L625A348 E6400 ... 4Mb L2 ???

Printable View

10-09-2006, 03:54 AM
TaPaKaH

L625A348 E6400 ... 4Mb L2 ???

I`m confused :confused:

The story with my E6400 started when I bought it from kiwi. Then I put it under DI and got a WR on that :cool: But the results were doudtful because the CPU was faster than most of conroes @ that freq :stick:
Now, though, with new CPU-Z 1.37 it all got clear. Downloaded it today in the morning - tested it on my mom`s PC (since my E6700 rig is undercostruction) - didn`t believe my eyes :slobber: - CPU has shown 4Mb of cache !!! Tried CrustalCPUID - the same thing - 4096Kbytes
Screenshot
Some CPU-Z validation
Thought it was a bug -> tested it in SuperPi (under TT BigTyphoon + chilled air , Vcore = 1.625V ) where the difference between Conroe and Allendale can plainly be seen ... and ... got this result :slap: This is more Conroe-ish :confused: (OS - stock & dirty WinXP) (sry, never tested it before - it was just running under BOXed cooler :D )

So, there you have it... if you want for me to run ANY benchmark (to establish that it`s not a bug) - just ask :rolleyes:
If you are in Latvia - you`re welcome @ my house :D
BTW - is there any other software that can detect CPU cache ???

P.S.

Am I forgetting something ?
Yes :D
Pic of the chip
The BOX

Does anyone over here have L625A348 E6400 or similar ??

kiwi, we have some talking to do :nono: :D
10-09-2006, 04:06 AM
Evilsizer

wow if that is the case then kiwi i want one too! pretty please! yes for superpi times. the extra cache make a difference but in gaming and other benches overall increase from 2mb more cache is 8-10%.

use intels cpu id program, i dont know what it is called. i have only seen it used a few times in the past.
10-09-2006, 04:08 AM
oijkue

OMG!! You are so lucky :eek: :banana:
Any superpi 1M result and "sandra cache and memory test" with default clock 2.13G?
10-09-2006, 04:11 AM
TaPaKaH

Quote:

Any superpi 1M result and "sandra cache and memory test" with default clock 2.13G?

Coming right up :D

Results will be in ~3hrs because now I have to go :(
10-09-2006, 04:16 AM
Crankybugga

Heh good pickup.
Now we need to figure how you enabled the extra :)
10-09-2006, 04:25 AM
skaktuss

I dont get it! why didnt kiwi notice such a weird and important circumstance?!
10-09-2006, 04:26 AM
TaPaKaH

because I noticed it today ... CPU-Z 1.36 and lower report 2Mb cache :)
10-09-2006, 04:37 AM
Ceresir

At one point Intel must have asked themselves, will the E6500 be an 'E6400 with 4MB', or an 'E6600 with 2MB'.

They eventually chose the second option, E6600 with 2MB, but must have still manufactured a bunch of E6500's @ E6400 with 4MB, before their decision.

Usually those get binned down and sent to OEMs like Dell and will be shipped to clueless users who will never know or notice the difference, but an extremely small amount must have managed to escape to other distributors. My guess is theres a hundred or so Dell users who have 6500s sold to them as 6400s, but of course dont know.

Thats my guess.
10-09-2006, 04:39 AM
TaPaKaH

(just for fun :D) i`ve contacted support.intel.com site to have their comment on that ... waiting for answer to come :D (I think somebody in Intel gets :slapass: )
10-09-2006, 05:09 AM
shimmishim

wow. neato! what a find. :)
10-09-2006, 05:15 AM
DTU_XaVier

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaPaKaH

(just for fun :D) i`ve contacted support.intel.com site to have their comment on that ... waiting for answer to come :D (I think somebody in Intel gets :slapass: )

They'll probably ask you to sent it back to them for some "testing" :p:
(You will, of course, never see that particular CPU again :cool: :D)

Best Regards :toast:
10-09-2006, 05:17 AM
taemun

hehe tell them that they can have it back for testing if they advance ship you a X6800 for replacement :D

t
10-09-2006, 06:30 AM
freecableguy

what does your BIOS report?
lucky indeed.
10-09-2006, 08:41 AM
TaPaKaH

Quote:

what does your BIOS report?

4096Kb :)

Quote:

Any superpi 1M result and "sandra cache and memory test" with default clock 2.13G?

