Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 & E6400: Tremendous Value Through Overclocking
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 26, 2006 8:17 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
If it weren't for AMD, we wouldn't have Core 2, and if it weren't for Core 2 then we wouldn't have affordable Athlon 64 X2s. Right now is one of the best times to purchase a new processor that we've seen in a long time -- assuming current prices hold and that availability of Core 2 Duo chips is reasonable in the next week or so. If you've been running a single core processor and are finally looking to make the jump to dual core computing, there's little reason not to at this point.
The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+ in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts. In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price. Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
The E6400 finds itself in between the X2 4200+ and X2 4600+ in price, but in performance the E6400 generally lands in between the 4600+ and 5000+. Once again, with these 2MB parts the performance advantage isn't nearly as impressive as with the 4MB parts (partly due to the fact that their native clock speed is lower, in addition to the smaller L2 cache), but even with AMD's new price cuts the Core 2 is still very competitive at worst. If you're not opposed to overclocking, then the E6400 can offer you more than you can get from any currently shipping AMD CPU - our chip managed an effortless 2.88GHz overclock which gave us $1000 CPU performance for $224.
There are two potential concerns with building a budget Core 2 Duo system. The first is availability, and hopefully we will have a clear answer on that subject in the near future. The other is motherboard cost. The ASUS P5W-DH we used in this article is currently the best overclocking motherboard we've seen for the socket 775 platform, but at $250 it is anything but cheap. We have seen quite a few of the P965 motherboards that can also overclock the budget Core 2 chips to reasonable levels, with prices hovering much closer to $140. Unfortunately, none of those boards can support SLI or CrossFire at present.
If you are simply interested in maximum processor performance, P965 with any of the Core 2 Duo parts is going to be very fast. Gamers on the other hand are probably going to at least want to think about SLI/CrossFire, as typical gaming settings will be GPU limited with just about any current single GPU. That means they might need to pay more for an appropriate motherboard, especially if overclocking is a primary concern. We're also waiting to find out how nForce 500 for Intel does in the overclocking arena; at present, there's definitely concerns about whether or not the NVIDIA motherboards can reach the high FSB speeds that are required for overclocking everything but the X6800.
The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
137 Comments
View All Comments
drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link
That's exactly my freaking point.These prices, while listed on their respective manufacturers sites, are not correct. They are two different pricing schemes. One is using the price at which Intel sells them to distributors, the other is not using any pricing scheme that I've ever seen before, except on this site.
I have varifiable proof(read: I know for an ABSOLUTE FACT) that the AMD prices are too high. How do I know this? Because my distributor prices are lower than what is listed in this article. Ergo, the prices listed CANNOT be the prices at which AMD sells to distributors.
Thus, you're using two different pricing scales, making any conclusions based on pricing completely bogus.
Here are accurate pricings(I'll list my price as well as listed MANUFACTURER Suggested Retail Price):
Athlon64 X2 3800+ - $149.00 - MSRP: $186.25
Athlon64 X2 4200+ - 183.00 - 228.75
Athlon64 X2 4600+ - 235.00 - 293.75
Athlon64 X2 5000+ - 294.74 - 368.75
Athlon64 FX-60/62 - 811.00 - 973.95
Core 2 Duo E6300 - 199.58 - 229.95
Core 2 Duo E6300 BTX - 209.05 - 229.95
Core 2 Duo E6400 - 239.58 - 272.95
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 334.32 - 379.95
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 553.26 - 629.95
Core 2 Duo X6800 - 1021.68 - 1164.95
Now, regardless of which pricing you use(distributor pricing, which is based off of manufacturer pricing, or MSRP), the pairings in the article are ALL incorrect. I tell everyone who asks to take these kinds of articles with a grain of salt.
coldpower27 - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link
That's not good enough, your word isn't a verifiable item. So that is what needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
It's has to be publicly available information on the web avialable from AMD and Intel, which it is as the AMD pricing charts are avaialble at AMD's site. The Intel numbers correlate directly to Intels' 1000 Unit Quantity chart.
The pricing chart listed for you is only worthwhile for you.
As well the current pricing scheme you posted correlates quite well to which processor vs which processor.
I am using the pricing scales using available information, the pricing scales you have been using aren't publically available so they can't be used. The results used in this article are jsut fine.
The problem with the information you posted is this is the first time I have seen numbers like that and it wasn't available to all.
The MSRP's you quoted while higher then the ones listed in the article paint approximately the same picture.
4200+ vs E6300
4600+ vs E6400
5000+ vs E6600
Your prices will not be use, as they are different from everything else we have seen so far.
The numbers in the article are apples to apples as they are both what is available to the public by both corporations.
drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link
That is EXACTLY what I said. Do you even read things before you reply to them?
The Intel pricing is using Intel's price to distributors. The AMD pricing is not using any pricing that is available in any chart or anywhere else.
Hence: the Intel pricing is too low and the AMD pricing is too high...thus forcing processor comparisons that do not actually exist.
And, no, my pricing is not only available to me. It's available to any company that uses distributors, because the pricing is the same, within a few dollars, between all of my distributors. Regionally, every company generally uses the same distributors. Thus, the pricing available from distributors is extremely relevant, despite the fact that you would like it to be otherwise.
wilki24 - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link
Erm... pulling the two (closest) price points out from ZZF:A64 X2 4600+
Anand: $240
ZZF: $260
Delta = $20
E6400
Anand: $224
ZZF: $239
Delta = $15
*****
A64 X2 3800+ (Really should be the 4200+, since it's closer to the E6300 in price, but ZZF has majorly overinflated prices for that chip for some reason.)
Anand: $152
ZZF: $154
Delta = $2
E6300
Anand: $183
ZZF: $199
Delta = $16
In one case, the delta between the two is $5 in Intel's favor, and in the other (not quite matched up price point) it's $14 in AMD's.
Going by ZZF, it would seem that the point you're trying to make doesn't seem to be based in fact.
coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
The prices are completely accurate as they are MSRP's. You want "real world" pricing, this fluctuates based on supply and demand, and is pointless to report as it constantly changes.If AMD wanted they could have listed their "OEM Distributer" pricing on their website, but they don't so we go by what they have listed there. If you want, you can complain to AMD about not listing the distributer pricing on their site.
coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Like I said if your talking about prices at online retailers it will be a different story, I already discussed this part. Those reamin to be seen.bob661 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
The AMD prices are a tad higher than listed at ZZF and Monarch. We'll have no way of knowing Intel pricing until the chips are released. I heard it got pushed back to 8/7.coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Yeah judging by what we have seen so far, no online store has decreased below AMD's retail pricing on their website for the time being. Let alone the OEM distributer prices reported by Dailytech earlier before.gmallen - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
For AMD owners, the true cost of using Conroe includes a new motherboard. I can upgrade to the 5000+ with my current board. So, for me, the AMD solution is much cheaper.krisia2006 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
The AM2 AMD cpus in the review also require a new mobo/platform for many AMD owners, no?