Athlon II 240 vs. Intel E6300

[Goober]

They both run at 2.8ghz and they both say they run at 65w, which I suspect is more that they actually use. So, my question is, which is the cooler running cpu?

[swivelguy2]

The E6300 is probably lower power. SPCR compared the X2 250 against an E7200 and the E7200 won in power comparisons. See here:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article949-page3.html

The E6300 is, however, clocked a little faster than the E7200 (2.8 GHz vs 2.53 GHz), so it may consume a little more power. If we guess that power consumption is proportional to clock speed, then the E6300 might be expected to run at 97W on full load (88W for E7200 * 2.8/2.53), compared to the X2 250's 108W.

The E6300 also lacks some cache compared to the E7200, but I don't know if that would translate into a reduction in power consumption.

Performance wise, the E6300 and and X2 250 split, each winning some benchmarks, but the E6300 wins more:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&p2=94

[thejamppa]

I'd say Intel has advantage in cooler running. E6300 is wonderful CPU. But Intel inteds to win in syntehtic benchmarks and take beating in game tests. Besides E6300 should have VT support unlike E7x00 series or E5x00 if I remember correctly.

E5x00 are completely beaten in most game tests by X2 2xx series while synthetic benchmarks they go roughly 45% vs 55% for Intel's win.

But C2D is cool running architechture and power consumption is lower than AMD's in load while in Idle AMD's more effective C'n'Q might given an edge over Intel's EIST/SpeedStep.

[ilovejedd]

The E6300 is, however, clocked a little faster than the E7200 (2.8 GHz vs 2.53 GHz), so it may consume a little more power. If we guess that power consumption is proportional to clock speed, then the E6300 might be expected to run at 97W on full load (88W for E7200 * 2.8/2.53), compared to the X2 250's 108W.

Not really sure about these computations. For one thing, iirc, the 88W is for the full system power consumption, not just the CPU. Also, the E7200 has more cache than the E6300. They do have the same FSB, though. My guess, power consumption of the E6300 and E7200 would be very close, maybe nearly identical. Since the E6300 is the more "mature" of the two, it might even have lower power consumption than the E7200.

By the way, I'd like to mention that my E5200 uses less power than a Celeron 430 which is a 35W TDP part. It does seems as if Intel's being very conservative on the power ratings on these lower-end 45nm chips. (yeah, yeah, I know TDP is supposed to be for cooling and not power consumption).

[bozar]

Athlon II responds very well to undervolting so both should have good thermals.

[loimlo]

Though a bit off topic, you should take motherboard's power consumption into consideration. I've recently assembled two systems that experienced 10W under load in Intel's favor and 5W at idle in AMD's favor under similar situation.

CPU: Intel 5300, AMD X2 245
MB: Gigabyte P43, MSI 770
VGA: HIS 4850
Power: Seasonic S12-II 380W

As for cooler temp, they all both ran very cool with Xigmatek 1283. I'd choose a motherboard that better suits SPCR usage like more fan controls in bios, or phases changing mechanisms. I don't really care 10W differences if the system serves me very well.

[loimlo]

By the way, I'd like to mention that my E5200 uses less power than a Celeron 430 which is a 35W TDP part. It does seems as if Intel's being very conservative on the power ratings on these lower-end 45nm chips. (yeah, yeah, I know TDP is supposed to be for cooling and not power consumption).

Although Intel may be very conservative on TDP ratings on 45nm CPUs, they trimmed down stock coolers very aggressively compared to 65nm 65W ratings. Sometimes, these tiny and cute coolers comforted me very well.

[ilovejedd]

Although Intel may be very conservative on TDP ratings on 45nm CPUs, they trimmed down stock coolers very aggressively compared to 65nm 65W ratings.

Yeah, I know. The E5200 and E7200 came with the same cooler as my Celeron 430, while the older E2160's HSF seems nearly twice the height.

[jessekopelman]

Lowest TDP or even actual power consumption does not equal cooler running. Greater area to dissipate heat can be just as useful as less heat to dissipate. Athlon II is the larger die and so I expect it to be the cooler running, even though the E6300 may use less power (especially at load). Also, Cn'Q is more aggressive than EIST, so I have no doubt that the Athlon II will be cooler at idle.

[Goober]

Though a bit off topic, you should take motherboard's power consumption into consideration. I've recently assembled two systems that experienced 10W under load in Intel's favor and 5W at idle in AMD's favor under similar situation.

CPU: Intel 5300, AMD X2 245
MB: Gigabyte P43, MSI 770
VGA: HIS 4850
Power: Seasonic S12-II 380W

Considering the 5300 is only 2.6ghz and the 245 is 2.9ghz I'd say a 10 watt difference is pretty good. With both processors running at 2.8ghz I'd imagine the difference would be negligible or even in AMD's favor.

