I can see why due to time constraints, but it's a shame you didn't run the suite of benchmarks on the E4300 when overclocked. I would imagine the numbers would be quite amazing for Intel's lowest priced C2D chip.
That just reaffirmed how behind the P4s were. Unless K8L surprises us, I might pick up an allendale for a cheap OC once the prices drop (have an e6300 @ stock for now). Thanks for the review.
I had thought the 9x multi and 2MB cache might have let it OC a bit farther than that (not that 3.15 GHz from a 1.8GHz stock chip is bad!), but still those are some impressive results from such a cheap CPU.
Any idea how the power draw at stock and OC compare to a 6300 at similar clocks?
Originally Posted by Tom Hill Nice table of comparison for future chips at the beginning, Tim -- very helpful :)
I think if I was buying a Core 2, I'd be waiting for the E6650. Coupled with some uber 1333MHz DDR-2 and an bit of overclocking, that'd be sweet. :D
Lack of VT in the E4300 is a downer. I guess if you're into overclocking and multiple operating systems, it's not for you.
Actually, you'd be better off with the 6600 for OCing than the 6650. The key to a strong overclock is a high multiplier and low FSB...that's why the P4D 805 did so well. RAM can end up being a pretty strong limitation, so if you can get around it with a really high ram and a low initial FSB, you can clock up to the RAM and get the most raw MHz in the process.
Originally Posted by Da Dego Actually, you'd be better off with the 6600 for OCing than the 6650. The key to a strong overclock is a high multiplier and low FSB...that's why the P4D 805 did so well. RAM can end up being a pretty strong limitation, so if you can get around it with a really high ram and a low initial FSB, you can clock up to the RAM and get the most raw MHz in the process.
I was pondering geting a 2nd core2 duo machine, but if I did It probably wouldn't be a E4300 just because they lack Intel VT.. guess I'm a geek though :)
Originally Posted by mclean007 I had thought the 9x multi and 2MB cache might have let it OC a bit farther than that
Me too, me too.. I'm thinking Anandtech's chip may have been a lucky draw. This has cooled the rampant enthusiasm I had for the E4300, glad you guys reviewed it :)
Seeing a 450mhz spread between two different reviews using identical motherboards might indicate how variable our luck might be in our OCing adventures with it. I might just swallow hard and get a E6600 after all..
Originally Posted by Ringold Me too, me too.. I'm thinking Anandtech's chip may have been a lucky draw. This has cooled the rampant enthusiasm I had for the E4300, glad you guys reviewed it :)
Seeing a 450mhz spread between two different reviews using identical motherboards might indicate how variable our luck might be in our OCing adventures with it. I might just swallow hard and get a E6600 after all..
That might prove to be the case, I only had a brief fling with e4300 in my Shuttle, but with +0.15 on vcore and clockgen I managed to run a few super pi 1 meg tests at 400fsb, my fans were still set at ultra quiet btw, so I'm hoping to reach 400 prime stable in my abit quad gt some time next week.
The chip is currently sitting at default in an msi g965m matx board :(
Just purchased the parts for a Duo system yesterday the day before you post a review :( . As it happens I went for the 6300 over 4300 for exactly the price reasoning stated in the review. For the £6 difference I paid the extra features are handy. The 4300s price place is £25 lower. Enjoyed the review.
Tim, due to the fact that your review of these two cores was late to the party their was no reason for you to do a review of these two C2Ds with out the overclocked versions represented in your suite of test. The reason for this is that most other well known sites have crowned the E4300 the Value King by a large margin due to its overclock-ability. To read your review of a 1.8 GHz processor being compared to all the other higher clocked processors was very lame. We know the C2D core technology has its advantages but give me a break 1.8 GHz and a 800 MHz FSB are big disadvantages that make your out of the box comparison a joke. This review was useless on many levels, fairness was one. You wanted to show AMD was competitive in price and by making this an out of the box comparison you proved what you wanted and got to add your presumption about AMD having value in this segment of the market in your final thoughts. The readers of your review go away with a 7 score because you did not do your review correctly to justify the reason why anyone would read Bittech in the first place, which is to get inside the numbers and see what all the buzz is about. Your failure to do the work needed to overclock the E4300 after I presume you read at least one or two other articles about the E4300 and knowing what the other sites have said about the E4300 overclock-ability, shows me that you may not enjoy what you are doing any longer thus your of lack of curiosity to evaluate for yourself what the other sites where saying, which was that the E4300 overclocked was on par with the E6800 performance. Making the E4300 the best value priced CPUs in consumer history and not a 7 as you suggest.
PS. The next time you want to use that old, time restraint excuse, make sure the buzz about the new CPU is not the exact reason that people would read about a low price core on a highend review site.
