• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Choosing between E4400 and E6750

I

iamjuliespiano

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
190
Hey everybody,

I'm thinking about putting together a computer in a few weeks and I'm trying to decide between processors. I'd like a big improvement over my current computer (A64 3200+) so I was looking for a C2D in the high 2 GHz range and want to limit the budget to around $200. I think I'd buy the Asus P5K no matter what.

The E6750 ($190) is an obvious choice, but I'm willing to overclock some, so I was looking at the E4400 ($125) to possibly save some cash. I think I could easily overclock the E4400 to match the stock E6750 speed, but could I do that using the stock HSF and keep things cool and quiet? If I had to purchase an aftermarket HSF for overclocking the E4400, the price difference wouldn't be that much then.

Or are there any other choices that make more sense?

Thanks!
 
I got to 3 GHz stable with stock cooling on my e4300. I don't see why an e4400 wouldn't, maybe even a little more, depending on fsb limitations.
 
2 different extremes, not only the price difference but the 6750 has 4mb cache compared to 2, better FSP, Clocks ect. It really depends on what you want to spend. I have a 6750 and I love it. I have a 6320 for sale.

About the Asus, consider the Gigabyte DS3R. I had the ASUS sold it for the Gigabyte and have not looked back.

Hope this helps!
 
$125 e4400 stable at 3.4ghz, after a 20 minute lap (ihs was concave), on $22 ACF7P air. 3Ghz stable w/o lap, stock air.
 
Spend the extra money on the E6750. You will not regret it. A bigger cache means better IO performance.
 
An e6750 is a 68% increase in cost over an e4300, which will yield a 5-10% increase in benchmark applications only at the same clock.

You can probably overclock the chips to the same speed, and depending on how good the chip and mobo and ram are, the e4300 may overclock as it has a higher multiplier, the e4400 even more so.

For example.

333 FSB, the e6750 is stock, 2.666GHz.
333 FSB, the e4300 is OCd to 3.0GHZ, 12.5% higher than the e6750, probably erasing any benchmarked advantage. Saving $83.
333 FSB, the e4400 is OCd to 3.333 GHZ, 25% higher than the e6750, defintiely erasing any benchmarked advantage. Saving $80.

That's a lot of beer/hookers/coffee. Maybe not hookers. :D

(Newegg Prices 8/28/07 16:05 EST)
 
I wouldn't even consider buying an E4400 if you can stomach the 2MB of cache. Just buy a proven, used E4300. I sold a used one for $95 three months ago. They're probably under $90 now.


 
aldamon said:
I wouldn't even consider buying an E4400 if you can stomach the 2MB of cache. Just buy a proven, used E4300. I sold a used one for $95 three months ago. They're probably under $90 now.
Click to expand...
/Agree.

I can't honestly see a reason to spend more than ~100 on a chip. The amount of performance these "shitters" are yielding is just insane. Completely insane.
 
Thanks for all the replies, everyone...although it looks like there are strong opinions for both processors.
 
Go for the e4400 and overclock till you drop. You get a great sense of laziness by saving 80+ dollars while sitting on your ass for a half hour.
 
E4400 definetly. It's only a few dollars above the E4300 and has a multiplier advantage. Well worth the money.

I'm running a 100% stable E4400 at 3.2Ghz with stock voltages. It's a good chip for the wait to Penryn.
 
the small issues concerning 75 bucks shouldn't be a factor here. Just get the highest clock speed you can afford with the most cache. You're second guessing yourself by asking for support to go with a lower clocked cpu that can reach the higher priced cpu.

If we were talking diffs of 200.00, then yeah, the decision would be more difficult.
 
uhggg.. if you truly think an E43** or E44** performs as well as the E6750. your wrong.

Yes there is a price gap, and it all depends on what you plan on doing with it.

Its like saying. Q6600 vs E6850.. Regardless what what you go for. Price is the same yes. E6850 will have faster clock speeds. But then you got cache involved. ETC ETC ETC.

and im my opinion. E6750 would be a better choice if you dont plan on upgrading for awhile. just due to that extra cache is always helpful.
 
If you plan on grabbing a yorkfield within the next year or so, and actually need that $75, then save it and go with the E4400. If you don't plan on upgrading for a while, as many have already mentioned, just go for the E6750. You'll notice a difference with either chip compared to your current setup, lol.

E4400: 10 * 200 = 2.0Ghz, DDR2-400 << STOCK speeds
E4400: 10 * 266 = 2.6Ghz, DDR2-533 << Easy OC
E4400: 10 * 333 = 3.3Ghz, DDR2-667 << Great OC, near max on good air

E6750: 8 * 333 = 2.6Ghz, DDR2-667 << STOCK speeds
E6750: 8 * 400 = 3.2Ghz, DDR2-800 << Easy OC
E6750: 8 * 450 = 3.6Ghz, DDR2-900 << Good OC
E6750: 8 * 500 = 4.0Ghz, DDR2-1000 << Great OC, near max on good air

As for stock cooling, I'd say around 3Ghz is about the limit of the stock cooler, depending on your chip. If you see temps of 31°C with an E4400 @ 3.4Ghz 1.5v on stock cooling, then lucky you! The most I'd let a dual core idle is around 40°C, and I like to keep it under/around 65°C while under load.
 
michaLcoughliN said:
uhggg.. if you truly think an E43** or E44** performs as well as the E6750. your wrong.
Click to expand...

I've seen reviews putting a 3.4 e4300 neck and neck, even beating the x6800. Yes you will get a better clock out of the e6750 if overclocking but if not, I completely agree with the e6750.

