E4300 in stock at ZZF

Only $3 more than the E6300......I'd say it's an available deal but not a hot one.....
 
They will get cheaper in a month or so once the production picks up.
 
Mav451 said:
The numbers on the Q4, Oblivion, and HL:EP1 graphs are a bit disturbing. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6
I mean, we're not talking about Sempr0n (cache) losses, but OCed it just isn't as efficient as the E6x00's.

I think I'd rather wait for the E6320 than buy a E4300.
Click to expand...

It's BARELY less in the graphs than the x6800 and it's something like 1/9 the cost. It's well worth it. But, then again I know nothing about the 6320. The prices are comparable, but are they going to OC as well?
 
Lol I guess I'm over-reacting and reading into the Q4 results too much.
 
Mav451 said:
The numbers on the Q4, Oblivion, and HL:EP1 graphs are a bit disturbing. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6
I mean, we're not talking about Sempr0n (cache) losses, but OCed it just isn't as efficient as the E6x00's.

I think I'd rather wait for the E6320 than buy a E4300.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it matters. almost 1/3 of the difference can probably be attributed to the lower the fact that the good chunk of the difference is that the 6300 is clocked slightly higher. I figure that if the 4300 was clocked exactly the same, it'd probably get about 119fps on the first quake graph......so we're only talking about a 3% difference at that point.

But I wouldn't pay more for the 4300...not win it retails for 163.00 and will drop to 115 in march or April.
 
It's listed for $15 less at Tiger Direct for the OEM version; I didn't check shipping prices at either. I'll wait till everyone has them, and then see who's got the best deal.
 
it's a good chip should over clock like gang-busters --very limited impact of lower cache--but $194 ?--this was to be MSRP of $163 . and given the way the market is these days-- more like $130-$110 pretty soon .

and the newer 45nm's and the e-4400 ain't far off so the price shpuld drop pretty soon i would think . shortly these things should be msrp or lower when they hit the market in mass .:eek: :cool: all this price gouging by retailers cools my jets for buying stuff . i may just hold off untill the 4400-&.45nm's hit --then see what the price is-lol
 
Intel is getting hammered and I doubt these price wars will last much longer. Stockholders demand stocks to go up and not down. I don't see this war lasting too much longer.
 
1) Not a hot deal


Oh, and....
Ub3rn00b said:
It's BARELY less in the graphs than the x6800
Click to expand...

How is that a valid comparison?
Lets take a 1.8 ghz processor, and overclock it 87%, (for a speed of 3.38) and compare it to a 2.93 ghz processor that we didn't overclock.
Since the 4300 is running @ 3.38, it should outperform the x6800, except.. wait, it's on a lesser architecture, with less cache!
Show me an x6800 running at 5.48 ghz that only barely beats the e4300, and THEN I'll actually care what the hell that graph has to say.
Overclocked, the e4300 is running almost 16% higher clock speed, and is using MORE power consumption (admittedly, only a few watts, but still)
How about this. Someone clock an x6800 down to 1.8 ghz and see which one outperforms?
This graph is like comparing a v8 mustang to a 4 cylinder that's had a turbo, and nitrous thrown on it, and saying "Man, that v8 sucks"

Ub3rn00b said:
and it's something like 1/9 the cost.
Click to expand...
Did you do much math when you were in school? Did you pass?
$194.99 x 9 = $1,754.91

Even the $163 that it's "Supposed" to be is $1,467.00

C2D-x6800 = $955 @ ZZF (955 / 9 = $106.12, which is what it'd have to cost for you to be correct with your 1/9th statement)

955 / 194.99 = 4.89, so you are almost DOUBLING your exaggeration.(You are overstating the cost of the x6800 by 83%)

Processor prices are based on what they can do at STOCK speed. (actually, processor prices are based on available supply, and market "tolerability" - people will pay $955 for the best cpu intel has to offer)
Higher frame rates are exponentially harder and harder to achieve, (i.e. a 3 ghz processor of the exact same architecture will NOT be double the speed of a 1.5 ghz processor, because of other concerns)

