Introducing the E4300 - the new budget overclocking champ

[n7]

These E4300s seem okay for OCing thus far, but certainly not overly impressive.

E6300s OC to around the same speeds on average, but there have also been some that can do a lot better.

The really huge benefit with the 4x00 series is the higher multi.
Many motherboards (including my damn P5B-D) tend to start crapping out in Orthos @ really high FSBs.

You won't need more than 400 to OC the E4300, which also means all you need is DDR2-667 or maybe DDR2-800 RAM, unless you want to run 4:5, 2:3, etc.

And considering how expensive Micron D9GMH is, you could be saving hundreds of dollars on RAM alone.

 

[Moishe]

So when is this going to be out for purchase by the likes of us?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Moishe
So when is this going to be out for purchase by the likes of us?

Me want to know samething.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: KayKay
I hope the claim in the article that says the Allendale CPUs dont seem to overclock as high as the conroes/disabled conroes (E6300/6400) is not true!

That's to be expected. The cache disabled chips would have a larger die area to dissipate heat over.

 

[lopri]

Within a month, I guess.

Another thing to note while reading Anand's review: The horrible performance of a Netburst CPU. I mean, we knew they're not as good a performer as A64, let alone C2D, but the numbers compared are striking regardless. Especially if you take into account the clockspeed of 3.4GHz. It's comparable or miserable (in the case of gaming) to A64 2.0~2.2GHz. That's 1.2~1.4GHz clock speed difference!

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: KayKay
CPU-Z inaccurately detects the Vcore... An example would be the x-bit labs review, where CPU-Z reported a Vcore of 1.29V ? which was actually set as 1.525V in the bios

Its called vdroop. My S3 board don't have much, but my new P5B does. I set it to 1.4875 and it comes out at 1.408. My S3's I set at 1.450 and they end up 1.41

When you go above a certain voltage, CPUz becomes inaccurate. I have mine set to 1.375 and it reports about 1.36 at load. If I go above i think it was something like 1.475 then CPUz reports something like 1.1xx. It is a bug in CPUz, at least certain versions of it.

 

[ValueDriven]

So if you have/get the MB, memory, & cpu cooler for higher FSB/memory, the E4300 should essentially provide the same oc performance as today's E6300/E6400 with the exception of possibly higher CPU speeds based on its 9x (or 8x or 7x downward capability) rather than 7x/8x multiplier of the E6300/E6400? And cheaper than the E6300 too?

Is the oc capability of the E6350/E6450 expected to be reduced due to the additional 2Mb L2, a la the higher oc capability of the E6300/E6400s with 2Mb L2 (and 2Mb disabled rel to the E6600/E6700s with the full 4Mb L2?

Finally, isn't max performance task dependent in that depending on what task you are doing a combination of cpu speed (raw computing power), FSB speed (MB communication speed), and memory speed (both MHz and timings) may give the best (fastest) result?

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: Moishe
So when is this going to be out for purchase by the likes of us?

Me want to know samething.

First week of Feb.

Avalon - price gouging always occurs on new products. Once the prices steady it should be around $20 LESS than the E6300.

I know. I just dislike waiting for price settling.
Please don't think I'm here to rain in on the E4300. I've been waiting for this processor ever since it was rumored, and I'm still no less excited. Trust me.

 

[zainali]

this is perfect for me. ill try to get to get these to 333*9 and overclock my ram from 266 to 333.

now to wait for frys to have a $200 combo on this with a relatively good ecs board.

 

[Xvys]

Intel's Price Drop:

cpu-ghz-fsb-cache-Q1-Q2
Q6600 - 2.40/1066Mhz - 8MB cache - $851 - $530
E6700 - 2.66/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - $530 - $316
E6600 - 2.40/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - $316 - $224
E6400 - 2.13/1066Mhz - 2MB cache - $224 - xxxx
E6420 - 2.13/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - xxxx - $183
E6300 - 1.83/1066Mhz - 2MB cache - $183 - xxxx
E6320 - 1.83/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - xxxx - $163
E4400 - 2.00/800Mhz - 2MB cache - xxxx - $133
E4300 - 1.80/800Mhz - 2MB cache - $163 - $113

The E4300 is projected to be $20 cheaper than the E6300, but by Q2 (Apr-June) it will be $50 cheaper than the E6320. Even the E4400 with it's 10X multiplier will be $30 cheaper. That's the one I'm waiting for in a couple of months, the E4400 @ $133.