Possible oc w/ e4400: 3.0-3.4ghz
Possible oc w/ e6750 3.6-4.0

Worth 80 dollars? Well whatever floats your boat captain.
 
i see no real reason to spend more money on a Home computer.

my e4300 does 3ghz+ without breaking a sweat. ill keep my money for something else.
 
The money saved by me buying a $125 e4400 instead of something more expensive helped me upgrade my videocard from a 7900GS to an 8800GTS 320.

With the e4400 running at 3.4ghz Orthos stable on a $22 ACF7P cooler, I'm feeling pretty good about it.
 
I guess my E4400 is a big failure - it doesn't react much to voltage, doesn't like anything past 3 GHz, and does Orthos at 66 degrees C under my Ninja. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I think I should have ponied up for a Q6600...

But still, I'm not complaining about it's performance at the ~2.8 to 3 GHz range...just great stuff all around.
 
TheGodfather47 said:
I guess my E4400 is a big failure - it doesn't react much to voltage, doesn't like anything past 3 GHz, and does Orthos at 66 degrees C under my Ninja. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I think I should have ponied up for a Q6600...

But still, I'm not complaining about it's performance at the ~2.8 to 3 GHz range...just great stuff all around.
Click to expand...

If it's like mine - the heatspreader is concave, and getting past 3ghz requires dropping the multi to 9x and boosting the vcore.

I have a thread in this section on lapping my e4400 and the results.
 
Finished my E6750 system. Paid $210 for the retail box at the local
store {slight cheaper online}.

I'm using Abit IP35 Pro motherboard with Tuniq 120 cooler.

This was an easy install. Even a caveman can get that 2.6Ghz
to run at 3.2GHz using cheap DDR2-800 ram. I ran orthos for
8 hours and CPU temp was 51 degrees and it's not attached 'super tight'
either. [long story on that].

I had it running 3.6Ghz for a while as it seemed to work but
it appears my memory might be the bottleneck not CPU. If
you snagged good ram and boosted voltages just a hair,
it should be stable for days @ 3.6Ghz, but it doesn't matter to me,
the GPU will be the bigger bottleneck for gaming. Maybe I will do
more 3.6Ghz testing.

If you want an 'easy' 3.2Ghz, E6750 using low cost ram is nice. I don't
like the Intel 'stock heatsink' in spite that it probably may work
and I'm guessing CPU temp will be 10 - 12 degrees C higher than the
big heatsinks. I don't know who sells OEM E6750 chips but this might
be something to look into.
 
I think I should have ponied up for a Q6600...

I thought about this too. But if you look at DX9 gaming, you
don't need super CPU power. If you want to build a system
for the future {wating for DX10 games, using Vista {and bugs}},
even current generation hardware stinks and you can spend
top dollar in a big rig only to get lame DX10 performance at high
resolution. You are just better off building a system to get you
going for the next year or two, then do another upgrade. By then,
the Intel / AMD {CPU/Graphics} war will rage on and we shall
score greater hardware for less money and DX10 will be mainstream
gaming then. I don't want to fork over $1000 - $1600 for a SLI rig
that will be obsolete next year and I won't really get my monies worth
as games aren't all that right now.
 
I’m bumping this thread because it has some good discussion, and I’m wondering the same thing myself. I just read that the newer e4400 don’t o/c that well, and many are only getting 2.6-2.8GHz max. Is this due to inexperience, or did Intel slack on the new cores? I’d be happy with 3.0, and I’m looking to save some cash.
 
Space_Coyote said:
I’m bumping this thread because it has some good discussion, and I’m wondering the same thing myself. I just read that the newer e4400 don’t o/c that well, and many are only getting 2.6-2.8GHz max. Is this due to inexperience, or did Intel slack on the new cores? I’d be happy with 3.0, and I’m looking to save some cash.
Click to expand...

Probably a combination of cheaper manufacturing practices - thermal paste instead of solder under the IHS, less than perfectly flat IHSs, etc leading to higher heat.
 
Gaming only;

I did a F.E.A.R benchmark because I was wondering what is to be
gained by trying to milk a few extra megahertz in performance.

This is using a BFG 8800GTS OC card, 320MB.

E6750 - 3.2Ghz OC
Memory @ 400Mhz {DDR2-800}
2GB ram

The FEAR performance test showed ~50 FPS on the low side
and about 101 FPS on the high side.

I then underclocked the E6750 to 266Mhz speed and set
the multiplier to 6 to achieve a 1.6Ghz setup, 1/2 the speed.

The FEAR performance test showed ~42 FPS on the low side
and about 107 on the high side.

Fear was running 1600x1200 with maximum detail set. In my case
and gameplay habits, I determined that going from 1.6Ghz computer
to 3.2Ghz only really yielded me ~8 more frames per second on
the low side and the average to high side was moot.

This pretty much tells me that for gaming, the video card is the
biggest bottleneck, therefore it really didn't make much sense to
try to milk the highest speed possible as there is little gaming reward.

People in cyber get way too involved in trying to squeeze out a few
hundred Megahertz and risk an unstable computer system which is
more evil than a slower system that has no problems.
 
Space_Coyote said:
I&#8217;m bumping this thread because it has some good discussion, and I&#8217;m wondering the same thing myself. I just read that the newer e4400 don&#8217;t o/c that well, and many are only getting 2.6-2.8GHz max. Is this due to inexperience, or did Intel slack on the new cores? I&#8217;d be happy with 3.0, and I&#8217;m looking to save some cash.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where these claims of bad OC's or coming from. I have one of the newer E4400s and I can get 3200Mhz on stock voltages. I can also hit 3500Mhz without any sweat. Check the OC database, the newer E4400 holds the top OC spot.

If I had any inclination to I should be able to have 3600Mhz stable. Just waiting for another E4400 to challenge me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top