At stock speeds, the x6800 is CONSIDERABLY faster than the e4300. Does it merit it's price by comparison? No, I agree with you that it doesn't. You'll notice, therefore, that I do not own one. I believe in the axiom of "take the state of the art product, and step back 1 or 2 steps" . [unless I get a steal of a deal] That's why I don't own twin 8800GTX's, and own 8800GTS [got it for a good price], and the only reason I own a C2Q-X6700 is because I got it for not much more than the cost of my C2D-E6700, and for CONSIDERABLY less than an x6800.
However, for people who 1) have the money [I actually do, but, I found for my usage, 4 cores @ 2.66 are better than 2 @ 2.93] and 2) need the absolute best of the best at all costs... the x6800 is a great buy. - But it's not for the honda civic owning portion of the market, it's for the people who want the McClaren F1 of processors, cost be damned.

When comparing the stock performance of the x6800 for $955 to the stock performance of the e4300 for $195, yes, the x6800 doesn't seem like that good of a deal, but, I am here to tell you that this is true of MANY processor comparisons.

On a Price/performance ratio the amd X2-4200+ is a smarter purchase, since, for the most part, it's NECK AND NECK (even the article says so) with the e4300, but .. guess what.. it costs less money! The x2-4400+ outperforms the e4300, and costs the same. Doesn't that make the e4300 a dumb buy, too?
the article said:
At stock speeds, the E4300 ends up offering similar performance to the Athlon 64 X2 4200+. In SYSMark 2004SE, DivX and some games it's faster, and in other situations it's basically the same speed. The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ ends up being slower in every benchmark, but with a lower price it's still a reasonable choice.
Click to expand...
See? They are saying the e4300 and the x2 4200+ are about the same (which would mean the 4400+ is better) But, the 4200+ is only $150-$165 or so.
 
slightly off topic, but ive been searching for this for 2 days now with not a whole lot of good results... are those oblivion benchmarks accurate in terms of the difference between amd and intel? i just bought an 8800gtx because i read that would improve my performance a lot and barely notice any difference in the game which is really annoying me
right now im running a 4400+ at 2.25 with 2 gigs of ram
i just bought an amd dual core processor from someone on the forums which is supposed to hit 2.8 no problem and bought the tuniq tower 120 to cool it hoping to hit 3 gigahtz. now after seeing these benchmarks im thinking i may have made a mistake as even the 2.4 gig seems to kill the amd processors in performance.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
1) Not a hot deal


Oh, and....


How is that a valid comparison?
Lets take a 1.8 ghz processor, and overclock it 87%, (for a speed of 3.38) and compare it to a 2.93 ghz processor that we didn't overclock.
Since the 4300 is running @ 3.38, it should outperform the x6800, except.. wait, it's on a lesser architecture, with less cache!
Show me an x6800 running at 5.48 ghz that only barely beats the e4300, and THEN I'll actually care what the hell that graph has to say.
Overclocked, the e4300 is running almost 16% higher clock speed, and is using MORE power consumption (admittedly, only a few watts, but still)
How about this. Someone clock an x6800 down to 1.8 ghz and see which one outperforms?
This graph is like comparing a v8 mustang to a 4 cylinder that's had a turbo, and nitrous thrown on it, and saying "Man, that v8 sucks"


Did you do much math when you were in school? Did you pass?
$194.99 x 9 = $1,754.91

Even the $163 that it's "Supposed" to be is $1,467.00

C2D-x6800 = $955 @ ZZF (955 / 9 = $106.12, which is what it'd have to cost for you to be correct with your 1/9th statement)

955 / 194.99 = 4.89, so you are almost DOUBLING your exaggeration.(You are overstating the cost of the x6800 by 83%)

