Pentium Dual-Core E2200

[jcenters]

They've been out for a few days now. Has anyone tried it? If so, how well does it overclock? I'm considering one for my build.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...E16819116063&Tpk=e2200

 

[Denithor]

To tell the truth, I don't really see that this model is worth buying. It's just priced too high for what it is, spend the extra $20 and get the e4500 with the same 11x multiplier and twice the cache for better performance.

 

[zeroburrito]

is 20 dollars worth the extra 1~ fps?

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: zeroburrito
is 20 dollars worth the extra 1~ fps?

You don't really get a CPU for FPS....

 

[sutahz]

In my heart I know Core2 technology is best.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...6254%2CN82E16819115031
3 way comparison. By the looks of THAT I'd go Pentium D 935 3.0GHz, but I have a strong bias aginst P4's, so my 2nd choice is the core2 for $25 more (then P-D 935).
My problem is I dont know if that P-D 935 is made in the same wafers as the Core2 or not... I hope w/in the 10 posts someone sets me straight (which will also tell you which chip to choose) so that I'll know for sure if P-D totally sucks donkey _ _ _ _ s or what the exact story/facts are.

 

[PCTC2]

Originally posted by: sutahz
In my heart I know Core2 technology is best.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...6254%2CN82E16819115031
3 way comparison. By the looks of THAT I'd go Pentium D 935 3.0GHz, but I have a strong bias aginst P4's, so my 2nd choice is the core2 for $25 more (then P-D 935).
My problem is I dont know if that P-D 935 is made in the same wafers as the Core2 or not... I hope w/in the 10 posts someone sets me straight (which will also tell you which chip to choose) so that I'll know for sure if P-D totally sucks donkey _ _ _ _ s or what the exact story/facts are.

DON'T GET A PENTIUM D. They are based off the NetBurst Architecture like the P4. They are hot, and inefficient. The Core architecture is much more efficient clock-for-clock. Either E2200 or the E4500 would overclock to 2.7-3.0GHz and completely own the Pentium D. Even at stock, they probably would outperform the P-D.

 

[sutahz]

Thats what i wanted to hear (P-D is based on Netburst tech) so there ya go, get Core2, it is superior!

 

[MarcVenice]

Why buy a e2200 ? Why not simply buy a e2140/e2160 or e2180 ? All of those will also overclock pretty well. If you buy the e2200, then I'd rather get a e4300/e4400 instead.

 

[Denithor]

Check out these gaming benchmarks comparing the Pentium EE 965 (2x3.73GHz, 4MB cache) to AMD X2 and C2D chips (stock and OC).

Short story: Pentium D chips suck big time. The fastest P-D processor ever can't even beat the stock e6300 (1.86GHz, 2MB cache) consistently. And once you OC the C2D chips there's simply no comparison at all. That's why no one even bothers to benchmark against the old Netburst processors any longer.

And note that AT's OC efforts weren't extreme at all in that article. I have a B2 stepping (original launch series, blew $265 on it in July 2006) e6400 that runs 3GHz on stock voltage and stock cooling 24/7 crunching for F@H.

Finally, I tend to agree with MarcVenice: just buy an e2160 (not e2140, multiplier is too low) for $80 and OC to 3GHz (333fsb) and don't look back. If your motherboard will support Penryn, upgrade to one of those dual core chips late next year (6MB cache, cooler running, significantly better OC potential) and you are set for a while.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Finally, I tend to agree with MarcVenice: just buy an e2160 (not e2140, multiplier is too low) for $80 and OC to 3GHz (333fsb) and don't look back. If your motherboard will support Penryn, upgrade to one of those dual core chips late next year (6MB cache, cooler running, significantly better OC potential) and you are set for a while.

Totally concur, and that's my plan exactly...bought the E2180 (but would have bought the E2160 if I hadn't gotten a deal to buy the E2180 at the same price) and plan to switch in a Penryn late next year when prices drop.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Finally, I tend to agree with MarcVenice: just buy an e2160 (not e2140, multiplier is too low) for $80 and OC to 3GHz (333fsb) and don't look back. If your motherboard will support Penryn, upgrade to one of those dual core chips late next year (6MB cache, cooler running, significantly better OC potential) and you are set for a while.