Originally Posted by Fiber4now Tim, due to the fact that your review of these two cores was late to the party their was no reason for you to do a review of these two C2Ds with out the overclocked versions represented in your suite of test. The reason for this is that most other well known sites have crowned the E4300 the Value King by a large margin due to its overclock-ability. To read your review of a 1.8 GHz processor being compared to all the other higher clocked processors was very lame. We know the C2D core technology has its advantages but give me a break 1.8 GHz and a 800 MHz FSB are big disadvantages that make your out of the box comparison a joke. This review was useless on many levels, fairness was one. You wanted to show AMD was competitive in price and by making this an out of the box comparison you proved what you wanted and got to add your presumption about AMD having value in this segment of the market in your final thoughts. The readers of your review go away with a 7 score because you did not do your review correctly to justify the reason why anyone would read Bittech in the first place, which is to get inside the numbers and see what all the buzz is about. Your failure to do the work needed to overclock the E4300 after I presume you read at least one or two other articles about the E4300 and knowing what the other sites have said about the E4300 overclock-ability, shows me that you may not enjoy what you are doing any longer thus your of lack of curiosity to evaluate for yourself what the other sites where saying, which was that the E4300 overclocked was on par with the E6800 performance. Making the E4300 the best value priced CPUs in consumer history and not a 7 as you suggest.
PS. The next time you want to use that old, time restraint excuse, make sure the buzz about the new CPU is not the exact reason that people would read about a low price core on a highend review site.
Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the review, but I'm having trouble understanding why you've got such a chip on your shoulder.
The fact of the matter is that Core 2 Duo E6300 chips are clocking well beyond what we achieved with our Core 2 Duo E4300 and at only £5 more in the UK, it's an infinitely better buy at this moment in time (we're a UK site with UK advertisers, so we generally don't research pricing in USD except for official pricing from Intel/AMD, as shown on the first page of the review).
You can do the research into the E6300's overclockability for yourself, as many enthusiasts have had them in their systems for ages - here's quite a good starting point with a lot of data. Note how many of the E6300's got above 3150MHz with less than 1.5V - how much we needed to get any kind of stability at that speed with the E4300 we have here. The chip went to 2.4GHz without a voltage increase, but it wouldn't go past 3GHz with anything less than 1.5V. The CPU refused to POST at anything above 360MHz with the 9.0x multiplier but was capable of well over 400MHz with the 6.0x multiplier.
As was stated in the review, if and when the chip comes down to around £80 including VAT next quarter, it will be one of the best value CPUs around, period. Also, if you'd read the review properly, you would realise that I stated that the E4300 was a better buy than the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ because it is more overclockable and generally faster out of the box too if you're not a heavy multitasker.
As you can imagine, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from on most points. I also don't understand why you're accusing me of playing a "time constraints" card on this review when:
1) I haven't said anything like that - so please don't put words into my mouth, and
2) I actually worked on it for longer than I'd typically spend on a CPU review. :(
I agree with you Tim, it was a good review - as said, it could've focussed more on the OC results in the benchmarks, but these things take enough time as-is, so I can see why you didn't.
The real disappointment is that the E4's are patchy OC'ers, it'd be nice to recommend them for phenomenal OC ability like the E63, then it could be used on a 975X board without reaching the board's FSB limit, but it's just not so... :(
The reason I might sound a little upset is for those of you that want to know, not everyone can afford the finest in this world and I am one of those when the web lights up about a product that will allow me to have champagne on a beer budget I am interest even if Jim and BitTech are not. Before I spend my hard earned money I like to have trusted sites do some of the leg work for me and test products just as I would use them on my system.
Well my intent was to ask why the link to this story on the home page would read Intel core 2 duo E4300 which is exactly what an Individual like myself was excited to read about since the review was being done by Tim and on the Bittech site. To my my disappointment and surprise what I received from the review was a bunch of out of the Box numbers that I could have gotten from Intel themselves. I go to BitTech not Intel to get the inside the numbers facts about a product that have other sites raving.
As far as your not understanding what I wrote in my first reply, what parts did you not understand? Was it the part that any CPU that is clocked at 1.8 GHz and running on a 800 MHz bus would be at a disadvantage when compared to AMD and other C2Ds? If you did not understand that I guess you do not understand why other sites raved about the E4300 when appearing as such an ugly duckling out of the box could become such a swan when OC'ed. Disadvantaged turns into advantage right before your eyes.
I apologize that I said you used the time constraint excuse for this mislabeled review ( E6300 and X2 4200 would have made a better title) it was actually another person that replied and made the excuse for you, I guess I went ballistic when you replied " I'll see what we can do about an OC comparison article". This tells me you had not intentions of OCing this CPU for real tests in this article.
I know I may be a little critical for something so unimportant on the grander scale of things but not everyone needs to tell you that your review was great and then ask for the meat and potatoes after praising you first do they?
Comments 1 to 25 of 30
It was nice to see that the AMD's weren't that far of the pace (mid ranged anyway) and that the EX6800 really does give you that performance increase.
Is this the first test when you have compared so many CPU's? I don't seem to remember it cropping up lately.