Processor prices are based on what they can do at STOCK speed. (actually, processor prices are based on available supply, and market "tolerability" - people will pay $955 for the best cpu intel has to offer)
Higher frame rates are exponentially harder and harder to achieve, (i.e. a 3 ghz processor of the exact same architecture will NOT be double the speed of a 1.5 ghz processor, because of other concerns)

At stock speeds, the x6800 is CONSIDERABLY faster than the e4300. Does it merit it's price by comparison? No, I agree with you that it doesn't. You'll notice, therefore, that I do not own one. I believe in the axiom of "take the state of the art product, and step back 1 or 2 steps" . [unless I get a steal of a deal] That's why I don't own twin 8800GTX's, and own 8800GTS [got it for a good price], and the only reason I own a C2Q-X6700 is because I got it for not much more than the cost of my C2D-E6700, and for CONSIDERABLY less than an x6800.
However, for people who 1) have the money [I actually do, but, I found for my usage, 4 cores @ 2.66 are better than 2 @ 2.93] and 2) need the absolute best of the best at all costs... the x6800 is a great buy. - But it's not for the honda civic owning portion of the market, it's for the people who want the McClaren F1 of processors, cost be damned.

When comparing the stock performance of the x6800 for $955 to the stock performance of the e4300 for $195, yes, the x6800 doesn't seem like that good of a deal, but, I am here to tell you that this is true of MANY processor comparisons.

On a Price/performance ratio the amd X2-4200+ is a smarter purchase, since, for the most part, it's NECK AND NECK (even the article says so) with the e4300, but .. guess what.. it costs less money! The x2-4400+ outperforms the e4300, and costs the same. Doesn't that make the e4300 a dumb buy, too?

See? They are saying the e4300 and the x2 4200+ are about the same (which would mean the 4400+ is better) But, the 4200+ is only $150-$165 or so.
Click to expand...

chill........
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
On a Price/performance ratio the amd X2-4200+ is a smarter purchase, since, for the most part, it's NECK AND NECK (even the article says so) with the e4300, but .. guess what.. it costs less money! The x2-4400+ outperforms the e4300, and costs the same. Doesn't that make the e4300 a dumb buy, too?

See? They are saying the e4300 and the x2 4200+ are about the same (which would mean the 4400+ is better) But, the 4200+ is only $150-$165 or so.
Click to expand...

One additional thing: even if you're looking for a cheap overclocking cpu, the x2 will still do you pretty well at a very low price point. You can easily get >40% on stock air with no voltage adjustment. Put in a nicer HSF or non-air cooler and you can grab upwards of 100%.
 
@Jared

The Core2Duo processors pretty much walk all over the AMD x2's, including the FX series. If you bought an Opteron 165 or 175, you'll be fine. If you had/have a bunch of money to blow (which evidently you might, /me points at 8800GTX), then an e6400 would have been a better upgrade. Of course, then you need a new motherboard plus DDR2-800 RAM which'll set you back ~$350 (mobo+RAM).
 
Zinn said:
LOL @ CPU to car comparisons. I dunno why I find them so funny :p
Click to expand...

I think it's applicable. People trick out cars to increase the top speed or increase acceleration. They repaint perfectly painted cards to make them look unique, add lights that do nothing, and put in shiny parts under the hood that nobody's gonna see unless you open the hood up.

Enthusiasts do pretty much all of those things (and peraps more). Instead of using nitrous to increase accelleration, they use water to cool the cpu or, in some exteme cases, liquid nitrogen. That ain't me -- I stick with air cooling and whatever OC I can get without much extra voltage (or noisey cooling...damn you SPCR. Damn you to a noisey hell!!!)

CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
1) Not a hot deal
On a Price/performance ratio the amd X2-4200+ is a smarter purchase, since, for the most part, it's NECK AND NECK (even the article says so) with the e4300, but .. guess what.. it costs less money! The x2-4400+ outperforms the e4300, and costs the same. Doesn't that make the e4300 a dumb buy, too?

