• 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.

First E4300 Review.... :)

ereshkigal said:
Since they overclocked it to past what a stock x6800 chip runs on fsb it is kinda weird it still loses to it in games.
Click to expand...
3.37GHz @ 1.468v is getting pretty toasty for the stock Intel cooler. It may have been throttling at that speed for a few of the benchmarks.

The Xbitlabs used a better cooler and their slightly higher (vs Anandtech) overclocked 4300 was faster than the X6800 in their two game tests.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e4300_6.html
 
The Goose said:
The E6300 performs a bit better, but not too much at all. Looks like I'll be making a system overhaul in Q2.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is your right... E6300 does perform better when overclocked compared to E4300 but I don't know why that is other than FSB difference? But when E4300 is running high FSB once it's overclocked.

If you look below the E6400 overcooked to 2.88ghz is slightly slower than X6800 in most of the test... While the E4300 @ 3.38ghz is giving similar results as E6400 is at 2.88ghz...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=11

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6
 
ASUDevil83 said:
what the hell do you expect with an 800Mhz FSB and 2mb cache vs. 1066Mhz and 4mb cache?

this proc is a damn good overlocker....and your COMPLAINING. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Someone always wants to come along and crap on the parade... :rolleyes: No matter how good a product is,there will always be a few peeps who will try and find something wrong with it.... ;)
 
Gigady Gigady GOO!!!!


I want I want...

Those benches seem to be rather impressive...this is the year I think I get my C2D system... :D
 
why didnt anyone do a e6400 at 3ghz and the e4300 at 3ghz for some type of comparison and then do the same thing with a 4mb chip:rolleyes:
 
Marvelous said:
E6300 does perform better when overclocked compared to E4300 but I don't know why that is other than FSB difference? But when E4300 is running high FSB once it's overclocked.

If you look below the E6400 overcooked to 2.88ghz is slightly slower than X6800 in most of the test... While the E4300 @ 3.38ghz is giving similar results as E6400 is at 2.88ghz...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=11

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6
Click to expand...

That's what I said.

ASUDevil83 said:
what the hell do you expect with an 800Mhz FSB and 2mb cache vs. 1066Mhz and 4mb cache?

this proc is a damn good overlocker....and your COMPLAINING. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If it's OCed then the FSB isn't 200Mhz (800)! The CPU was at 3.38Ghz, that's 375Mhz FSB (1500).

Manny Calavera said:
Someone always wants to come along and crap on the parade... :rolleyes: No matter how good a product is,there will always be a few peeps who will try and find something wrong with it.... ;)
Click to expand...

Sure... 'cause numbers lie
 
Has anybody tried to push the FSB on the E4300 up to where the E6X00 series has it, and running the higher FSB with a lower multi so the E4300 still runs at stock clock speed on the faster FSB?

that should tell us if its the FSB speed causing the performance hit...I doubt these chips are that bandwidth starved, though...
 
Unknown-One said:
Has anybody tried to push the FSB on the E4300 up to where the E6X00 series has it, and running the higher FSB with a lower multi so the E4300 still runs at stock clock speed on the faster FSB?

that should tell us if its the FSB speed causing the performance hit...I doubt these chips are that bandwidth starved, though...
Click to expand...

It's not even out yet so nobody can try different FSB with diff multiplier.

I really don't think it's FSB that is giving lower performance than E6300... There's something extra it seems.


tpfaff said:
why didnt anyone do a e6400 at 3ghz and the e4300 at 3ghz for some type of comparison and then do the same thing with a 4mb chip:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't know they always fuck up the reviews like that and always skip the interesting parts...
 
mzs_biteme said:
That's what this CPU is all about... :D
Get a CRAPPY (!!!!) Via hybrid (AGP + ePCI + DDR1 + DDR2) mobo for ~$50, get the E4300, set the FSB to 266 and you got yourself E6600 (minus 2MB cache) upgrade for ~$200... Perfect for all on tight budget... Last time I checked, 2.4GHz C2D's still destroy anything AMD's got to offer... That will be the end to ANY "low-price" advantage AMD's got left today...:eek:
Click to expand...

How crappy is this. Having to upgrade from a AMD XP, DDR1 and AGP card is gonna hurt if I do it all at once.

But what would the best MB be for this chip?
 
