Intel Core 2 Duo E4300: Affordable and Highly Overclockable
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 10, 2007 2:45 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Power Consumption
We looked at power consumption of our two testbeds, however AMD is at a bit of a disadvantage here. While our Intel testbed uses the P965 chipset, the AMD testbed uses NVIDIA’s nForce 590 SLI, a far more power hungry platform. The results below are thus better for comparing within platforms and not necessarily useful for drawing AMD vs. Intel comparisons. Note that we did use AMD’s latest 65nm Brisbane core for all of our tests.
At idle we can see that the E4300 system already uses less power than the E6300, and definitely less power than the Pentium D 945.
Under load, power consumption is once again reasonable - lower than the E6300. Overclocked, the E6300 uses a bit more power than the X6800 but that’s to be expected.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
sdsdv10 - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
I think the point was, with higher multiplier of the 4300 over the 6300 (or 6320) you don't need to go to such high FSB numbers (requiring more expensive DDR2 RAM) to get a good overclock. That might save you another $25-50. So for a MB, CPU and RAM combo you would pay say $450 for a 6300 setup, but you "may" get the same performance out of a 4300 setup for ~$350 (say $50 less on the CPU and another $50 on the RAM, roughly 20-25% less). That's a nice savings for those on a tight buget.atenza - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
Exactly! And it's also good news for people like me, who want to build a nice little (yet overclocked) Micro-ATX system. None of those boards currently gets anywhere beyond ~330 FSB. At 333MHz FSB, the E6300 would only run at 2.33 GHz. The E4300 would achieve 3.00 GHz, which is enough for me.Patrese - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
If it doesn't come to Brazil with the ridiculous price premiums the rest of the Core 2 line is coming (an E6600 costs US$550 here!), that chip is destined to be the next one I have, so that I can get rid of my good-old Athlon XP 3200+... Great news in that sense, but what I find really irritating about Intel is the short life of their chipsets and motherboards... Every year or so I'd have to upgrade my motherboard to upgrade processors.BTW, no AMD fanboy here... If K8L proves to be troublesome on AM2 motherboards you're gonna see me complaining about that too. I just find the idea of upgrading motherboards so fast irritating... :(
1111111 - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
The Windows Media Encoder chart shows the E4300 faster than the X2 3800+ and the D945...so either the chart is wrong or the sentence is wrong:)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
See above - fixed.harpoon84 - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
"Windows Media Encoder is far more favorable to AMD CPUs and thus the E4300 ends up being a little slower than the X2 3800+. Our overclocked chip ends up, once again, on top of the charts."Actually, the E4300 is faster than the X2 3800+ in this test.
"At stock speeds, the E4300 ends up offering similar performance to the Athlon 64 X2 3800+."
You are being overly kind to the X2 3800+. The E4300 beats it in the majority of the benchmarks. The E4300 is the equal of the X2 4200+ if you tally up the results.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
I have edited these two paragraphs to better reflect the results. The X2 3800+ is currently $30 cheaper than the initial launch price of the E4300, so it's still the cheapest way to get into a dual core setup without getting the power requirements of NetBurst, but I don't think most of us would really recommend X2 3800+ over the E4300... it's about a tie in terms of recommendation, depending on the intended use.duploxxx - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
well if you wouldn't recommend the 3800 over the e4300 maybe oc' wise yess, but don't forget to mention that a decent intel chipset also costs 30$ more than the amd solution...so pricewise a and performance wise 4200 is still more interesting than the e4300 unless you oc.
try some vista benchmarks and you'll see what the best chips are future wise...... AMD for sure.
OcHungry - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
I think people have misconception about AMD and vista (64bit). Have you run the 64bit vista? most of the benchmarks I tried w/ AMD's dual core were slower or froze cold. Vista has a long ways to go yet to be a choice OS. There is also the 32bit version of vista if you want C2D to run it. As for me I will not run vista until its matured and games can run faster (than winxp). Nvidia has not created a bug free vista driver yet. The latest nvidia vista (64bit) driver I installed turned out buggy and did not fully install (No nvidia display panel). I dont know, maybe it was me. But I have practically given up on it and am back to winxp.JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link
There seems to be an assumption by some people that Core 2 is going to somehow be slower in 64-bit mode. I highly doubt this for a couple reason: one, AMD isn't faster in 32-bit; two, 64-bit vs. 32-bit isn't a huge difference in architecture. Basically, 64-bit is just 64-bit registers and a few extra opcodes.