Sam
Any idea how the power draw at stock and OC compare to a 6300 at similar clocks?
I think if I was buying a Core 2, I'd be waiting for the E6650. Coupled with some uber 1333MHz DDR-2 and an bit of overclocking, that'd be sweet. :D
Lack of VT in the E4300 is a downer. I guess if you're into overclocking and multiple operating systems, it's not for you.
Me too, me too.. I'm thinking Anandtech's chip may have been a lucky draw. This has cooled the rampant enthusiasm I had for the E4300, glad you guys reviewed it :)
Seeing a 450mhz spread between two different reviews using identical motherboards might indicate how variable our luck might be in our OCing adventures with it. I might just swallow hard and get a E6600 after all..
That might prove to be the case, I only had a brief fling with e4300 in my Shuttle, but with +0.15 on vcore and clockgen I managed to run a few super pi 1 meg tests at 400fsb, my fans were still set at ultra quiet btw, so I'm hoping to reach 400 prime stable in my abit quad gt some time next week.
The chip is currently sitting at default in an msi g965m matx board :(
PS. The next time you want to use that old, time restraint excuse, make sure the buzz about the new CPU is not the exact reason that people would read about a low price core on a highend review site.
The fact of the matter is that Core 2 Duo E6300 chips are clocking well beyond what we achieved with our Core 2 Duo E4300 and at only £5 more in the UK, it's an infinitely better buy at this moment in time (we're a UK site with UK advertisers, so we generally don't research pricing in USD except for official pricing from Intel/AMD, as shown on the first page of the review).
You can do the research into the E6300's overclockability for yourself, as many enthusiasts have had them in their systems for ages - here's quite a good starting point with a lot of data. Note how many of the E6300's got above 3150MHz with less than 1.5V - how much we needed to get any kind of stability at that speed with the E4300 we have here. The chip went to 2.4GHz without a voltage increase, but it wouldn't go past 3GHz with anything less than 1.5V. The CPU refused to POST at anything above 360MHz with the 9.0x multiplier but was capable of well over 400MHz with the 6.0x multiplier.
As was stated in the review, if and when the chip comes down to around £80 including VAT next quarter, it will be one of the best value CPUs around, period. Also, if you'd read the review properly, you would realise that I stated that the E4300 was a better buy than the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ because it is more overclockable and generally faster out of the box too if you're not a heavy multitasker.
As you can imagine, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from on most points. I also don't understand why you're accusing me of playing a "time constraints" card on this review when:
1) I haven't said anything like that - so please don't put words into my mouth, and
2) I actually worked on it for longer than I'd typically spend on a CPU review. :(
The real disappointment is that the E4's are patchy OC'ers, it'd be nice to recommend them for phenomenal OC ability like the E63, then it could be used on a 975X board without reaching the board's FSB limit, but it's just not so... :(
Edit: ah, wait, never mind - I missed the "Don't feed the Troll" sign.
The reason I might sound a little upset is for those of you that want to know, not everyone can afford the finest in this world and I am one of those when the web lights up about a product that will allow me to have champagne on a beer budget I am interest even if Jim and BitTech are not. Before I spend my hard earned money I like to have trusted sites do some of the leg work for me and test products just as I would use them on my system.
Well my intent was to ask why the link to this story on the home page would read Intel core 2 duo E4300 which is exactly what an Individual like myself was excited to read about since the review was being done by Tim and on the Bittech site. To my my disappointment and surprise what I received from the review was a bunch of out of the Box numbers that I could have gotten from Intel themselves. I go to BitTech not Intel to get the inside the numbers facts about a product that have other sites raving.
As far as your not understanding what I wrote in my first reply, what parts did you not understand? Was it the part that any CPU that is clocked at 1.8 GHz and running on a 800 MHz bus would be at a disadvantage when compared to AMD and other C2Ds? If you did not understand that I guess you do not understand why other sites raved about the E4300 when appearing as such an ugly duckling out of the box could become such a swan when OC'ed. Disadvantaged turns into advantage right before your eyes.
I apologize that I said you used the time constraint excuse for this mislabeled review ( E6300 and X2 4200 would have made a better title) it was actually another person that replied and made the excuse for you, I guess I went ballistic when you replied " I'll see what we can do about an OC comparison article". This tells me you had not intentions of OCing this CPU for real tests in this article.
I know I may be a little critical for something so unimportant on the grander scale of things but not everyone needs to tell you that your review was great and then ask for the meat and potatoes after praising you first do they?
Actually, I think there is a result missing from all the E4300 reviews out there (AnandTech, XbitLabs and LegionHardware).
Someone should have put the E4300 at 7*266 and compare it to the E6300 (or 8*266 and comparison to E6400).
I found the article rather refreshing, it certainly made a difference to the myriad other 'omgz, it o/c's zo much!' reviews.
FiringSquad joined the party.
They managed 3,582Ghz.