Since the top FSB of the board doesn't really matter all that much (I doubt most people will be getting it to 4.5GHz with a 500 FSB) I would think you would want a stable board with whatever video card features you want. Try looking at the 975 chipsets.
 
RedChief said:
How crappy is this. Having to upgrade from a AMD XP, DDR1 and AGP card is gonna hurt if I do it all at once.

But what would the best MB be for this chip?
Click to expand...

You missed the whole point...
There are a couple Via based mobos that have AGP, ePCI, DDR1, and DDR2 support all on the same board....
So, if you happen to be "stuck in the past" and still use AMD XP CPU, with butt-load of DDR1 ram and an "OK" AGP card, all you'd need is JUST that mobo and E4300 for a nice upgrade...
~$200 and your running with the big dogs...:D
 
mzs_biteme said:
You missed the whole point...
There are a couple Via based mobos that have AGP, ePCI, DDR1, and DDR2 support all on the same board....
So, if you happen to be "stuck in the past" and still use AMD XP CPU, with butt-load of DDR1 ram and an "OK" AGP card, all you'd need is JUST that mobo and E4300 for a nice upgrade...
~$200 and your running with the big dogs...:D
Click to expand...

QFT.. I think a lot of people are missing this point trying to compare the E4300 OC to the E6300 OC results... The point is you can save a lot of money and still have high performance. Best Bang For the Buck.. also, this can help the mATX intel niche for people like me who have been looking for an Overclockable C2D mATX board...since there still arent any we can use this chip and actually OC a little bit still...then once the good OC mATX boards come out we can really open it up.... ;)
 
This looks like a sweet chip for a cheap build. Has anyone tried underclocking? Wondering how well it will work in a totally fanless HTPC build.
 
Oleschuldad said:
QFT.. I think a lot of people are missing this point trying to compare the E4300 OC to the E6300 OC results... The point is you can save a lot of money and still have high performance. Best Bang For the Buck.. also, this can help the mATX intel niche for people like me who have been looking for an Overclockable C2D mATX board...since there still arent any we can use this chip and actually OC a little bit still...then once the good OC mATX boards come out we can really open it up.... ;)
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't people compare to E4300 and E6300 overclock?

E6300 has 2meg cache disabled and has 2meg cache while E4300 has 2meg cache without virtualization...

Other than FSB it should perform very similar as why people are comparing E6300/6400 and E4300 overclocks...
 
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6

Look at the benchmark above... Now look at E6300, E6400 and E4300 at stock performance.

Quake 4 benchmark 1600x1200

E4300=114.4 fps ----1.8 ghz
E6300=122.8 fps ----1.86 ghz
E6400=136 fps ------2.13 ghz

And you can see that E6300 is much faster than E4300 with only 60mhz advantage... E4300 is a good chip but you need to shave off 150-200mhz or so compared to it's bigger brother...

But what I want to see is reviewers set the multiplier to 7 or 8 and overclock the FSB to same levels and see if it compares to E6300/6400...
 
While the 6300 does perform better at the same speed, about half of the difference in FPS is based on the 60 mhz (assuming a linear increase in FPS with the 4300, dividing 114.4 by 1800 then multiplying by 1860 cuts the difference in half). So it's not that much better. I would like to see them drop the multi and have the same FSB, though.
 
If you look below the E6400 overcooked to 2.88ghz is slightly slower than X6800 in most of the test... While the E4300 @ 3.38ghz is giving similar results as E6400 is at 2.88ghz...
Click to expand...

...
 
Greetings!
Marvelous said:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6
Look at the benchmark above... Now look at E6300, E6400 and E4300 at stock performance.
Quake 4 benchmark 1600x1200

E4300=114.4 fps ----1.8 ghz
E6300=122.8 fps ----1.86 ghz
E6400=136 fps ------2.13 ghz

And you can see that E6300 is much faster than E4300 with only 60mhz advantage... E4300 is a good chip but you need to shave off 150-200mhz or so compared to it's bigger brother...
Click to expand...
At what RAM speed?
 
If the 4300 is priced aggressively it will be quite a good value at those speeds it would seem.
 
Im in...Better see you again soon AMD...

Im thinking

E4300/4400
965 Asus Commando
DDR2 800

Whatcha think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top