See? They are saying the e4300 and the x2 4200+ are about the same (which would mean the 4400+ is better) But, the 4200+ is only $150-$165 or so.
Click to expand...

Unless you're intending to run your processors at stock ( I suspect most [H]OCP readers would OC the chip), you have to OC the chips to do a valid comparison.

On the crux of your rant (yes, it was rant ;) ) that it's wrong to compare the OCed 4300 to the x6800 at default, I don't think it matters (for that specific comparison) I don't think anyone considering a 4300 is in the market for a 6800; however, I do agree that it's a largely meaningless statistic, and I absolutely think that when comparing it to AMD chips and to the e6300/6400 chips, they all should be shown at stock and OCed.

For the 4300, I think It'd be useful to see similar OC comparisons with similarly priced AMD chips as well as an Athlon 64 5000+ and/or an Opteron 165.....and for launch, when prices are higher, they should probably show any AMD chip in the 150 to 225 range (I wouldn't mind seeing a comparison that includes 939 chips, since many AMD upgraders are likely moving from that platform)
 
actually I don't have the money to pay for the 8800 even, but I did an impulse buy because I really wanted to play oblivion with no lag. I'm pretty much stuck with what I have for awhile unless I get another impulse... and if that happens I can only hope that I do get into law school so I get the law school loans coming in... otherwise I'm in real trouble.
 
nilepez said:
I think it's applicable. People trick out cars to increase the top speed or increase acceleration.
Click to expand...

Thanks for defending my comparison. I knew someone would get it


nilepez said:
Unless you're intending to run your processors at stock
Click to expand...
My point was that the only fair comparison was how they both performed stock, until both processors are overclocked 87%, you can't rightly say that the e4300 is "almost as good" as the x6800. Now, if e4300 was the ONLY overclockable processor, and the x6800 was doomed to forever run at 2.93 and only 2.93, then this chart would be DAMNING to the x6800 :)


nilepez said:
On the crux of your rant (yes, it was rant ;) )
Click to expand...
I don't deny it was a rant. - Nothing says you can't rant.
nilepez said:
I don't think anyone considering a 4300 is in the market for a 6800
Click to expand...
True enough
nilepez said:
I do agree that it's a largely meaningless statistic,
Click to expand...
which was my point


nilepez said:
For the 4300, I think It'd be useful to see similar OC comparisons with similarly priced AMD chips
Click to expand...

I.e. "most overclockable $200 cpu" or "best performing cpu for $250"
 
Well if you can have a $160 chip that can perform like much pricier chip why not buy it? That is the whole purpose of why I OC. Could I buy an X2 at 2.4? Yes. But Why? I bought an X2 3800 and OCed it. If an 4300 OCed can perform like a 6800 then why not buy it?
 
I have to say this is in no way a hot deal. and also i am glad & surprised that no one bit on the flamebait/basher post from earlier.
 
EnderW said:
architecture is exactly the same
Click to expand...
Allendale 2mb cache.
Conroe 4mb cache. (technically, the x6800 is a 'Conroe XE' architecture)

not same.

If architecture is identical, then should not a 3.38 ghz processor outperform, on every single test, a 2.93 ghz processor, instead of "Not quite" matching it?

enderW said:
bottom line, until the price of these settles to where it should be (~$150), there is no reason to buy it over an E6300
Click to expand...
Correct


Conroe Vs Allendale
Allendale
For a very long time, it was considered that stripped down versions of the Conroe processors were code-named Allendale. In actuality, Allendale is a code-name for a different processor. Many suggest that E6300 and E6400 are actually code-named Allendale, however, the E6300 (1.86 GHz) and E6400 (2.13 GHz) processors are not code-named Allendale because they physically have 4 MB cache, same as their big brothers E6600 and E6700 - it is just that half of their physical memory is disabled. Traditionally, CPUs of the same family with less cache simply have the unavailable cache disabled (this allows parts that fail quality control to be sold at a lower rating). The fact that E6300 and E6400 are not code-named Allendale and actually code-named Conroe has been confirmed by Intel themselves.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
Allendale 2mb cache.
EnderW said:
architecture is exactly the same

bottom line, until the price of these settles to where it should be (~$150), there is no reason to buy it over an E6300
and keep in mind the coming price drops
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5414
Click to expand...