Why not an E2140? I got two of them up to 3.28Ghz, fairly easily. The E2160/E2180 doesn't OC much better than the E2140. The only issue is that you need 400Mhz RAM for the E2140.

 

[Tiamat]

With prices somewhat similar between the higher end lower cache models, and the lower end higher cache models (within 50$), I'm somewhat confused as to the benefit of doubling the cache. If running a 2000 series at 3ghz and a 4000 series at 3ghz, what types of programs would show that difference, and would that difference be negligible?

I read the midrange roundup from AT's articles, but it didnt mention the detriments of halving the cache to go with the less expensive 2000 series when running same clock speeds...

 

[aussiestilgar]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
With prices somewhat similar between the higher end lower cache models, and the lower end higher cache models (within 50$), I'm somewhat confused as to the benefit of doubling the cache. If running a 2000 series at 3ghz and a 4000 series at 3ghz, what types of programs would show that difference, and would that difference be negligible?

I read the midrange roundup from AT's articles, but it didnt mention the detriments of halving the cache to go with the less expensive 2000 series when running same clock speeds...

Good question. How much difference does the extra cache make? Probably nothing noticeable. I'm building a system myself and I'm considering going with an e2160 then a q9450, or just going with an e6750. Or wait for Wolfdale?? Too many choices...

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Tom's Hardware did a test on cache performance a while back. I wish they'd have done a bit more with it though...

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

 

[aussiestilgar]

Ah yes I remember reading that. Not many benchmarks done with games, and no mention of how the performance scales as you OC. Is it safe to say the performance increase in games from having more cache is next to nothing?

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: aussiestilgar
Ah yes I remember reading that. Not many benchmarks done with games, and no mention of how the performance scales as you OC. Is it safe to say the performance increase in games from having more cache is next to nothing?

Even with a 5-10% loss (I am stretching here) you make up for the fact that these would generally OC at least 5-10% better due to running on less heat. I don't see much of a loss...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: aussiestilgar
Ah yes I remember reading that. Not many benchmarks done with games, and no mention of how the performance scales as you OC. Is it safe to say the performance increase in games from having more cache is next to nothing?

I don't know if Intel still uses the term ATC - ""Advanced Transfer Cache"" - whereby the L2
cache clocks at the same speed as the processor. It started will the old "Coppermine" P!!!s with the *EB* designation. It might be reasonable to assume that it would scale with an OC and significantly lower cache latency.

It certainly, however, may not be a part of the C2D arch . . .

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think that they use the term "smart cache" now.

 

[sutahz]

The Pentium Dual-Core's (E21xx and now E2200, along w/ the mobile counter parts T2xxx) are based on Core architecture. So you can think of it as the Celeron of Core technology.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/...m_Dual-Core/index.html

"The Pentium Dual-Core CPUs are based on Core microarchitecture, and include many Core micro-architecture features"

"Pentium Dual-Core processors don't include virtualization technology, and have smaller level 2 cache than Core 2 Duo CPUs."

Pentium D xxx is NetBust technology and should be avoided.

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Even with a 5-10% loss (I am stretching here) you make up for the fact that these would generally OC at least 5-10% better due to running on less heat. I don't see much of a loss...

e2xxx don't OC better than e4xxx or e6xxx, they're just ridiculously cheap.

 

[Xaijin]

You dont think 100% OC's are better? What kind of crack do you smoke?

 

[PliotronX]

Originally posted by: Xaijin
You dont think 100% OC's are better? What kind of crack do you smoke?

The kind that makes you compare maximum frequency, grasshopper.

 

[ReefaMadness]

This is a pretty good comparison of the E4xxx, E2xxx and includes comparisons with the older Pentium Ds.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...int/pentium-e2160.html

One thing to keep in mind for those that question why anyone would pay more for the higher multi of the E2200 and the answer is really quite simply that some motherboards are FSB limited and in that case, the higher multi would be a much better option.

 

[Tiamat]

It would be nice to see a E2xxx at 3.2ghz and a E6xxx at 3.2ghz with gaming benchmarks as that is the crossroads I am at in my research to build a new box. From what I have gathered, as it does make sense, cache only makes a difference if you are CPU limited (low resolutions).

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: zeroburrito
is 20 dollars worth the extra 1~ fps?

Except that it'd be more like 10fps at most common resolutions in a lot of different games, not 1fps. Cache actually matters in a C2D.