1M - http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/4209/pistockqy4.png
About Sandra - I`ve downloaded 2005 version 1069 - doesn`t work :( Can you give the link of "normal one" ? :)
10-09-2006, 08:46 AM
Supertim0r

have you tried with everest ?
10-09-2006, 08:54 AM
an0nym0us

that sounds pretty cool, i'm subscribing to this thread for sure.
10-09-2006, 09:07 AM
TaPaKaH

Quote:

have you tried with everest ?

what exactly ? isn`t it for mem.benching ?
Well - if you want cache report - there you go :) http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/5691/everestii0.png
10-09-2006, 09:07 AM
3oh6

so what about the E6300 that you got the 12.5XX @ 4GHz? can you drop that in a stock board with v1.37 and confirm what everyone has been saying all along, that it is a 4MB L2 chip as well?

time to start looking for L625A348 i guess ;)
10-09-2006, 09:13 AM
TaPaKaH

Quote:

o what about the E6300 that you got the 12.5XX @ 4GHz? can you drop that in a stock board with v1.37 and confirm what everyone has been saying all along, that it is a 4MB L2 chip as well?

I have already said - it was a "white box" ES with 4Mb L2 for sure :) ... sry - can`t test - already sold it :(
10-09-2006, 09:33 AM
AhGuan

cool whats the best current batch for E6300? that you have tried?
10-09-2006, 09:36 AM
3oh6

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaPaKaH

I have already said - it was a "white box" ES with 4Mb L2 for sure :) ... sry - can`t test - already sold it :(

ahhh...sorry, didn't ever see that info. i knew it was a white box ES but didn't know you confirmed it a 4MB L2 chip. thanx!
10-09-2006, 09:49 AM
freecableguy

white box or retail? the box in the first post is a retail from ZZF (it looks). What again are you claiming? White box or not?
10-09-2006, 09:56 AM
TaPaKaH

Quote:

white box or retail? the box in the first post is a retail from ZZF (it looks). What again are you claiming? White box or not?

E6300 (WR chip) was a "white box ES"
E6400 is just simple retail CPU with bonus (extra cache :D )
10-09-2006, 09:56 AM
erwinz

you lucky guy.. :D

:woot:

:hehe: oh where could i found another proc like that.. :D

is it up for sale? hehehe.. really nice find.. ;)
10-09-2006, 10:21 AM
kiwi

Actually there were like 20 cpus of this same batch available to me and I could theoretically track at least 4 of them and see if other cpus have something similar. You should check it on other boards and see cache info in bios (not modded in any way :))
10-09-2006, 10:22 AM
TaPaKaH

Goe an e-mail from Intel themselves (some Adolfo S.) :D

Quote:

We cannot give a comment. We do not rely on information provided by 3rd party software; please use the Intel(R) Processor Identification Utility to properly identify your processor... blablabla (you should not buy OEM CPUs) ... blablabla (Intel software is the best) .... :nono:

Did run the software (got 4Mb L2) - sent screenshots to them. Wrote in e-mail

Quote:

Nice CPU, mates, are there more 4Mb L2 Allendales ?

:D :D
10-09-2006, 10:27 AM
kiwi

How come you noticed it only now? You used only cpuz before which did not report 4MB before version 1.37?
10-09-2006, 10:27 AM
TheDro

Whats wrong with buying OEM's? Mines OEM as well.
10-09-2006, 10:30 AM
theteamaqua

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaPaKaH

Goe an e-mail from Intel themselves (some Adolfo S.) :DDid run the software (got 4Mb L2) - sent screenshots to them. Wrote in e-mail :D :D

yeah i dont think e mailing those tech support helps. look at what answer he gave u ....
10-09-2006, 10:34 AM
TaPaKaH

Quote:

How come you noticed it only now? You used only cpuz before which did not report 4MB before version 1.37?