Conroe 4mb cache. (technically, the x6800 is a 'Conroe XE' architecture)

not same.

If architecture is identical, then should not a 3.38 ghz processor outperform, on every single test, a 2.93 ghz processor, instead of "Not quite" matching it?
[/url]
Click to expand...

Ahem. The 6300 and, for that matter, the 6400 have 2MB of cache :p
 
nilepez said:
Ahem. The 6300 and, for that matter, the 6400 have 2MB of cache :p
Click to expand...

No shit, sherlock. Technically, you are wrong, though. 2mb of USABLE cache.

However, the ENTIRE COMPARISON has been between the e4300 and the x6800.

e4300 = allendale, 800mhz, 2mb cache, 65nm, lga775, 1.8ghz
e6300 = conroe, 1066mhz, 4mb cache (with 2mb disabled = 2mb cache), 1.86ghz via 266x7
e6400 = conroe, 1066mhz, 4mb cache (with 2mb disabled = 2mb cache), 2.13ghz via 266 x 8
e6600 = conroe, 1066mhz, 4mb cache (none disabled), 2.4ghz via 266x9
e6700 = conroe, 1066mhz, 4mb cache (none disabled), 2.66 ghz (via 266 x 10)
x6800 = conroeXE, 1066mhz, 4mb cache, 65nm, lga775, 2.93ghz via 266x11


Lets look at the ENTIRETY of my line that was quoted

me said:
Since the 4300 is running @ 3.38, it should outperform the x6800, except.. wait, it's on a lesser architecture, with less cache!
Click to expand...
see? 4300 vs 6800.
4300 is on a lesser architecture (that being, allendale, 800mhz, ONLY 2mb, not 4mb with 2mb disabled) than the x6800s conroeXE, 1066mhz, 4mb full cache

EnderW stated that the architecture of the e4300 was exactly the same as the architecture of the x6800.

I compared the two processors . E4300 = Allendale 2mb cache vs x6800 = Conroe (XE) 4mb cache

In what you quoted, you even INCLUDED the x6800 reference made by me.
duh.jpg
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
No shit, sherlock. Technically, you are wrong, though. 2mb of USABLE cache.

However, the ENTIRE COMPARISON has been between the e4300 and the x6800.
.
.
In what you quoted, you even INCLUDED the x6800 reference made by me.
Click to expand...

The text you quoted from EnderW mentioned the 6300 and said nothing about the 6800, which you went on to say is a different architecture than both the 4300 and the 6300.

I don't get why you're so upset about my 1 line reply. Lighten up.
 
I was wondering what could cause so much rage out of CyberDeus-RagDoll, then I looked at his sig...

