Upgrade to E4300 from a E6300 @ 3 GHz

S

sfsilicon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
505
Picked up the Fry's E4300 deal for $119 + tax. Debating if I should stick with my E6300 @ 3GHz or try OC'ing the E4300.

Been reading that people are having trouble with the E4300 and Gigabyte 965P-ds3. What is the current average OC that folks are getting with the E4300? Is 3.5-3.7 easily doable? Is the 16%-23% OC worth it? The E4300s in the OC database are only hitting 3.4GHz max on air. :(

The other consideration is that I'm going to use the CPUs in this box: Microfly w/ full ATX worklog. Will the E4300 run cooler or do I have to raise the voltage (= more heat) to get it to OC to a decent level?
 
Well. It sort of depends. I can tell you that a E6300 at same speed as an E4300 will be faster. For that reason, id want to keep the E6300. I wouldnt expect to get over 3ghz with the E4300 though if thats what you are thinking. Im sure it may go up to 3.2ghz fairly easy but....so what.

The plus side on the E4300 is, it has a much higher multiplier, which means less stress on memory and mobo. From what I understand the E6300's also tend to OC easier and use less volts. The E4300 tends to use more volts. Id stick with the E6300.

The only thing I hate about the E6300 is the low multiplier. Forces more stress on the motherboard and forces you to think about getting overclocking memory. Other than that though....


Although if you decide you want to sell the E6300 for a good price, id consider buying it. :)
 
I'm using an E6300 and considering a switch to e4300 also. My E6300 is running 450x7 (3.150 GHz) at 1.375V so I think you should consider trying for a little higher than 3GHz unless you are limited by your memory.

As for the comment about the e6300 at the same speed as an e4300 being faster, that is only true if you achieve that speed with the 9x multiplier. if you take your multiplier down to 7, the only difference between the processors is the virtualization technology that most people don't use.

I keep going back and forth. I'm really happy with my E6300 and 3.15, but something inside me just wants to get my name way up on the overclocking list. I'm pathetic really. even at stock speeds, any core 2 duo is way more powerful than any of my games require. I am limited either by hard drive speed or by graphics speed.
 
Yeah you said it. After about 3.2ghz, there is really no need for any more speed. That is plenty fast, which is why when I get my processor, I wont be going past that. Decent oc while staying cool and quiet is my objective.
 
Retsam said:
Yeah you said it. After about 3.2ghz, there is really no need for any more speed. That is plenty fast, which is why when I get my processor, I wont be going past that. Decent oc while staying cool and quiet is my objective.
Click to expand...

yep. and divide 3.6/3.2 and ull find a very marginal difference of 12.5%, which wont make a big difference
 
Thanks for all the comments. Does anyone have a link to a website with benchmarks for a 3.2, 3.5-7, or higher GHz CPUs?
 
what kinds of benchmarks are you looking for? Business content creation, video encoding, SuperPi, Floating point, 3D? Give us some direction as to what you're specifically looking for.

As an aide, my e4300 is running at 3195 on air (it's listed in the Intel C2D OC database), and I'm quite happy with it over my opteron 165 @ 2.6. Quite the improvement, I must say (and I hate Intel :D ).
 
There is few good reasons to switch between a e6300 and e4300 if you have your e6300 running fine above 3 gig.

Some of you are talking about "stressing" MB and ram which may not be the case at all, just running closer to its highest specification may be better terminology.

You are forgetting a higher FSB means better performance.
A e6300 slightly outperforms a e4300 at the same clock (excluding any FSB diff)

So if you are running your e6300@3gig+ and want to waste time and money sure go for an e4300 and possibly end up with a slightly lower performing machine.
 
Thanks for the benchmarks. I missed the Anandtech article and haven't been going to Xbitlabs in a while. I think I will wait for the 4MB Core 2's to drop in price and skip the E4300.
 
I am wondering if it is possible to do a DIRECT comparison of the E6300 vs E4300. I am having probs lowering the multi on my E4300. It just won't take for some reason and is stuck at 9x. I have seen a few other reports of the same also. In that case (the multi can't be changed) then there cannot be a direct comparison. Just cuz the overall speed is exactly the same doesn't mean it is a direct comparison due to the faster FSB speed and prolly faster memory speed even if a divider is used.
 
sfsilicon said:
Thanks for the benchmarks. I missed the Anandtech article and haven't been going to Xbitlabs in a while. I think I will wait for the 4MB Core 2's to drop in price and skip the E4300.
Click to expand...

4MB cache is a even a worse reason to upgrade to the e6320 or e6420 from a e6300. I will be going from a e6300 to Penryn.

May as well spend time and money on a "Worthwhile" upgrade, with a e6300@3gig you have a very fast processor be happy enjoy and wait for a decent upgrade.
 
sfsilicon said:
3D gaming please.
Click to expand...
You're bottlenecked more by your video card in gaming than your CPU. If you look at CPU benchmarks, they turn the graphics down so the video card won't hold the CPU back. That's not the way anyone actually games. In most games, under typical user settings, you'll not notice the difference between the two processors.
 
i really don't see any compelling reasons to go to an e4300 from an e6300. you'll likely end up with similar clocks, giving the nod to the e6300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top