1)I am an idiot :D never paid attention to BIOS
2)never OCed this CPU - set it to 375x8 (BOX) from the very start and forgot about it ... DryIced it only one (got WR) ... then it was transferred to my mom`s PC, so I got no access to it :D
10-09-2006, 11:55 AM
irev210

i had a E6300 ES that had 4mb of l2 cache

i figured since it was an ES, they just didnt care

I say you remove the top :)
10-09-2006, 12:36 PM
OV3RCLOCK3R

I've got a week 25 6300 and just checked with the latest cpu-z and guess what :slobber: :slobber: :slobber: :slobber:

2MB:banana: :woot:
10-09-2006, 12:45 PM
CaNNibaL

Lucky guy ^^
10-09-2006, 12:54 PM
GrimReaper

Damn time to start huting down these cpus :woot:

OV3RCLOCK3R :rolleyes:

how come here it shows only 2mb?
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120541 :confused: :stick:
10-09-2006, 01:43 PM
HamidFULL

here is another two report :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=100737
http://www.geocities.jp/gbxfs134/13172.jpg
10-09-2006, 01:49 PM
kiwi

Don't confuse with ES chips, look at revision, there were some ES chips with 4MB cache

This is Retail, B2 :)
10-09-2006, 01:54 PM
syne_24

wow that's pretty neat..looks like your e6400 was misplaced at birth! It was meant to be an e6600 :D

hmm.. i recall seeing an e6400 also week 25 in the glass shelf at fry's, that didnt look like it was for sale; makes me wonder if it too was also like yours..
10-09-2006, 02:03 PM
CaNNibaL

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

here is another two report :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=100737
http://www.geocities.jp/gbxfs134/13172.jpg

Those are conroe... this one has 4mb cache and it's rated as a Allendale ^^
10-09-2006, 02:09 PM
HamidFULL

TaPaKaH please give us picture with Intel Processor Identification Utility

OV3RCLOCK3R you find week 25 4MB?
10-09-2006, 02:11 PM
HamidFULL

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaNNibaL

Those are conroe... this one has 4mb cache and it's rated as a Allendale ^^

I'm so confused
10-09-2006, 02:16 PM
CaNNibaL

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

I'm so confused

So... TaPaKaH bought a E6300 Stepping 6 Revision B2... So It's a Allendale... Allendales come with 2 mb L2 Chache... His came with 4 mb that is odd so he posted here...

The pics you showed were refering to A1 revs and similar which CORE is CONROE not Allendale...

In conclusion 4mb cache @ CONROE = Normal... @ Allendale = Odd Thing !

Got it ?! If not no prob ; ) I'll try again ^^
10-09-2006, 02:31 PM
outcast623

cannibal in the cpu-z screen shots its a e6400 wich is not a conroe. So stop giving the guy a hard time.
10-09-2006, 02:32 PM
HamidFULL

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaNNibaL

So... TaPaKaH bought a E6300 Stepping 6 Revision B2... So It's a Allendale... Allendales come with 2 mb L2 Chache... His came with 4 mb that is odd so he posted here...

The pics you showed were refering to A1 revs and similar which CORE is CONROE not Allendale...

In conclusion 4mb cache @ CONROE = Normal... @ Allendale = Odd Thing !

Got it ?! If not no prob ; ) I'll try again ^^

I got it tanx :cool:
10-09-2006, 02:34 PM
CaNNibaL

Quote:

Originally Posted by outcast623

lol cannibal in the cpu-z screen shots its a e6400 wich is not a conroe. So stop giving the guy a hard time.

@ ES or A1 they are described as a A1 / Core:Conroe :\ aren't they ?!

I was trying to help afterall ^^

Plesase correct me if i mistaken
10-09-2006, 03:56 PM
deadlock7

Can you use 9 multi?
10-09-2006, 04:35 PM
Sneaky

wtf... this is so odd
10-09-2006, 04:54 PM
ozzimark

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimReaper

how come here it shows only 2mb?
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120541 :confused: :stick:

if you had read the thread, you would have seen how it reports 2mb for 1.36 and earlier, 4mb with 1.37 :toast:
10-09-2006, 04:57 PM
OV3RCLOCK3R

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimReaper

OV3RCLOCK3R :rolleyes:

:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

TaPaKaH please give us picture with Intel Processor Identification Utility

OV3RCLOCK3R you find week 25 4MB?

