[nyker96]

yes I think the value spot for cores are E2xxx now. the 4mb c2d models are like close to 200 which is not much of value consider how cheap q6600 is now. so I see a void in the middle.

 

[Denithor]

What I would like to see is a benchmark of say e2180, e4400, and e6850 all at 3.0GHz with a good video card at a standard resolution (12x10 or 16x12). That would show real-life performance and be more useful than how they normally bench cpus for differences at 1024x768. Something like this chart but at higher resolution and all chips at equal speeds.

The last three charts on this page show that at real resolutions there is very little difference in processor speed (e6550 shows minimal drop versus e6850). I would like to see this repeated with the cpus listed above at 3GHz to see the true impact of cache.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Denithor
What I would like to see is a benchmark of say e2180, e4400, and e6850 all at 3.0GHz

Would you consider a Tom's article.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...oes_cache_size_matter/

Their setup was the three C2D cache sizes (1/2/4MB) all running same multiplier and FSB, for 2.4GHz clock speed. All other hardware the same. Their conclusion was that in some stuff there was hardly any difference at all, and some there was some difference. Overall, probably somewhere in the order of "one speed grade" as the difference between 1MB and 4MB cache. For the most part the 2MB cache chip was midpoint between the other two. One benchmark that didn't follow that was the PCMark05 memory benchmark, which showed the 1 and 2MB cache chips getting almost the same, and the 4MB chips having a performance boost. Draw your own conclusions.

I think the E2140 at $60 is a great value clocked at 2.66GHz (which pretty much any recent chipset board can do) and even better at 3.2GHz. At that speed you're running RAM at a leisurly 800MHz and your performance is around that of an E6850 at stock speeds.

 

[XtreemeChaos]

Club IT has the e4400 for $118.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

The cache penalty from E2160 to E4300 (both @ 3.2GHz) is approximately 200MHz. So E2160 @ 3.2GHz is equivalent to E4300 @ 3.0GHz.

 

[bryanW1995]

yeah, the smart money these days is either a 2140 or Q6600.

 

[hokiealumnus]

FWIW, I've heard the extra cache leads to higher temperatures while overclocking. I'd almost bet I could get an E2180 higher than my E4400 ...if only I had known that when I bought it.

 

[bryanW1995]

you'll probably still get similar or slightly better overal system performance out of an e4400 than an e2180, it's just a waste of money to buy the e4400 for $130 when the e2180 is >100 and the e2140 is in the 60's.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
I see the average selling price of E4xx0 rising. Clever marketing on the part of INTC. E4300 was ~$110. Frys had a bunch of E4400 on clearance for $75. Crank up the FSB and most will top out around 3.2. to 3.4GHz.

You can get an E2160 for $80 or less. Top speed is on par with E4xx0 cause they are based on the same architechture. The additional cache is all hype once the CPU is north of 3.0GHz.

Dead Wrong!

The cache size IS a now becoming a big deal in gaming performance --and this is coming from a e4300 owner:
Ep2 CPU Performance
last page

On the CPU side we were caught off guard by exactly how much cache size impacted performance in Episode Two, rendering the Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium E2000 series processors much slower than their competition.

[to be fair to myself, i bought it back in May for $114 as a cheap "placeholder" for Penryn]

 

[Ika]

UT3 also shows a pretty big performance hit when going down cache sizes. Check out AT's UT3 review for the numbers, my internet's being retarded...

 

[Denithor]

Those comparisons don't show quite what I'm looking for.

@apoppin
They have different speed grade chips at each point (e2160 vs e4400 vs e6550) so you can't directly compare cache impact. Also, it was run at a cpu-bound resolution rather than a typical gaming resolution.

@Aflac
Closer, same speed but I would rather have the benchmarks run at higher resolution.

I want to see the impact of 1MB/2MB/4MB with chips pushed to 3GHz in a gpu-bound setting (higher res + AA/AF) to see if there is really any notable difference (is there a reason to buy a $175 e6550 vs a $60 e2140 if you plan to OC to the same point).

 

[apoppin]

Denithor
i was directly answering SerpentRoyal to how cache does now make a difference ... i knew it is only somewhat related to what you want
- i don't think you are going to find much better they what we have - i think you need to search Anand's articles further back to see tests more like what you are looking for.

You also have to remember that you can OC a e4X00 to somewhat match a e6x00 series - and in some aps you can never really "make up" for it - but that e6X600 can also be OC'd
--My opinion is to go for the bigger cache if you can afford it and want the performance. That said, my e4300 @3.150Ghz does not feel the slightest bit slow in ANY modern DX9c game at 16x10 with all ingame details completely maxed and with 4xAA/16xAF. Next year we will start to see a bigger difference cache makes to gaming performance - that is when i drop in Penryn

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
I see the average selling price of E4xx0 rising. Clever marketing on the part of INTC. E4300 was ~$110. Frys had a bunch of E4400 on clearance for $75. Crank up the FSB and most will top out around 3.2. to 3.4GHz.

