Core 2 Duo E4300

[Quakindude]

Stock speed was 21.25s for 1m and 21m24s for 32m.

I'm not dogging his choice at all! As a matter of fact, my decision to get this particular CPU and Mobo were more E-Peen driven than anything. His decision to utilize this platform over a more expensive one is laudable for sure!

[gvblake22]

Originally Posted by Quakindude

Stock speed was 21.25s for 1m

WOW, 21 seconds at stock... Damn I gotta break out of this Athlon64 shell!

[polobunny]

Originally Posted by gvblake22

WOW, 21 seconds at stock... Damn I gotta break out of this Athlon64 shell!

Yay, 3 more FPS in Prey! :ridinghorse:
:P

[gvblake22]

Originally Posted by polobunny

Yay, 3 more FPS in Prey! :ridinghorse:
:P

LOL, true. But in this case, it is hard to deny the fact that an E6600 can run with (or ahead of) the best of the best AMD has to offer in every benchmarking category. I know benchmarks aren't the end-all solution for determining if one product is better than another, but that's still impressive and worth getting excited over.

[polobunny]

Originally Posted by gvblake22

LOL, true. But in this case, it is hard to deny the fact that an E6600 can run with (or ahead of) the best of the best AMD has to offer in every benchmarking category. I know benchmarks aren't the end-all solution for determining if one product is better than another, but that's still impressive and worth getting excited over.

Not denying anything, but you're comparing Intel newest technology with AMD old stuff. :P I wouldn't consider the A64 "a shell" where you're stuck in, yet.

[gvblake22]

Originally Posted by polobunny

Not denying anything, but you're comparing Intel newest technology with AMD old stuff. :P I wouldn't consider the A64 "a shell" where you're stuck in, yet.

Well, actually AM2 is the latest and greatest from AMD (not counting the monstrosity that is "QuadFX")...
And when I said the A64 "shell", I was just playing on the fact that I've owned nothing but AMD chips since my first computer with an unlocked desktop Barton 2500

BUT ANYWAY, sorry to derail this thread with my ramblings....
Back to the E4300

[fps justin]

sounds like a great cpu, however, i'd probrably spend a bit more and go with the E6400, unless they can clock the same. I doubt it though, because as someone mentioned from before, these are probrably the rejects that couldn't be super overclockers and couldn't become the E6300s. and E6400s.

[WhiteEagle]

I wish I had a Conroe, but I'm stuck with a Pentium D 930.

[drew and not u]

When you really think about it, most modern CPUs are retarted fast. The only time where you notice a big difference is in encoding times.

[gvblake22]

Originally Posted by fps justin

sounds like a great cpu, however, i'd probrably spend a bit more and go with the E6400, unless they can clock the same. I doubt it though, because as someone mentioned from before, these are probrably the rejects that couldn't be super overclockers and couldn't become the E6300s. and E6400s.

You're on the right track with the point you were trying to make, but you said it kindof incorrectly. What people call "binning" doesn't involve the manufacturer (Intel in this case) checking the overclocking potential of chips and then making them either an E4300 or E6400 depending on what their potential is. I think binning involves them testing the chips for their highest, most stable speed they could sell it for and then they set the multiplier and slap on the IHS, box it up and ship it out. So if they have a wafer full of Conroe cores (an E6600 and up), they are not gonna make them all lower priced E6600's if most of the cores can do E6800 speeds. Unless there is a huge demand for the lower end chips and they can't keep the supply high enough, they will box up high clockers and high end chips and vise versa (they make more $ off of a high end chip than a low end). I'm sure it's probably not that simple when they are fabricating the cores, but you get the drift.

SO, in the case of the E4300, it runs at 1.8 Ghz, just like the E6300, but has an 800 MHz quad pumped FSB instead of the 1066 MHz quad pumped FSB the E6300 has. So as far as actual core clock speed of the processor goes, the E4300 and E6300 should have about the same overclocking potential. And the fact that the E4300 is cheaper will mean it is just that much more of a bargain.