Nope, I was messing about with my post anyway although my cpu IS week 25 :)
10-09-2006, 05:05 PM
oijkue

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimReaper

Damn time to start huting down these cpus :woot:
OV3RCLOCK3R :rolleyes:
how come here it shows only 2mb?
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120541 :confused: :stick:

I think cpu-z 1.36 version too old,so it cant validate this unusual E6400
update to 1.37,everything is ok
10-09-2006, 05:14 PM
oijkue

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaPaKaH

4096Kb :)1M - http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/4209/pistockqy4.png
About Sandra - I`ve downloaded 2005 version 1069 - doesn`t work :( Can you give the link of "normal one" ? :)

The Sandra Lite latest version is 2007.SP1 (10.105)
you can try this link :fact:
http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.ht...64&langx=en&a=

My E6300 ES B1step with 2M cache at default 1.86G clock test

http://219.84.132.86/ftproot/060404/6300/6300_sd5.png
10-09-2006, 06:03 PM
phile

For clarity's sake, the E6300 and E6400 chips ARE conroe cores with half the 4MB L2 disabled. CPUZ is the only application that tags them as Allendale, and they are mistaken. The genuine Allendale cores have a native 2MB L2, and certain conroe features disabled, like VT. I wish to God that the CPUZ people would stop perpetuating this error.

-phil
10-09-2006, 06:09 PM
Fred_Pohl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilsizer

wow if that is the case then kiwi i want one too! pretty please! yes for superpi times. the extra cache make a difference but in gaming and other benches overall increase from 2mb more cache is 8-10%.

use intels cpu id program, i dont know what it is called. i have only seen it used a few times in the past.

0-10% actually with about a 5% average increase from an extra 2MB of L2.
10-09-2006, 11:24 PM
sarachem

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaPaKaH

But the results were doudtful because the CPU was faster than most of conroes @ that freq :stick:

allendales, you mean...
i think that its possible... E6500 already =)
intresting to compare your exlusive processor with real conroe on lowered multiplier
10-09-2006, 11:58 PM
cpuz

In order to get the REAL L2 size, run either cachemem or latency.

ID programs (BIOS included) use cache flags, and sometimes it can be buggy.
10-10-2006, 12:02 AM
theteamaqua

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpuz

In order to get the REAL L2 size, run either cachemem or latency.

ID programs (BIOS included) use cache flags, and sometimes it can be buggy.

yeah just runs some bench and ocmpare it with E6600 say both at 3GHz, and see how that goes, both at 8x multi so that the only difference is the cpu
10-10-2006, 01:05 AM
cpuz

I uploaded cachemem for you :
http://www.cpuid.com/download/Cachemem.zip
10-10-2006, 02:08 AM
[cTx]Philosophy

interesting for sure..
10-10-2006, 02:28 AM
camouflage

:confused: Maybe the amount of alcohol addicted INTEL factory workers increased ..............:slapass:
10-10-2006, 03:22 AM
thunderstruck!

Quote:

Originally Posted by phile

For clarity's sake, the E6300 and E6400 chips ARE conroe cores with half the 4MB L2 disabled. CPUZ is the only application that tags them as Allendale, and they are mistaken. The genuine Allendale cores have a native 2MB L2, and certain conroe features disabled, like VT. I wish to God that the CPUZ people would stop perpetuating this error.

-phil

And you know this how? What's your source?
10-10-2006, 03:36 AM
phile

Plenty of evidence.

- E6300/E6400 have the full 4MB L2 cache on the die, with half disabled
- CPUZ is the only application that tags the 2MB conroes as Allendale
- The E4300 is a genuine Allendale core CPU with a native 2MB L2 cache, and is not yet released

And, then there's this:

"You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled."

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3...f/index.x?pg=1

-phil
10-10-2006, 04:44 AM
TaPaKaH

As asked - CacheMem done :D
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2562/untitledhd0.png

It clearly says - 4Mb L2 :cool:
10-10-2006, 05:39 AM
cpuz

TaPaKah you made it well but all of this is fake.

This is your validation :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596

This is a fake because the code name Allendale only results from the L2 size detection (namely 2MB). If there were really 4MB, the validation would have displayed Conroe (Phile : this may be wrong, you're right, but in this case this helped finding out the fake :))

Also we found out that you already tried your cheat here :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=122548
(the submission IP is the same as yours)

Some other fakes attempts by TaPaKah (these were well detected as fakes)
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120207
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120541
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120546
10-10-2006, 05:44 AM
TaPaKaH

Quote:

Also we found out that you already tried your cheat here :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=122548
(the submission IP is the same as yours)

:confused: That`s not mine !!! :eek:

Quote:

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120541
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120546

These aren`t properly validated `cuz of my OS (already said that in the previous topics ) !!!
10-10-2006, 05:44 AM
mackanz

Ouch!