Anyway, this is not a hot deal yet. It will be hot when it gets to $110-130
 
nilepez said:
The text you quoted from EnderW mentioned the 6300
Click to expand...
But he was REPLYING TO ME. My text that he replied to discussed the e4300 vs the x6800.
He then went on, in an aside, to make mention of the e6300. Which is UNRELATED to the comparison of allendale e4300 and conroe(xe) x6800
nilepez said:
I don't get why you're so upset about my 1 line reply. Lighten up.
Click to expand...
You are commenting on a statement (in an attempt to correct/enlighten me) with the misunderstanding that I was saying ANYTHING about the e6300
Your "ahem" (i.e. if someone was doing that sort of thing in the middle of a conversation I was having in person) would seem pretentious.
The side-thought that enderW made about e6300 has NOTHING to do with the statements I made.
techmasta said:
I was wondering what could cause so much rage out of CyberDeus-RagDoll, then I looked at his sig...
Click to expand...
Wait, so, since I have a better computer than you, I must be angry about this processor being released? The e4300 isn't even playing the same game as my quadcore. I don't overclock, first of all, and I don't care how far you overclock an e4300. It's not going to compete, with what * I * do, with a quad core solution.
I'm upset that I'm being corrected by people who THINK they know what I am talking about, when they don't.
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
wait, it's on a lesser architecture
Click to expand...
Was a DIRECT statement about the e4300 vs the x6800.
Had -0- to do with the e6300
EnderW said:
architecture is exactly the same
Click to expand...
He was replying to my statements about the e4300 vs the x6800
In addition to that, he also said
EnderW said:
bottom line, until the price of these settles to where it should be (~$150), there is no reason to buy it over an E6300 and keep in mind the coming price drops
Click to expand...
I replied to the FIRST part of his statement
EnderW said:
architecture is exactly the same
Click to expand...
by saying
CyberDeus-Ragdoll said:
Allendale 2mb cache.
Conroe 4mb cache. (technically, the x6800 is a 'Conroe XE' architecture)
not same.
Click to expand...
This, again, was a statement about the e4300 (which would be the ONLY allendale processor I am talking about) versus the x6800 (which I make mention of)
The fact that he, in addition, said something about the e6300 has NOTHING to do with the fact that that I was, again.. talking about the e4300 vs the x6800.
So..
nilepez's statement
nilepez said:
Ahem. The 6300 and, for that matter, the 6400 have 2MB of cache
Click to expand...
Is an attempt to "Correct" me for something he THINKS I don't know, because he DOESN'T know what I was referring to.
CyberDeus-Ragdoll said:
If architecture is identical, then should not a 3.38 ghz processor outperform, on every single test, a 2.93 ghz processor, instead of "Not quite" matching it?
Click to expand...
Again, this shows I'm talking about the e4300 (which they overclocked to 3.38ghz) vs the 2.93 ghz, x6800
I think the release of the e4300 is a fantastic thing. This means that the ENTIRE s478 line, PentiumD line can just go away. When it's price reflects what it should actually cost, I will -NOT- be purchasing ANYthing for clients with that "other" tech. Now, when they decide to actually price this thing at a price LESS than an e6300, I will deploy them as our entry level processor in systems for clients. We use no processors over $150 for our 'entry level' cpu. That means, until the e4300 is priced right, I'll have to keep buying P4D-820s and such.
The lowest end offerings from intel in the C2D line are still too pricey for our entry level systems.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
Allendale 2mb cache.
Conroe 4mb cache. (technically, the x6800 is a 'Conroe XE' architecture)

not same.

If architecture is identical, then should not a 3.38 ghz processor outperform, on every single test, a 2.93 ghz processor, instead of "Not quite" matching it?


Correct


Conroe Vs Allendale


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
Click to expand...
The architecture is independent of the amount of cache and is the same for all Core 2 Duo processors.
 
EnderW said:
The architecture is independent of the amount of cache and is the same for all Core 2 Duo processors.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.
The Core2Duo e4300 has an allendale architecture. That is 800mhz fsb, and 2mb actual cache on the die, 167M transistors, 111 mm2 die size
The Core2Duo e6300, e6400, have conroe architecture, with 4m shared cache (2m disabled) . The e6300 and e6400 have the same transistor count and die size of the e4300 allendale (167M, 111mm2) This is why it has been theorized that the e6300 and e6400 were actually allendale.
The Core2Duo 6600 and e6700 have 291M transistors, with a 143mm2 die size. as will the 6850 (1333mhz / 3.0ghz) when it is released, of course, they have the 4M shared cache.
The Core2Duo "Extreme" x6800 has the conroe XE architecture, with 4m shared cache, 291M transistors, 1066mhz, 143mm2 die size. I believe the X6900 will match the x6800, except, of course, ti will be faster, coming in at 3.2ghz (266x12)