You can get an E2160 for $80 or less. Top speed is on par with E4xx0 cause they are based on the same architechture. The additional cache is all hype once the CPU is north of 3.0GHz.

Dead Wrong!

The cache size IS a now becoming a big deal in gaming performance --and this is coming from a e4300 owner:
Ep2 CPU Performance
last page

On the CPU side we were caught off guard by exactly how much cache size impacted performance in Episode Two, rendering the Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium E2000 series processors much slower than their competition.

[to be fair to myself, i bought it back in May for $114 as a cheap "placeholder" for Penryn]

You're comparing at very low 1024 x 768 resolution...E4400 @ 2.0GHz vs E2160 @ 1.8GHz.

Crank both CPUs to 3.2GHz and let's see who is DEAD WRONG.

I don't expect much change between Windows Media Encoder 9 and games.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3112&p=14

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../pentium-e2160_14.html



F.E.A.R., Medium Quality
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...120
-Core2 X6800...112

Company of Heroes, 1024x768
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...121.9
-Core2 X6800...126.4

Supreme Commander
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...16194
-Core2 X6800...16148

Enough said?

 

[hans007]

newegg's prices are just garbage.


i got my e4400 oem on ebay for like $90. the e4500 is quite a bit more (better steppign too m0). newegg just doesnt have the good prices it used to on somethings, often they are no where near the lowest on certain categories of products (cpus and cases i'd say are the 2 big ones)

 

[SerpentRoyal]

They would be even higher without MWAVE.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
I see the average selling price of E4xx0 rising. Clever marketing on the part of INTC. E4300 was ~$110. Frys had a bunch of E4400 on clearance for $75. Crank up the FSB and most will top out around 3.2. to 3.4GHz.

You can get an E2160 for $80 or less. Top speed is on par with E4xx0 cause they are based on the same architechture. The additional cache is all hype once the CPU is north of 3.0GHz.

Dead Wrong!

The cache size IS a now becoming a big deal in gaming performance --and this is coming from a e4300 owner:
Ep2 CPU Performance
last page

On the CPU side we were caught off guard by exactly how much cache size impacted performance in Episode Two, rendering the Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium E2000 series processors much slower than their competition.

[to be fair to myself, i bought it back in May for $114 as a cheap "placeholder" for Penryn]

You're comparing at very low 1024 x 768 resolution...E4400 @ 2.0GHz vs E2160 @ 1.8GHz.

Crank both CPUs to 3.2GHz and let's see who is DEAD WRONG.

I don't expect much change between Windows Media Encoder 9 and games.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3112&p=14

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../pentium-e2160_14.html



F.E.A.R., Medium Quality
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...120
-Core2 X6800...112

Company of Heroes, 1024x768
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...121.9
-Core2 X6800...126.4

Supreme Commander
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...16194
-Core2 X6800...16148

Enough said?

media encoder?!?


Cherry-pick and choose single benches all you want ... cache size IS making a difference in gaming.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
I see the average selling price of E4xx0 rising. Clever marketing on the part of INTC. E4300 was ~$110. Frys had a bunch of E4400 on clearance for $75. Crank up the FSB and most will top out around 3.2. to 3.4GHz.

You can get an E2160 for $80 or less. Top speed is on par with E4xx0 cause they are based on the same architechture. The additional cache is all hype once the CPU is north of 3.0GHz.

Dead Wrong!

The cache size IS a now becoming a big deal in gaming performance --and this is coming from a e4300 owner:
Ep2 CPU Performance
last page

On the CPU side we were caught off guard by exactly how much cache size impacted performance in Episode Two, rendering the Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium E2000 series processors much slower than their competition.

[to be fair to myself, i bought it back in May for $114 as a cheap "placeholder" for Penryn]

You're comparing at very low 1024 x 768 resolution...E4400 @ 2.0GHz vs E2160 @ 1.8GHz.

Crank both CPUs to 3.2GHz and let's see who is DEAD WRONG.

I don't expect much change between Windows Media Encoder 9 and games.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3112&p=14

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../pentium-e2160_14.html



F.E.A.R., Medium Quality
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...120
-Core2 X6800...112

Company of Heroes, 1024x768
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...121.9
-Core2 X6800...126.4

Supreme Commander
-E2160 @ 3.4GHz...16194
-Core2 X6800...16148

Enough said?

media encoder?!?


Cherry-pick and choose single benches all you want ... cache size IS making a difference in gaming.

So you're disputing the numbers at Xbit? Why don't you post some numbers comparing E4xx0 and E21x0 at 3.0 and 3.2GHz? You're the one that's claiming a huge difference in gaming. At least I have some numbers to support my case.

Once the core speed of the CPU is above 3.0GHz, the GPU becomes the major source of bottleneck.