120207 is a nice one =P
Nice to have a cpu where you can switch between 2 and 4mb of cache :D
10-10-2006, 05:49 AM
phile

What are the chances a sole E6400 left manufacturing without having had 2MB of the L2 disabled? Until I know different, I must believe that such an error would have happened with an entire batch of chips, and not just a single one.

Anyone have detailed knowledge of the manufacturing process, especially the step where half the L2 is disabled? Is this done manually, by a technician? Is this step automated?

-phil
10-10-2006, 06:25 AM
mrlobber

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpuz

TaPaKah you made it well but all of this is fake.

This is your validation :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596

This is a fake because the code name Allendale only results from the L2 size detection (namely 2MB). If there were really 4MB, the validation would have displayed Conroe (Phile : this may be wrong, you're right, but in this case this helped finding out the fake :))

Also we found out that you already tried your cheat here :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=122548
(the submission IP is the same as yours)

Some other fakes attempts by TaPaKah (these were well detected as fakes)
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120207
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120541
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120546

Ok, I don't get it then, what's your final verdict?

Does TaPaKaH have a 4Mb cache or a 2Mb cache CPU, in your opinion?

And what is he exactly faking then? :confused:
10-10-2006, 06:40 AM
Quentin

Faker of the year :slapass:
10-10-2006, 06:45 AM
The Stilt

The evidence that Franck showed is water proof so the case is pretty much closed, don´t you all agree?

:slapass: -> TaPaKaH
10-10-2006, 07:04 AM
jmax_oc

He faked for a lot of things :D
I said it 1 month ago
10-10-2006, 08:34 AM
kiwi

I sold him this cpu, so cpu itself is not fake :)
10-10-2006, 09:10 AM
erwinz

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwi

I sold him this cpu, so cpu itself is not fake :)

I second this.. I think he is not a fake.. We have seen that Intel have an ES E6400 with 4mb cache.. why would this be any different.. :fact:

He is just a lucky guy.. :cool:
10-10-2006, 09:28 AM
cpulloverclock

ok but in the doubt, its wrs are removed until he'll give us better proofs ;)
10-10-2006, 09:45 AM
thunderstruck!

Sorry to hear this. I still think TaPaKaH didn't fake any of these scores. He even ran cachemem and it showed 4mb. Tell him what he has to do to prove he's not a cheater and we'll see if it's true. Why would he make this thread??
10-10-2006, 09:46 AM
ANP !!!

Ur one Lucky D*G.. LOL Sorry..

Good for u. Have fun !!!!
10-10-2006, 09:54 AM
cpuz

If the CPU really was a E6400 with 4MB it would have reported something like this :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=100737

This a E6400 ES, and these CPUs actually had a 4MB L2. And notice that the code name is reported as Conroe. This is logical, as cpuz relies on L2 size to report either Conroe or Allendale.

On this validation now :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596
4MB L2 and Allendale. If the CPU was real, it would have said Conroe, and period. Of course the author of the validation could not have known that.

IMO cpuz was cheated and the L2 size was changed with a debugger.

Concerning the cachemem screen, it could have been made on a E6600/E6700 and pasted over a fake cpuz screen. It's not very complicated to do.

Now, if I'm wrong I'll be the 1st to apologize. But at that moment I'm sure the validation shows a fake.
10-10-2006, 10:12 AM
HamidFULL

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpuz

If the CPU really was a E6400 with 4MB it would have reported something like this :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=100737

This a E6400 ES, and these CPUs actually had a 4MB L2. And notice that the code name is reported as Conroe. This is logical, as cpuz relies on L2 size to report either Conroe or Allendale.

On this validation now :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596
4MB L2 and Allendale. If the CPU was real, it would have said Conroe, and period. Of course the author of the validation could not have known that.

IMO cpuz was cheated and the L2 size was changed with a debugger.

Concerning the cachemem screen, it could have been made on a E6600/E6700 and pasted over a fake cpuz screen. It's not very complicated to do.

Now, if I'm wrong I'll be the 1st to apologize. But at that moment I'm sure the validation shows a fake.

I'm with you
10-10-2006, 10:40 AM
kiwi

Well, there is crystalcpuid and everest v3. What do they say? :)
10-10-2006, 10:43 AM
mrlobber

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpuz

If the CPU really was a E6400 with 4MB it would have reported something like this :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=100737

This a E6400 ES, and these CPUs actually had a 4MB L2. And notice that the code name is reported as Conroe. This is logical, as cpuz relies on L2 size to report either Conroe or Allendale.