The Core2Duo T5500 & T5600 have the merom architecture, with 2m shared cache
The Core2Duo T7200, t7400, t7600, have the merom architecture, with 4m shared cache

I do not know the die size, or transistor count, of the T series core2duo processors.


http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu...884350,884354,884355&familyID=1&culture=en-US
This would be why, say, the X6800 isn't supported on the 94x series chipsets. Because it's DIFFERENT than the E6xxx processors, just as the e4xxx series processors are different.

Notice, for example, how THIS Motherboard supports core2duo but not core2duo-extreme?
Why would that be??? hmmmm? Is it because it doesn't have 1066mhz fsb? Oh, wait.. It does ...


http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page4.html

transistor.jpg

Number of transistors, and die sizes, also can be found from intel, and techpowerup. I originally read the specs @ intel, but THG's chart is much nicer.


I'd love to get back on topic. With that, I reiterate my prior #1 point. This is not a hot deal

I also want to say that I respect the opinions of everyone here (well, except for maybe a former mod with a three part name who shall remain nameless) and that I am just trying to enlighten people to the FACTS. I don't hate you nilepez, enderw, or anyone else. :)
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
Incorrect.
The Core2Duo e4300 has an allendale architecture. That is 800mhz fsb, and 2mb actual cache on the die, 167M transistors, 111 mm2 die size
The Core2Duo e6300, e6400, have conroe architecture, with 4m shared cache (2m disabled) . The e6300 and e6400 have the same transistor count and die size of the e4300 allendale (167M, 111mm2) This is why it has been theorized that the e6300 and e6400 were actually allendale.
The Core2Duo 6600 and e6700 have 291M transistors, with a 143mm2 die size. as will the 6850 (1333mhz / 3.0ghz) when it is released, of course, they have the 4M shared cache.
The Core2Duo "Extreme" x6800 has the conroe XE architecture, with 4m shared cache, 291M transistors, 1066mhz, 143mm2 die size. I believe the X6900 will match the x6800, except, of course, ti will be faster, coming in at 3.2ghz (266x12)


The Core2Duo T5500 & T5600 have the merom architecture, with 2m shared cache
The Core2Duo T7200, t7400, t7600, have the merom architecture, with 4m shared cache

I do not know the die size, or transistor count, of the T series core2duo processors.


http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu...884350,884354,884355&familyID=1&culture=en-US
This would be why, say, the X6800 isn't supported on the 94x series chipsets. Because it's DIFFERENT than the E6xxx processors, just as the e4xxx series processors are different.

Notice, for example, how THIS Motherboard supports core2duo but not core2duo-extreme?
Why would that be??? hmmmm? Is it because it doesn't have 1066mhz fsb? Oh, wait.. It does ...


http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page4.html

http://dad.unicornservices.net/transistor.jpg[img]
Number of transistors, and die sizes, also can be found from intel, and techpowerup. I originally read the specs @ intel, but THG's chart is much nicer.[/QUOTE]

Allendale, Clovertown, Conroe, Dempsey, Merom, Woodcrest all use the Intel Core microarchitecture
All Core 2 Duo CPUs use the Intel Core microarchitecture
All Xeon 5100 CPUs use the Intel Core microarchitecture

[url]http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/index.htm[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_microarchitecture[/url]

Are you arguing that architecture refers to a specific combination of microarchitecture, FSB bus speed, and cache size?

I refer to that as the platform and I use the terms architecture and microarchitecture interchangably, as it seems Intel does, and I didn't find a clear distinction between the two on their site or elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe you guys should take your geek-dick measuring contest elsewhere, this is the hot deals forum and last I checked this is called "who-gives-a-shit."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top