Quite a few here with E21x0 north of 3.2GHz. Must be a HUGE cherry tree, huh?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2099932&enterthread=y

More overclocking numbers...E2160 vs E6750 (4x increase in cache). Again the penalty is approximately 400MHz with the E2160. This deficit is cut in half when comparing E2160 vs E4300. Expect this gap to close with higher screen resolution (GPU bound)!

http://www.neoseeker.com/Artic...o_e2160_review/10.html

 

[apoppin]

not disputing any numbers ... you can make them look as good as you need
... but you are forgetting that many e4X00 and e21X0 don't OC well ... there are many complaints of e4X00 not hitting even 3.0Ghz

- and the QuadCores *also* Overclock ... which point you are conveniently ignoring. IF you want maximum gaming performance you will *not* chose a e21X0 or e4x00
-otoh if you don't mind settling for LESS, then i agree with you - and practically i DO agree with you as i have an OC'd e4300 [waiting for a Penryn upgrade when it is really necessary]

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: apoppin
not disputing any numbers ... you can make them look as good as you need
... but you are forgetting that many e4X00 and e21X0 don't OC well ... there are many complaints of e4X00 not hitting even 3.0Ghz

- and the QuadCores *also* Overclock ... which point you are conveniently ignoring. IF you want maximum gaming performance you will *not* chose a e21X0 or e4x00
-otoh if you don't mind settling for LESS, then i agree with you - and practically i DO agree with you as i have an OC'd e4300 [waiting for a Penryn upgrade when it is really necessary]

We must have a lot of GURU overclockers in this forum! I had five E4300 CPUs. All were stable north of 3.2GHz. Best chip is good up to 3.6GHz and I'm shooting for 3.7GHz in DEC with 55F ambient and 1.545Vcore.

Most overclocking issues are related to the MB and RAMs.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal

Originally posted by: apoppin
not disputing any numbers ... you can make them look as good as you need
... but you are forgetting that many e4X00 and e21X0 don't OC well ... there are many complaints of e4X00 not hitting even 3.0Ghz

- and the QuadCores *also* Overclock ... which point you are conveniently ignoring. IF you want maximum gaming performance you will *not* chose a e21X0 or e4x00
-otoh if you don't mind settling for LESS, then i agree with you - and practically i DO agree with you as i have an OC'd e4300 [waiting for a Penryn upgrade when it is really necessary]

We must have a lot of GURU overclockers in this forum! I had five E4300 CPUs. All were stable north of 3.2GHz. Best chip is good up to 3.6GHz and I'm shooting for 3.7GHz in DEC with 55F ambient and 1.545Vcore.

Most overclocking issues are related to the MB and RAMs.

Maybe we are smart as well as lucky --beside the point
... OC'ing is still a lottery.
Even if we accept 3.2Ghz the e4x00 will still be behind an OC'd QC
--and *nothing* - no overclock short of phase change cooling - will make up for that crippled 21x0 compared to an OC'd QC.
:roll:

 

[The-Noid]

Lot of people have problems that strap at 200 mhz instead of 266 or 333.

The 680i boards are lucky to get to 300 fsb with these chips. A few others were in the past as well.

If you do the pinmod it will open the chip up.

 

[harpoon84]

SerpentRoyal,

In regards to the cache argument, you are clearly wrong. If anything, as clockspeed increases, the dependency on cache size increases as well.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...tium-E2140-@-3ghz.html

There is a clear stepping in performance between 1MB -> 2MB -> 4MB @ 3GHz. I hope that clears things up once and for all.

This isn't saying the E21x0 series aren't a good option for overclocking, far from it. At its ~$80 pricepoint nothing can match it for value for overclocking, since the equivalent AMD X2 would lag behind clock for clock considerably.

However, it is no match for the E4x00 series clock for clock, and it seems the E4x00 happen to hit 3GHz+ more consistently than the E21x0 chips anyway. Further to that, the G0 stepping C2Ds/C2Qs seem to hit 3.5GHz+ a lot more often than E4x00 chips.

I myself opted for the E4400 (before the E4500 came out) as it represented an ideal price/performance balance. The 800FSB/high multis on these chips are perfect for overclocking on the cheap, as it doesn't require a high end 500FSB capable mobo and DDR2-1000 RAM to hit a relatively high clockspeed.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
SerpentRoyal,

In regards to the cache argument, you are clearly wrong. If anything, as clockspeed increases, the dependency on cache size increases as well.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...tium-E2140-@-3ghz.html

There is a clear stepping in performance between 1MB -> 2MB -> 4MB @ 3GHz.

I hope that clears things up once and for all.

I never said that both would have the same performance at 3.0GHz! The extra cache will add 200MHz (2M) to 400MHz (4M) of core speed. At higher game resolution, the GPU is still the main bottleneck if you can get the CPU speed north of 3.0GHz.