On this validation now :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596
4MB L2 and Allendale. If the CPU was real, it would have said Conroe, and period. Of course the author of the validation could not have known that.

Thanks for clearing it up, Franck. Now if I understand, a combination of Allendale & 4 Mb cache reported simultaneously by CPU-Z is impossible because of the algorithm how CPU-Z detects and reports all the cpu features, right? Then it would mean, that indeed, either deliberately or not, but some intervention has been there which has messed up the cpu properties...
10-10-2006, 10:49 AM
cpuz

yes, exactly.
10-10-2006, 11:17 AM
kiwi

Proof is simple :) Get video camera, film cpu, installation procedure in the socket, cooler, loading bios, xp etc and opening and showing cpuz, crystalcpuid etc :)

Yes, video editing exists but then again, nothing is 100% truth :D
10-10-2006, 08:21 PM
TaPaKaH

already got rid of that CPU since it was making me so much problems...
10-10-2006, 09:04 PM
skaktuss

damn, TaPaKaH! If you say that this is not fake, you shouldnt give up run away like a coward! :slapass:
any of latvian OCers could help u to proof it! now even i think that you're a cheater!
10-10-2006, 09:52 PM
xlink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilsizer

wow if that is the case then kiwi i want one too! pretty please! yes for superpi times. the extra cache make a difference but in gaming and other benches overall increase from 2mb more cache is 8-10%.

use intels cpu id program, i dont know what it is called. i have only seen it used a few times in the past.

the average according to anandtech is around 2.5% and this diminishes as FSB and memory speeds are increased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2_Duo

Quote:

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 4mb 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.

Quoted from TechReport:

You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2 MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2 MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3...f/index.x?pg=1

The real Allendale processors, including the E4300, will be released during Q1 2007.

looks like yours slipped l2 cache deactivation...
10-10-2006, 09:58 PM
GrimReaper

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzimark

if you had read the thread, you would have seen how it reports 2mb for 1.36 and earlier, 4mb with 1.37 :toast:

hehe looks like I was right all along.. :stick:

TaPaKaH :mad:
why did you get rid of it? :slapass:

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120541
10-11-2006, 07:32 AM
DaWaN

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaPaKaH

already got rid of that CPU since it was making me so much problems...

In other words you are admitting your cheat ?

If it was real you should never get rid of CPU's like that, sorry TaPaKaH i'm really doubting every result of you now.....
10-11-2006, 11:52 AM
JoeBar

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaPaKaH

already got rid of that CPU since it was making me so much problems...

Truth problems...? :stick:
10-11-2006, 12:44 PM
Shelnutt2

So its a fake?

Cause I was about to point out 775 Xeons, Conroe based. They come in the same clock speeds are our Core 2 Duo's but the slow ones also get 4mb cache...chance that he had one of them?
10-12-2006, 11:50 AM
G H Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimReaper

why did you get rid of it? :slapass:

It seems pretty obvious ;)
10-12-2006, 12:21 PM
itznfb

yea, every E6400 with 4mb i've seen reported have been labeled as Conroe. this is the only one i've seen with Allendale designation. plus the cut and run... looks like a fake unfortunatly
10-12-2006, 12:22 PM
fhpchris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

Faker of the year :slapass:

That is why.

Nice to see that the CPUz guys can show his fake validations, and prove that he is up to no good :)

I love the one that says "conroe" with 2mb L2 cache! LOL!
11-28-2006, 04:55 AM
BoomerAus

Ok, you are saying it's a fake.
So why are IT Estate selling E6400 w/ 4MB L2 Cache?

http://www.itestate.com.au/category....10003062600201

Now i don't always trust wiki's as they are not always correct but;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C...cture#Desktops

Quote:Allendale, 65 nm, dual-core, cut-down Conroe. (Some consider the E6300 and E6400 to be Allendales; however, the E6300 and E6400 actually have 4 MB L2 cache but 2 MB have been disabled. The Allendale E4300 is expected to be released in Q1 2007.)

Finally just to link you all up with someone who recently bought one(hopefully not the same person as the OP).
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...m?t=633167&p=1
11-28-2006, 05:08 AM
cpuz

Some E6400 Engineering Samples (and only ES !) had a 4MB L2.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:30 AM.

XtremeSystems