I imagine as far as speed is concerned the difference is probably minimal. The main thing I have against AMD is that to get CnQ to work right under XP with these new Phenom II based cpus I have to use a third party program like K10stat.

[loimlo]

Considering the 5300 is only 2.6ghz and the 245 is 2.9ghz I'd say a 10 watt difference is pretty good. With both processors running at 2.8ghz I'd imagine the difference would be negligible or even in AMD's favor.

I imagine as far as speed is concerned the difference is probably minimal. The main thing I have against AMD is that to get CnQ to work right under XP with these new Phenom II based cpus I have to use a third party program like K10stat.

By contrast, I prefer AMD to Intel due to 3rd party software's existence such as K10stat.
Anyway, I configure friends' systems using K10stat with stock CnQ settings under XP. K10stat first shows normal CnQ settings for your adjustments. And be sure to use "Ganged(based on high-est load core)" to avoid potential performance loss.

[Scoop]

I'd say Intel has advantage in cooler running. E6300 is wonderful CPU. But Intel inteds to win in syntehtic benchmarks and take beating in game tests. Besides E6300 should have VT support unlike E7x00 series or E5x00 if I remember correctly.

E5x00 are completely beaten in most game tests by X2 2xx series while synthetic benchmarks they go roughly 45% vs 55% for Intel's win.

But C2D is cool running architechture and power consumption is lower than AMD's in load while in Idle AMD's more effective C'n'Q might given an edge over Intel's EIST/SpeedStep.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3615&p=9

You were saying?

The age old feature disabled cost reduced G41 with an E6300 beats the Athlon II 250 on the best of AMD's IGP chipsets in every game pretty convincingly.

[thejamppa]

I'd say Intel has advantage in cooler running. E6300 is wonderful CPU. But Intel inteds to win in syntehtic benchmarks and take beating in game tests. Besides E6300 should have VT support unlike E7x00 series or E5x00 if I remember correctly.

E5x00 are completely beaten in most game tests by X2 2xx series while synthetic benchmarks they go roughly 45% vs 55% for Intel's win.

But C2D is cool running architechture and power consumption is lower than AMD's in load while in Idle AMD's more effective C'n'Q might given an edge over Intel's EIST/SpeedStep.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3615&p=9

You were saying?

The age old feature disabled cost reduced G41 with an E6300 beats the Athlon II 250 on the best of AMD's IGP chipsets in every game pretty convincingly.

See, I said: E5x00 are beaten, not E6300 which is completely different CPU...

[ist.martin]

I'd say Intel has advantage in cooler running. E6300 is wonderful CPU. But Intel inteds to win in syntehtic benchmarks and take beating in game tests. Besides E6300 should have VT support unlike E7x00 series or E5x00 if I remember correctly.

E5x00 are completely beaten in most game tests by X2 2xx series while synthetic benchmarks they go roughly 45% vs 55% for Intel's win.

But C2D is cool running architechture and power consumption is lower than AMD's in load while in Idle AMD's more effective C'n'Q might given an edge over Intel's EIST/SpeedStep.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3615&p=9

You were saying?

The age old feature disabled cost reduced G41 with an E6300 beats the Athlon II 250 on the best of AMD's IGP chipsets in every game pretty convincingly.

Yes, it seems that while using a HD 4770 discrete card, the G41 is a better idea.

[Goober]

By contrast, I prefer AMD to Intel due to 3rd party software's existence such as K10stat.

I agree that having options like K10stat are good but requiring them because AMD is too lazy to update their cpu driver is bad. I guess I'm just worried K10stat will be buggy or conflict with something and then I'll be left with no CnQ at all.

I just read that new Anandtech review and I find it weird how in this test the E6300 beats the A2 250 but in the first Athlon II review it was the complete opposite. Maybe there's some driver issue with the new chipset.

Anyway, I just learned that AMD is supposed to be coming out with a couple of new low power Athlon IIs soon (235e and 240e) so if I'm going to choose AMD I should probably wait for those. I just wish I knew when they're coming.

[loimlo]

Sorry for a late reply, but I'm very busy recently.

Anyway, I'd like to remind you that with stock SpeedStep setting, you're at the mercy of motherboard's implementation. Many 775 boards can't have SpeedStep functioned correctly if overclock/overvolt/undervolt. I encountered similar patterns on some 1366 boards as well. So choose a motherboard with good fan control ability and better SpeedStep implementation is important for SPCR readers, but it's a pity that these parts are often overlooked by most review writers.

