Why is the E4300 so popular?

[delsvr]

I get it's a nice, affordable processor, but why is the 4300 in SUCH high demand? It appeared on newegg today for a about 4 hours and that's it. On Amazon the price dropped to 129, and in even less time it shoots back up to ~150.

So what's so special about the 4300? The E4500 on amazon is ~6 bucks more. The 4500 on newegg is actually cheaper, $128, and is constantly in stock.

The situation itself is curious to me, but I'm also thinking about upgrading my Pentium D 945. Thanks for any input.

 

[Vipeax]

1: Cheap
2: 800MHz FSB
3: 9x multiplier
4: 2MB-Cache
5: 1-4 makes it a great overclocker.

 

[MarcVenice]

You are forgetting the point that the e4500 which runs at 2.2ghz is only $6 more.

There's nothing special about the e4300 that the e4500 doesn't have. If you can get a e4500 for the same price, I'd rather have a e4500 instead of a e4300. And it would be a pretty nice upgrade over your D945. I can't say for sure it will fit in your motherboard though. And if you are going to overclock, you might want to look into getting a e2140/e2160/e2180.

 

[Vipeax]

E4300 = 1.86 E4500 = 2.2
Both at 3.2 makes it a higher overclock in % with the E4300...

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: Vipeax
E4300 = 1.86 E4500 = 2.2
Both at 3.2 makes it a higher overclock in % with the E4300...

So? Why would that make the E4300 the better choice? It makes zero sense.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: delsvr
I get it's a nice, affordable processor, but why is the 4300 in SUCH high demand? It appeared on newegg today for a about 4 hours and that's it. On Amazon the price dropped to 129, and in even less time it shoots back up to ~150.

So what's so special about the 4300? The E4500 on amazon is ~6 bucks more. The 4500 on newegg is actually cheaper, $128, and is constantly in stock.

Reading the same tea leaves, I draw a different conclusion.

To me it's Intel guiding the market. Clearly, it cost Intel no more to make a E4500 than a E4300. So why not push the market to a single SKU with price adjustments.

Enjoy your morning tea.

 

[Vipeax]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: Vipeax
E4300 = 1.86 E4500 = 2.2
Both at 3.2 makes it a higher overclock in % with the E4300...

So? Why would that make the E4300 the better choice? It makes zero sense.

The E4500 has 11x multiplier, kinda weird then.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: delsvr
So what's so special about the 4300?

It used to be a hot chip to have, and now people who have not kept up with more recent developments still buy it because they somehow remember that it was a hot chip to have.

It's like people who kept buying Intel back when socket 939 dual cores were kicking Pressler ass. Also, some people would never buy anything branded a Celeron even though there have been good ones.

Heck, if Intel suddenly changed the names of all the Allendale core chips (currently sold as Pentium Dual Core E2xxx and Core 2 Duo E4xxx) to Celeron without changing a single other thing about the chips, some people who would have otherwise purchased the "cheaper Core 2 Duo" would not want the "crappy Celeron."

Back to the E4300. It was the first "cheaper Core 2 Duo" available. For the average consumer/overclocker/enthusiast it was not missing much from the $50-more-expensive E6300. What it gained was a lower FSB and higher multiplier. This allowed it to be used in cheaper boards, and also potentially allowed for easier/higher overclocking. (This was partially negated IMO by motherboards with stupid BIOS designs that wouldn't allow for FSB strap changes and lower memory multipliers.)

Having Fry's Electronics flog the chip with a free motherboard sure didn't hurt either.

So, the E4300 became an instant legend... and legends have a difficult time dying.

These days I'm sure there are people who see an E4300 and suddenly a (dim) bulb goes off, "OMG these are the hot chips to get, cheap and overclockable!"

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: Vipeax
People want the most OC in %... duh

The E4500 has 11x multiplier, kinda weird then.

I thought most people were interested in actually reaching a high frequency and that high multipliers were preferred since they make this easier? I know that some aim for highest overclock percentagewise, but that's a very small crowd.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

An excellent E4300 can easily hit 3.6GHz with a good board and DDR2 800 RAMs. Modern E4xx0 may be speed-binned although these will run cooler (M0). Finally, the E4300 chips often sell for $70 to $75 @ Fry's (clearance).

 

[Borealis7]

It all started when Anandtech posted an article which had the E4300 O/Ced and showed performance which was greater than the then-fastest CPU, the QX6800, which was 8 times more expensive.

this started a craze for E4300 overclocking which lasted until the famous "July Pricecuts" which brought about the "Golden Age Of Quadcore" to the masses.

later, the E4x00 somewhat faded as new, cheaper CPUs came which O/Ced to about the same levels (E21x0s posting 100% overclocks).

now, the Eternal Cycle of Hardware has switched over to the GPU front, after Video discussion was dead for so long due to AMD/ATI's lack of new products. but the focus will shift back to CPUs next Jan-Feb when Intel's E8x00 series comes and redefines what we know about mainstream performance and overclocking (i recall an E8500 O/Ced to 5GHz rumor or something).

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
An excellent E4300 can easily hit 3.6GHz with a good board and DDR2 800 RAMs. Modern E4xx0 may be speed-binned although these will run cooler (M0). Finally, the E4300 chips often sell for $70 to $75 @ Fry's (clearance).