 

[Cogman]

Considering I was thinking about getting a 6300, I think the 6320 looks extremely tempting. It will be cheaper then what I was willing to pay and will have 4mb of cache. The only think I would worry about (am I justified?) would be a lack luster performance on overclocking.

 

[eojinlim]

Just think about the possible gaming system you can have with this setup. If you can buy cheap memory for under $200, overclock the crap out of the sub-$140 e4300/e4400, buy a sub-$100 Mobo, and the cheaper g71 dx10 cards, you'd have a gaming system on a budget.

As much as the e4400 is exciting in terms of its price segment, I'm looking forward to the new graphics cards for budget people like me. dx10 card for under $200 is just amazing!!!!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Avalon
Hardly the ultimate budget overclocking champ when its price looks to be more than an E6300 by $20 on average. You'll save a bit on the RAM, but that's about it. A Biostar 965PT or Gigabyte S3 are as cheap as decent OC'ing mobos go, and they can handle 500FSB, so you aren't going to find any motherboard savings.

*Edit*
I just noticed that Xbit didn't mention what air cooler they used. They just said "we used an air cooler." It very well could be the stock Intel heatsink. If so, tickle me impressed.

I am not that impressed...9x multi is nice but the price is not that great....

The fact of the matter was I was able to OC my first E6300 to 3.4ghz with a stock intel cooler (orthos tested for 24 hours)...So I am not that impressed there either....

Better yes, but break-thru? I think not...

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: n7
And considering how expensive Micron D9GMH is, you could be saving hundreds of dollars on RAM alone.

Originally posted by: Duvie
I am not that impressed...9x multi is nice but the price is not that great....

The fact of the matter was I was able to OC my first E6300 to 3.4ghz with a stock intel cooler (orthos tested for 24 hours)...So I am not that impressed there either....

It's not that the chip itself is ground shaking, but the ramifications of the higher multiplier/lower FSB translating into savings elsewhere such as in RAM and (to a lesser degree) motherboard. Also, it gives us mATX fans some hope for hitting decent speeds.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: n7
And considering how expensive Micron D9GMH is, you could be saving hundreds of dollars on RAM alone.

Originally posted by: Duvie
I am not that impressed...9x multi is nice but the price is not that great....

The fact of the matter was I was able to OC my first E6300 to 3.4ghz with a stock intel cooler (orthos tested for 24 hours)...So I am not that impressed there either....

It's not that the chip itself is ground shaking, but the ramifications of the higher multiplier/lower FSB translating into savings elsewhere such as in RAM and (to a lesser degree) motherboard. Also, it gives us mATX fans some hope for hitting decent speeds.

I agree there. bargain yes! Best overclocer? Not there yet.....


You will still need 378 to hit 3.4ghz where most 2mb cache versions of C2D max out with 1.45v set or 10% OC of vcore.

Are matx mobos doing that now with C2Ds?


I am actually disappointed the C2Ds haven't been getting better....I have C2Ds I bought in late August to late Novemeber yet they all tap out about the same place. I have had acces to 5 of them now and seens MarkFW900's 5 of them. not much variation.

I wanted to see some newer chips starting to hit 3.6ghz more reliably.

 

[Shimmishim]

hitting 3.6 reliably would be nice... but overclocking is partially luck too unfortunately...

i think the 9x mult on these cheap chips is very nice especialy for those taht don't want to spend a bundle on ddr2-800 memory and can live with ddr2-400 memory.

i think it'll be worth it for those budget people.

personally, i can't wait for the Q6600 in Q2 which will get into the E6700 price range.

edit:

4300 shows out of stock at ZZF

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80865

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I am actually disappointed the C2Ds haven't been getting better....I have C2Ds I bought in late August to late Novemeber yet they all tap out about the same place. I have had acces to 5 of them now and seens MarkFW900's 5 of them. not much variation.

I wanted to see some newer chips starting to hit 3.6ghz more reliably.

That's too high of an expectation you've got there.

I'm rather impressed by how fast the C2D is maturing. For example, running an E6600 @3.6GHz was more of luck at launch. Most topped out 3.3~3.4GHz with the best air-cooling. These days getting 3.60GHz out of E6600 isn't a rare occasion any more. I'd go as far as to say that it's guaranteed with Xeon 3060, as long as the rest of components are capable. (Remember that all this while the 'official' clock speed of E6600 is only 2.4GHz)

Plus, I'm also noticing the recent C2D chips tend to run cooler and with less voltages. First E6600 I got back in September ran 3.6Ghz @70C (load), with the vCore nearing 1.60V. These days 3.6Ghz can be had with as low as 1.40~1.50V, and the temperature is, accordingly, quite lower.

I can't say much about 2MB chips but considering that some of those are 'rejects' from E6600+ group , the relatively lower OC is sort of understandable. But it has a temp advantage in return. (Although I personally own a Xeon 3040 which can run 3.8GHz/1.60V)

Again, from the screenshot of Anand's review, the default vCore of E4300 (ES) by CPU-Z reading is 1.136V. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that this chip will either 1) overclock very well, or 2) at least run very cool. Or both.

It's a stark contrast to A64's clock speed stagnation. (2.7~2.8GHz for a year and a half) But somewhere I've heard that IBM finally figured out 65nm SOI and managed to get those chips to run up to 5.0GHz, so depending on how the deal between AMD and IBM goes, we might be in ready for a big surprise when K8L debuts. (5.0GHz quad-core K8L! Yes!)

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Duvie
You will still need 378 to hit 3.4ghz where most 2mb cache versions of C2D max out with 1.45v set or 10% OC of vcore.

Are matx mobos doing that now with C2Ds?

They're hitting 300-350MHz FSB, though mostly around 330MHz for the "better" ones using the 945G chipset (965G hasn't made much impact yet for overclocking). That would put an E6300 at 2.31GHz, or an E4300 at 2.97GHz or an E4400 at 3.3GHz. Of course some company could come out with a monster overclocker in a small package, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: munisgtm
would E4300 be good for me ?

1- i have never overclocked(but i intend to do it )
2- i can't buy high-end ram just budget Kingston ram (DDR-667)
3- i'll be buying BadAxe 2 mobo because thats the only good mobo available in my country :-(

guessing by above comments that E4300 would be way better than E6300...

Definitely better. I picked up an E6400 last month for its 8x multi.
Wish I'd waited a little

 

[harpoon84]

Duvie, I never claimed it to be the outright overclocking champ - I said it was the BUDGET overclocking champ, ie. for people on a budget.

Slightly lower CPU cost, significantly lower RAM costs, and potentially lower motherboard costs all lead to a lower total cost of ownership than current low end C2D builds.

I'm sorry if it doesn't hit 3.6GHz consistently, though it has been done a few times already, so you never know.

 

[Hajpoj]

I must interject that 3.6 ghz doesn't really have any real world performance gains. This is designed to be a value chip for people on a budget, be happy with whatever you can hit with it.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Say what? Running a Core 2 chip at 3.6 ghz has real-world performance gains if you're using an app that actually needs CPU horsepower. Any kind of audio or video editing/encoding, for example, will be helped.

 

[Hajpoj]

Just plain audio encoding not so much, but when you got the high end video encoding or both at the same time you will see a difference.

But if you can safely hit 3 or 3.2 GHZ there really is no reason to be down that you can't hit 3.6 because the hassle to get there is not really worth the nominal performance gain here.

Not to mention higher fsb = more expensive ram. I'll be happy with my 2.8~3.0 ghz
I'm blessed with some corsair value select ddr2-533 that can run 645 w/ 5-5-5-15 timings. So I expect to hit around 2900MHZ.

Edit: furthermore, you wouldn't really notice the difference in the time it takes between encoding if your busy doing something else on that other core you have ^_^

 

[KayKay]

Originally posted by: Hajpoj
Just plain audio encoding not so much, but when you got the high end video encoding or both at the same time you will see a difference.

But if you can safely hit 3 or 3.2 GHZ there really is no reason to be down that you can't hit 3.6 because the hassle to get there is not really worth the nominal performance gain here.

Not to mention higher fsb = more expensive ram. I'll be happy with my 2.8~3.0 ghz
I'm blessed with some corsair value select ddr2-533 that can run 645 w/ 5-5-5-15 timings. So I expect to hit around 2900MHZ.

Edit: furthermore, you wouldn't really notice the difference in the time it takes between encoding if your busy doing something else on that other core you have ^_^

even with cheap-o ram, its not gonna kill performance that much by running a divider/ asynchronous memory freq on nforce 6xx boards

 

[Hajpoj]

Yes, but the point of buying this cpu is to keep costs down. I don't want to have to go out and buy a new mobo when my current build would support this cpu.