Btw, you only need K10stat under XP to correct AMD's bug, otherwise Vista/Win7 all have default CnQ functioned correctly.

[Shamgar]

They both run at 2.8ghz and they both say they run at 65w, which I suspect is more that they actually use. So, my question is, which is the cooler running cpu?

Bear in mind that the E6300 is a Pentium Dual Core (not a Core 2 Duo as the 7xxx series) and the II X2 240 is a newer Athlon architecture on socket AM3. For value for money, they are both great processors for a budget build. With a larger heatspreader and arguably more aggressive speed reduction in Cool'n'Quiet, the 240 has the potential of running cooler than the E6300. As mentioned earlier by another user, the chipset(s) you intend on using and the boards on which they are implemented play a significant part in your overall power consumption and temperatures and to which setup will eventually run cooler.

Looking at both processors, I am liking the Athlon more because it is not only cheaper but is to me a more complete and less cynical product than its competitor. However, I do not like AMD chipsets. If it was me and I needed a computer desperately and was pushed to make a decision, I would go for the Intel PDC E6300 paired with a P43/P45 chipset motherboard like a Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R/P. Not the lowest nor the coolest, but with some tweaking and carefully chosen components, it can run very efficiently given its relatively good performance.

You may also want to think of CPU cooling at this stage since there are very few choices for heatsinks for AMD that can be rotated for best airflow. For Intel, you are spoilt for choice as most coolers compatible with socket LGA775 will allow you to freely rotate the heatsink. You can work around the limitation with tower heatsinks on AMD by choosing a case with a top mounted vent as in the Antec P18x and Gaming 300 tower cases. If you want to go for a passive setup, you won't have to worry about rotating for best airflow as you can run a tower without a fan like an Thermalright HR-01 Plus or use an omnidirectional heatsink like a Scythe Ninja or Mugen and any (suitable) one of their derivatives.

There seems to be so many processor choices now, with even more to come. Anyone wanting to build now is really spoilt for choice. Even more so when you consider the aggressive pricing of both companies at the moment.

[Scoop]

I'd say Intel has advantage in cooler running. E6300 is wonderful CPU. But Intel inteds to win in syntehtic benchmarks and take beating in game tests. Besides E6300 should have VT support unlike E7x00 series or E5x00 if I remember correctly.

E5x00 are completely beaten in most game tests by X2 2xx series while synthetic benchmarks they go roughly 45% vs 55% for Intel's win.

But C2D is cool running architechture and power consumption is lower than AMD's in load while in Idle AMD's more effective C'n'Q might given an edge over Intel's EIST/SpeedStep.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3615&p=9

You were saying?

The age old feature disabled cost reduced G41 with an E6300 beats the Athlon II 250 on the best of AMD's IGP chipsets in every game pretty convincingly.

See, I said: E5x00 are beaten, not E6300 which is completely different CPU...

I think I missed that you meant E5X00 'cause you were talking about the E6300 in the first paragraph and said it wins synthetics while getting beat in game tests. If you meant some other CPU that you hadn't mentioned up until that point, oh well. I don't remember but I think I went by that.

The new E3200 and E3300 Celerons look quite amazing btw. If the pricing is right.

[smilingcrow]

So, my question is, which is the cooler running cpu?

Do you care more about the actual temperature or the ability to cool it silently?
What heastink/fan do you intend using?

Bear in mind that the E6300 is a Pentium Dual Core (not a Core 2 Duo as the 7xxx series.

The differentiation is mainly marketing. The only missing feature from the E6300 is 2MB cache versus 3MB of the E7x00 series but it gains Virtualisation support which is arguably more useful. I’d rather have The Pentium Dual Core in this instance even if the clock speeds were equal.

[jessekopelman]

Bear in mind that the E6300 is a Pentium Dual Core (not a Core 2 Duo as the 7xxx series.

The differentiation is mainly marketing. The only missing feature from the E6300 is 2MB cache versus 3MB of the E7x00 series but it gains Virtualisation support which is arguably more useful. I’d rather have The Pentium Dual Core in this instance even if the clock speeds were equal.

I'd say the distinction is entirely marketing. So-called Pentium Dual Core are now based on Core 2 architecture, just like Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. They have nothing to do with the Pentium Dual Cores of yesteryear.

[mczak]

The differentiation is mainly marketing. The only missing feature from the E6300 is 2MB cache versus 3MB of the E7x00 series but it gains Virtualisation support which is arguably more useful. I’d rather have The Pentium Dual Core in this instance even if the clock speeds were equal.

I'd agree the cache size difference doesn't really make that much of a difference, however there's another feature missing on the PDC: SSE4.1. