stock E6300

[jeffyjaixx]

hey all,

i was just wondering..

a stock E6300 would be on par with which AMD processor?

Also, if you oc it... what would it then be on par with?

Thanks.

[Mikesnav]

Mid/High-end X2

OC'ing... depends on how far, but you get the picture.

[toddm27]

I think it would be on par with an fx60, and well beyond overclocked

[rozzyroz]

i would have to say it would be equal to an x2 with 1mbx2 at about 2.4ish give or take, according to this site: pconline.com (http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/evalue/evalue/cpu/0605/791941.html) look on pages 14 and 15

the 2.13 version (e6400 with 4mb l2) is slightly better then an fx60, both at stock. its hard to say what a stock 1.86 2mb l2 conroe would get on equal grounds, because not too many people run at stock speeds, and not too many es chips only have 2mb l2.

[jeffyjaixx]

ah... ok so it'd be around the FX-60 range?

[SMa]

i would have to say it would be equal to an x2 with 1mbx2 at about 2.4ish give or take, according to this site: pconline.com (http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/evalue/evalue/cpu/0605/791941.html) look on pages 14 and 15

the 2.13 version (e6400 with 4mb l2) is slightly better then an fx60, both at stock. its hard to say what a stock 1.86 2mb l2 conroe would get on equal grounds, because not too many people run at stock speeds, and not too many es chips only have 2mb l2.
I think most people run at stock speeds :stick:
And I thought the E64 will have 2mb l2?

[zert]

And I thought the E64 will have 2mb l2?
indeed the E6500 will get the 4mb L2 (same 2.13Ghz clockspeed)

[toddm27]

is there an e6500 due out? I thought the e6400 is 2.13 2mb

[onethreehill]

E6300 is faster than FX-60 in about nine benchmarks (total about 25 benchmarks?)

E6300 is slower than FX-60 in five benchmarks (less than 5 fps)

me think E6300 is slightly slower than FX-60

E6400 retail chips will have 2MB cache

E6400 in the review in an ES, it has 4MB cache

[Evilsizer]

E6300 is faster than FX-60 in about nine benchmarks (total about 25 benchmarks?)

E6300 is slower than FX-60 in five benchmarks (less than 5 fps)

me think E6300 is slightly slower than FX-60

E6400 retail chips will have 2MB cache

E6400 in the review in an ES, it has 4MB cache
coming into gaming i dought that 2mb vs 4mb is not going to be that big of a impact. You will see better results with a higher fsb even at same clock speeds.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2657
look at the first and then last benchmarks. the last one is a 1.86 oced to 2.4ghz. shows that the higher fsb to the cpu is more of a impact then the extra 2mbs.

[andyisc00l]

It doesn't make any sense to me...a $200 processor, the least expensive conroe out of the bunch, is beating every processor from amd or at least very comparable..something doesn't smell right

[pik-ard v1.1]

why not? do you remember how A64 completely destroyed northwood?

new architecture's can bring this kind of change.

[Absolute_0]

It doesn't make any sense to me...a $200 processor, the least expensive conroe out of the bunch, is beating every processor from amd or at least very comparable..something doesn't smell right

HMMMMMMMMM

Smells like progress to me ;)

E6300 i am guessing similar to 2.4 Ghz AMD dual core.

[rozzyroz]

I think most people run at stock speeds :stick:


the only people that i have seen with the conroe's (other then that site) with 2mb l2, have been people on here. they usually clock them up, because thats what we really want to see :toast:

[n00b 0f l337]

It doesn't make any sense to me...a $200 processor, the least expensive conroe out of the bunch, is beating every processor from amd or at least very comparable..something doesn't smell right
That smell is the soiled clothing of x2 owners. This is truth, conroe is truly rapeage on a new level