Looking at some upcoming roadmap, it seems the C2Ds intel introduced are similar in speeds but diff. FSBs like E4300 vs. E6300 which has no advantages in benchmarks. What's the point of these things? I feel they kind of redundant. Now they gonna out out bunch 1333 parts that's pretty much like the E6600/6700 etc. Just change of FSB, but no apparent advantages. What's up with that?
why does Intel has so many redundant C2Ds?
- Thread starter nyker96
- Start date
1333 fsb is going to provide more bandwidth than 1066 fsb at a given clockspeed.
yes, maybe the differences won't be night and day but for those that run stock speeds and run programs (not sure which are) bandwidth intensive, will see an advantage in these new chips.
technology advances and 1333 is the next step (kind of like how p4's went from 400 to 533 to 800 before transitioning over to C2D).
yes, maybe the differences won't be night and day but for those that run stock speeds and run programs (not sure which are) bandwidth intensive, will see an advantage in these new chips.
technology advances and 1333 is the next step (kind of like how p4's went from 400 to 533 to 800 before transitioning over to C2D).
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
Same reason auto makers like GM make so many flavors of basically the same vehicle.
To expand their marketing reach to cover more niches, and to try and fully utilize production capacity.
To expand their marketing reach to cover more niches, and to try and fully utilize production capacity.
It's not redundant. The term is "market segmentation."
They want to hit every price point so that there's no good reason for buying the competitor's product. The margins for OEMs are very slim and every dollar counts. It could be the difference between a design win for Intel vs. a design win for AMD.
If you want to see "redundant" products, look at the Yonah lineup. There are so many OEM-only SKUs such as T2050, T2060, T2250, T2350, etc. The only difference is FSB and VT. It makes life for AMD much more difficult.
They want to hit every price point so that there's no good reason for buying the competitor's product. The margins for OEMs are very slim and every dollar counts. It could be the difference between a design win for Intel vs. a design win for AMD.
If you want to see "redundant" products, look at the Yonah lineup. There are so many OEM-only SKUs such as T2050, T2060, T2250, T2350, etc. The only difference is FSB and VT. It makes life for AMD much more difficult.
The fact is that the 1066FSB C2D are being phased out by this summer. The E6320 & E6420 (4mb cache) will be squeezed out of the market by the E4500 (2.2GHz 800FSB $133) and the E6540 (2.36GHz 1333FSB $163). The E6300 & E6400 will be long gone before then. Intel is also planning to release their new Penryn cpu this year, which will make the whole Core2 series redundant.
So you could have a top-of-the-line CPU today? The alternatives would be a respectable AM2 or god forbid....a Pentium D.
Intel is actually doing people a favor by releasing different flavor CPUs at different FSB speeds, as more mobos/chipsets and RAM can support a C2D without losing too much in terms of performance. This is the opposite of what most in the industry do by forcing upgrades through marginal increases in speeds which introduce entirely new (and unneeded) products and specifications that force people to upgrade.
But if you look at some of preliminary benchmarks on 1333 parts they offer nearly no advantage over 1066 parts of same clock which in turn has been shown little advantage over 800 parts.
Here's some benchmarks that proves this point:
800 vs 1066 part
1333 vs 1066 (little slow from HK)
so if all these FSBs offer little benefit why keep releasing chips same speed with so many different FSB configurations? I can understand if 1333 is used for quads which probably need and use that extra bandwidth but for dual core parts, this seems very redundant to end user. If anything they should stick to 800 parts which don't allow people to use pretty much any mb and RAM for them.
Here's some benchmarks that proves this point:
800 vs 1066 part
1333 vs 1066 (little slow from HK)
so if all these FSBs offer little benefit why keep releasing chips same speed with so many different FSB configurations? I can understand if 1333 is used for quads which probably need and use that extra bandwidth but for dual core parts, this seems very redundant to end user. If anything they should stick to 800 parts which don't allow people to use pretty much any mb and RAM for them.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
It really doesn't make any sense. Intel is killing off their high-end chip segment and bottom-feeding in the low-margin, low-end segment as soon as their price cuts arrive in H2 '07.
Their marketing approach doesn't make any sense either. Lay-people don't understand concepts like FSB speeds and L2 caches...they understand clock-speed thoroughly. That's why I don't understand why Intel would release higher-clocked E4x00 series Core 2 Duo chips to cannibalize sales of their low-end E6xx0 series.
As a consumer, I'm happy for the price cuts. But if I was an Intel shareholder, I'd have a lot of questions as to why they are planning to steeply cut their margins when AMD is nowhere on the radar.
Their marketing approach doesn't make any sense either. Lay-people don't understand concepts like FSB speeds and L2 caches...they understand clock-speed thoroughly. That's why I don't understand why Intel would release higher-clocked E4x00 series Core 2 Duo chips to cannibalize sales of their low-end E6xx0 series.
As a consumer, I'm happy for the price cuts. But if I was an Intel shareholder, I'd have a lot of questions as to why they are planning to steeply cut their margins when AMD is nowhere on the radar.
The REAL difference between the E4300 and E6300 is the manufacturing process.
The 6300 has 4mb cache with 2mb disabled which was how they did it initially.
Now they have a better manufacturing process so they make E4300 which only has 2mb cache to begin with which makes it cheaper to produce.
This is why the E6300 will be phased out for the e6320 that has 4mb cache.
As for the 1333FSB chips they technically provide better performance. But if you know anything about overclocking you know that they're just ripping u off with 2 less multipliers.
You can easily set 1333fsb and a 7x multiplier for your e6600.
the 1333fsb is really just a marketing ploy and has no real advantages for an advanced user only disadvantages.
The 6300 has 4mb cache with 2mb disabled which was how they did it initially.
Now they have a better manufacturing process so they make E4300 which only has 2mb cache to begin with which makes it cheaper to produce.
This is why the E6300 will be phased out for the e6320 that has 4mb cache.
As for the 1333FSB chips they technically provide better performance. But if you know anything about overclocking you know that they're just ripping u off with 2 less multipliers.
You can easily set 1333fsb and a 7x multiplier for your e6600.
the 1333fsb is really just a marketing ploy and has no real advantages for an advanced user only disadvantages.
Its tied into factors and market conditions external to their CPUs. The E4XXX series is targetted at system integrators who are going to go the safe route with mature chipsets running slower FSB and saving on memory modules that run at slower speeds. The price and availability of lower spec'd memory modules is significantly cheaper than faster modules (as you're well aware of from that excellent SuperTalent deal you spotted
) and these OEM parts aren't going to allow for OC'ing. However, OEMs can still charge for a hefty increase by increasing the clock speeds while keeping all else the same. The E4XXX series just turns out to be an excellent deal in terms of price to performance for enthusiasts, similar to how certain mainstream parts stood out like the various Celerons of the past.actually I think I'm beginning to understand this now, after seeing some press releases, Intel seem to be using 1333 FSB as a marketing tool, instand of going hey here's a 2.4Ghz chip which is better than that 2.2 Ghz. Now it's like hey here's 1333 FSB chip that's way better than that 800 FSB (look! rougly +70% better), and if know what if you buy this marketing trick there's more where that comes from ... 1666 or even 1777 or 1888 pick your number ... well I think AMD should start touting their incredible 2000 now 8000 HT numbers. Bigger the better right? Way to go Intel!
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
You may be right, but I'm thinking it's because nearly everyone who's bought their $200-300 processors is running them >3 Ghz. In other words, "let's see you overclock this $200 chip to 3.5 Ghz or higher". I think you're just giving Intel too much credit. Remember, a 1333 E6700 would have an 8x multiplier, instead of the 10x it has today. While that's not bad, the lower speed variants will have extremely low multipliers, and will no longer be able to surpass the speed of the X6800, for 1/5 of it's price.
Yes I agree that this is also one of Intel's motives. I fail to see why some people are getting so happy over these 1333 parts when they pretty much squeezed out any possibility of OCing low grade CPUs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter