• 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.

Intel E6300 vs E7400

Simmonz

Simmonz

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
2,504
My friend is looking for a cheap upgrade from his E6320 and I have narrowed it down to the E6300 for around $105 and the E7400 for $143. My question is what is up with the E6300 ? How comes it is 1 GHz faster than his E6320. I know model number doesn't mean everything but it would make more sense if the newer model number was the 2.8 GHz and the older one was 1.8 GHz. The only difference between the E6300 and E7400 I can see is 1MB more cache on the E7400. So I guess my final question is is the E6300 a decent cheap upgrade over the E6320 ?

overclocking is out of the question. Last time he tried, he fried two sticks of RAM.
 
Lol, I didn't know they updated the 6300. Kinda weird they would update it but keep the old name.

Edit: Just released the one you linked to is an Intel Pentium Processor E6300, not a core 2 duo. So I don't think that would be an upgrade at all.
 
Shane_c82 said:
Lol, I didn't know they updated the 6300.
Click to expand...

I didn't know either. I thought it was a typo on the stores website so I stat Googling the model number and part number which brought me to that site I posted. It seems legit. I guess my friend will be going for it, he is strapped for cash or the extra $35 for the E7400 is not a bad deal for the extra MB of ache. At the very least the extra 1GHz will give him a good boost.
 
If your friend can I would go with the 7400, it's a core 2 duo part and not a Pentium like the one you linked to. Also 1 ghz faster than his 6320 and with a little more cache.
 
Shane_c82 said:
If your friend can I would go with the 7400, it's a core 2 duo part and not a Pentium like the one you linked to. Also 1 ghz faster than his 6320 and with a little more cache.
Click to expand...

I didn't even notice the lack of Core 2 Duo in the name. That makes much more sense now. I will recommend the E7400 to my friend. I am sure he can come up with the $35 if he wants it bad enough.
 
go for the e7200... really not much difference at all. its like what 300mhz? it has a nice high multi and clocks quite well.
 
The E6300 is a Core2Duo Penryn 45nm chip. If a Core2Duo has a mere 2 mbs of l2 cache Intel refuses to call it a Core2Duo but instead a Pentium Dual Core (which is different than Pentium and Pentium D). It is the same processor, same design, same manufacturing process.

It is the exactly the same chip. Same multiplier, same fsb, same everything except three differences.
  • The E6300 has 2mb of cache instead of 3. Some things will see an increase in performance due to the larger amount of cache
  • The E6300 is probably a lowered binned chip than the E7400, thus in theory it may not oc as well (though this isn't always the case).
  • The E6300 is technically a "newer chip", due to the upcoming release of windows 7 more and more businesses may want a chip with hardware Virtualization to run windows xp inside 7 with a virtual machine. Thus with all e6300s intel did not deactivate the Virtualization instructions which used to be present only the e8x00 series of 45nm dual core processors. Intel also makes some e5300 and e5400s with hardware virtualization, but some chips do not have these features.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/Details.aspx?sSpec=SLB9Y
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGU9
 
Roland00 said:
If a Core2Duo has a mere 2 mbs of l2 cache Intel refuses to call it a Core2Duo but instead a Pentium Dual Core (which is different than Pentium and Pentium D).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, however, my E4300 only has 2 MB L2 cache and it is a core 2 duo. Is your above statement only something they recently have done?
 
Shane_c82 said:
Thanks for the clarification, however, my E4300 only has 2 MB L2 cache and it is a core 2 duo. Is your above statement only something they recently have done?
Click to expand...

I should rephrase the comment.

For the 45nm, if a core 2 duo has 2mb of cache it is a pentium dual core with a 5000 or 6000 series number.
If it has 1 mb of cache it is a 2000 series (which is a mixture of 45 and 65 nm parts but mostly 65nm parts).
If the chip is 65nm and the core 2 duo has 1mb of cache it is a pentium dual core.
5000 series dual cores have 800 mhz fsb
6000 series have 1066 fsb. Currently the 6300 is the only dual core with 1066 fsb
 
Its just Intels confusing name branding.
For their 45nm wolfdales, If its E7x00 or higher, they brand it Core 2.
If its 6x00 or lower they brand it Pentium Dual Core.

As stated above, the Wolfdale Pentium Dual Core E6300 you're looking at is almost identical to the E7400 but with 1MB less cache. It is way faster that the Conroe Core 2 Duo E63x0
 
haadij404 said:
go for the e7200... really not much difference at all. its like what 300mhz? it has a nice high multi and clocks quite well.
Click to expand...

The OP said overclocking was out of the question. And get the E7400 hands down.
 
For those who may still be confused about the "e6300," please read the following. I have one of the first e6300 CPUs running the SFF in my study right now:

http://reviews.cnet.com/processors/intel-core-2-duo/4540-3086_7-31973859-4.html

It seems that there is indeed a new chip with almost the same nomenclature (dubbed as a standard "Intel Pentium" rather than a Core 2 Duo--hence the confusion!) fab'd in the 45nm process that is faster than the old one. It was released in quarter 2 of this year:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41493

The new one is 45nm running at 2.8GHz, the old one was a 65nm 1.86GHz CPU. I've had the old one for nearly 2 years now.
 
Last edited:
Jospeh said:
...he's doing it wrong...
Click to expand...

Yes, yes he was. That's why the last thing I need is for him to try again and have him coming into my room complaining that his PC won't work. Good news also, he has gotten together the money and will be getting the E7400 on Wednesday.
 
Alai said:
Why don't you just OC for him?
Click to expand...

I have never been successful at it. I have never fried anything mind you, but I have never got an overclock working that I was satisfied with. I don't have the patience for it.
 
Shane_c82 said:
The E6300 is not faster than the E6320.

6320
6300
Click to expand...

Well, it is certainly not slower, the 6320 has twice as much cache. (But these are both C2D's)




Roland00 said:
The E6300 is a Core2Duo Penryn 45nm chip.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's a 65nm Conroe (ALL C2 E/Q 6XXX series are 65nm)

Actually, apparently there are TWO Processors that have model number E6300! A Core 2 Duo E6300 and an Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300. (And yes the Pentium Dual Core E6300 is 45nm. That's really dumb....)

With that being said, (STILL) go for the E7xxx series chip (E7400) as it will be better in the long run.
 
Last edited:
My 7400 hit 4.4 and runs stable 4.2ghz with 1.4 vcore. Can't say they all clock like that but if it helps, good luck.
 
ochadd said:
My 7400 hit 4.4 and runs stable 4.2ghz with 1.4 vcore. Can't say they all clock like that but if it helps, good luck.
Click to expand...

Good for you but not much help. I advised him not to overclock as he will probably fry something.
 
Some sad news. He bought the CPU, went to install it, realized he forgot how to take of his CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Plus, then when he figured it out he realizes that he has no idea on where the special wrench thing is that take off the nuts on the other side of the board.


************************

Ok, he finally got it, he used plyers on the nuts. On top of thta, he found the proper tool afterwards under his girlfriends skirt on the floor.
 
Last edited:
So your three 1066FSB choices were:
SLGU9 E6300 2.8GHz (10.5x multiplier) 45nm, step R0, 2MB L2 with VTx for $88
SLB9Y E7400 2.8GHz (10.5x multiplier) 45nm, step R0, 3MB L2 no VTx for $120
SLGQ8 E7400 2.8GHz (10.5x multiplier) 45nm, step R0, 3MB L2 with VTx for $120 (looks like some Intel pages refer to this part as sSpec# SLGW3 - WTH?)

Personally, I really like being able to run a WinXP virtual machine under Win7 using Microsoft Virtual PC (works with Win7 Home Premium - it's only the goofy "XP mode", which is worthless from my testing, that only works in Win7 Pro and Ultimate). For some obscure reason, Microsoft virtualization relies upon Intel's VTx (or VTd) functionality even if it's not 100% necessary that they choose that requirement (perhaps for enterprises that want hardware control of virtualization technologies on desktops).

Anyway, if acting on your advice your friend spent the additional 40% for the extra 1MB of L2 cache (not a good buy in my opinion), then I hope you at least got him the part that includes VTx.
 
Last edited:
I got my son one of these and a Gigabyte EP45T-UD3LR mobo. I matched it with some DDR3 1600. Cool thing was the mobo automatically set the procs fsb to 1333 instead of 1066. It now is as fast as a E8400....quite impressive! You can get one from Newegg for about $109+/- !!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top