Yep, I believe the initial batches of E4X00 CPUs were better. I have experience with a more recent E4300 as well as a fresh E4500 and none of them could do 3GHz on what I consider reasonable voltages (less than 1.4V). That's a pretty stark contrast to my E6600 which does 3GHz on 1.17V... I must say that I find it rather surprising that initial C2Ds (of which my E6600 can be said to belong) are still some of the best in terms of overclocking.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
An excellent E4300 can easily hit 3.6GHz with a good board and DDR2 800 RAMs. Modern E4xx0 may be speed-binned although these will run cooler (M0). Finally, the E4300 chips often sell for $70 to $75 @ Fry's (clearance).

Yep, I believe the initial batches of E4X00 CPUs were better. I have experience with a more recent E4300 as well as a fresh E4500 and none of them could do 3GHz on what I consider reasonable voltages (less than 1.4V). That's a pretty stark contrast to my E6600 which does 3GHz on 1.17V... I must say that I find it rather surprising that initial C2Ds (of which my E6600 can be said to belong) are still some of the best in terms of overclocking.

The old marketing game. Those E4300 chips built in Jan 2007 are quite good. Probably E6xx0 chips with less cache and 800MHz bus. It's an easy way for Intel to establish a loyal following in the E4xx0 line. I have a few of these older chips that can easily hit 3.1GHz with stock 1.325Vcore. Currently running one @ 1.465V in BIOS @ 3.49GHz. Actual voltage under load is 1.42. No issue with 3.6GHz/1.52Vcore during the winter. These L2 chips will run HOT, even after removing/lapping the heat spreader.

 

[nonameo]

another good point is that you can find the E4300 used a lot cheaper than the E4500.

Of course, this doesn't put new chips in circulation, but meh.

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

I've been running one for almost a year now. Like Serpent said, this lil' L2 does run hot...currently idling @ 37c on a Freezer 7 Pro w/ AS5 (not lapped). I have decent airflow, too. Heck, I'll probably go Quad sooner or later, so...anyone wanna buy it?

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: Vipeax
E4300 = 1.86 E4500 = 2.2
Both at 3.2 makes it a higher overclock in % with the E4300...

So? Why would that make the E4300 the better choice? It makes zero sense.

because it costs less money, and performs the same when overclocked.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
An excellent E4300 can easily hit 3.6GHz with a good board and DDR2 800 RAMs. Modern E4xx0 may be speed-binned although these will run cooler (M0). Finally, the E4300 chips often sell for $70 to $75 @ Fry's (clearance).

Yep, I believe the initial batches of E4X00 CPUs were better. I have experience with a more recent E4300 as well as a fresh E4500 and none of them could do 3GHz on what I consider reasonable voltages (less than 1.4V). That's a pretty stark contrast to my E6600 which does 3GHz on 1.17V... I must say that I find it rather surprising that initial C2Ds (of which my E6600 can be said to belong) are still some of the best in terms of overclocking.

The old marketing game. Those E4300 chips built in Jan 2007 are quite good. Probably E6xx0 chips with less cache and 800MHz bus. It's an easy way for Intel to establish a loyal following in the E4xx0 line. I have a few of these older chips that can easily hit 3.1GHz with stock 1.325Vcore. Currently running one @ 1.465V in BIOS @ 3.49GHz. Actual voltage under load is 1.42. No issue with 3.6GHz/1.52Vcore during the winter. These L2 chips will run HOT, even after removing/lapping the heat spreader.

my chip will do 3.1 on stock vcore as well, it is an L2 bought in april.

I also paid around 110 dollars for it, back then

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: Vipeax
People want the most OC in %... duh

The E4500 has 11x multiplier, kinda weird then.

I thought most people were interested in actually reaching a high frequency and that high multipliers were preferred since they make this easier? I know that some aim for highest overclock percentagewise, but that's a very small crowd.

the high frequency part is true, but your p5b will probably sustain a 500mhz FSB even with a 9 10 or 11x multi, thats a possiblitly of 4500 thru 5500mhz. since your only aiming for 3000 to 3700mhz, the multi becomes less of a factor when the chip is ran on a decent board. so then, price comes into play.

 

[chuckm]

Originally posted by: oldhoss
I've been running one for almost a year now. Like Serpent said, this lil' L2 does run hot...currently idling @ 37c on a Freezer 7 Pro w/ AS5 (not lapped). I have decent airflow, too. Heck, I'll probably go Quad sooner or later, so...anyone wanna buy it?

What do want for it?

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: Vipeax
E4300 = 1.86 E4500 = 2.2
Both at 3.2 makes it a higher overclock in % with the E4300...

So? Why would that make the E4300 the better choice? It makes zero sense.

because it costs less money, and performs the same when overclocked.

Yes, of course. The argument, however, was why anyone would choose the E4300 if the E4500 was the same price. Vipeax indicated with his response that people choose it because of the possibility to be able to claim a higher percentage overclock. That's all I was opposing really (because it doesn't make much sense, for most people).

 

[VirtualLarry]

I know that at least for my Conroe865PE mobo, it only supports up to the L2 CPUs, for some reason there hasn't been a BIOS update to support M0 chips. So for that reason, an E4300/E4400 would be preferable. (I have an E4400 in mine, 2.8Ghz at stock vcore, because there is no vcore adjust. )

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

chuckm, YGPM