E4400 vs. E6320 showdown

[Ketxxx]

Just something I found nosing about, and thought it might help those trying to decide between the two, while at the same time enticing the E4400 and E6320 owners out the woodwork for a showdown ;) most interesting for some folk to try out would have to be the E4400 with PSB1066 set in place of PSB800, to see how a E44 pulls up on a E6320 as close to "apples to apples" as it gets. I'm still not convinced in any means that that 2MB extra cache on the Conroe cores REALLY makes a difference vs. the Allendale.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/bizket/Clipboard02.jpg

[CH@NO]

Yep, I own a E4300 version and many people toldme that It can OC like hell, (even at 100% of OC) and can match the E6XXX series. I think the difference must be minimal, after all, the cost difference must make a performance between them.......or why expend an extra bucks for a E6320 if it no make difference?

Core 2 Duo ROCKS!!!!

[Huxley2k7]

So your saying the E4400 beats the E6XXX series when both are overclocked?

I'd like to say your bullshitting and that those readings are innacurate, but i'd also like to believe that Intel and all those retailers don't actually want to rip me off either... :confused:

I dunno, i don't see how a whole 2MB extra cache would make no difference. Those benchmarks must be bogus.

[HookeyStreet]

Theres only £10 between them in price so I dont know why people are claiming that the E6320 must be a rip off!!

PS: nice find ketxxx

[CH@NO]

So your saying the E4400 beats the E6XXX series when both are overclocked?

I'd like to say your bullshitting and that those readings are innacurate, but i'd also like to believe that Intel and all those retailers don't actually want to rip me off either... :confused:

I dunno, i don't see how a whole 2MB extra cache would make no difference. Those benchmarks must be bogus.

No, It doesnt beat it at all. Just it comes VERY close to its performance. and of course, talking when both of them are OC.....I'll read a review that it compares a E6400 OC to 3.5GHZ and a E4300 OC to 3.42GHZ, and the performance was VERY close. so, It's just to clarify that an E3400 version is a BEST choice if you're looking PRICE/PERFORMANCE.

And its true, 2 MB of L2 cache doesnt make a big difference. Its for that the E4XXX series are becoming a totally success.

[Huxley2k7]

No, It doesnt beat it at all. Just it comes VERY close to its performance. and of course, talking when both of them are OC.....I'll read a review that it compares a E6400 OC to 3.5GHZ and a E4300 OC to 3.42GHZ, and the performance was VERY close. so, It's just to clarify that an E3400 version is a BEST choice if you're looking PRICE/PERFORMANCE.

And its true, 2 MB of L2 cache doesnt make a big difference. Its for that the E4XXX series are becoming a totally success.

Just goes to show we (Mainly myself) should do more research before investing in new parts. I bought the E6600 assuming it was one of the best. Ah well, i suppose if its only £10 difference or so, i'm not that worried. A nice find Ketxxx, what else can you dig up on the 'underdogs' of computer gaming world? :)

Hux.

[Paulieg]

Well, I think the extra 2mb of cache puts the E6320 over the top. It makes a difference in some applications and games.

[Alcpone]

The E4400 is @ 2Ghz vs E6320 @ 1.86Ghz, so really the FSB isnt coming into it!

If they were running @ the same speed then it would be a better comparison imo

I would have a E6320 over a E4400 any day, if only for the extra length of e-penis :D

[Wile E]

As far as the extra L2 Cache, you have to remember that some apps will utilize it more than others.

[Xaser04]

As far as the extra L2 Cache, you have to remember that some apps will utilize it more than others.

Very large calculations in excel is a good example of where the extra cache makes a significant difference (although the real world difference is a matter of seconds)

[Wile E]

Really long renders will benefit from it as well, usually to the tune of minutes.

[Ketxxx]

If we use encoding as the example, just look at the MP3 results among others, the "lowly" Allendale core actually beats out the Conroe by a real-world noticable 10 seconds. 130MHz difference for the E44 wont slash 10 seconds off. Its proof larger cache is not always better, as a larger cache also introduces increased latency.

PSB800 vs 1066 is also important as I would assume the E6320 uses PSB1066 to help compensate for the increased latency of the extra 2MB cache, where if a PSB1066 is also used on a E44, there is a very good chance that in theory the E44 would hand the E6320 its own arse as the smaller cache, reduced latency and combined with a PSB1066 would just put a E44 into hyperdrive. Of course, this is comparing both CPUs @ stock, with all settings matching as closely as possible for both.

The only potential drawback with the E44 is maximum FSB, being a "budget" orientated chip, its not meant to handle crazy high FSB like a E6x can and has a much better chance of doing. This shouldnt put anyone off an E44 though, as if more proof was needed currently my E44 is humming along @ 3.5GHz with an FSB of 390MHz. After a fair bit of testing the E44s would seem to be a potentially poor choice for extreme FSB users as the highest my particular E44 could handle was 410MHz using a 6x multi, upping the multi at all would cause the system to not boot, suggesting the CPU had reached its absolute FSB limit. None of this is absolute gospel though, as my AW9D MAX doesnt officially support the E44 yet as of BIOS 1.5, only the E4300, so as such I'm going to play with this E44 some more using a 9x multi to essentially "trick" the mobo into thinking its an E43, just with an extra multiplier available.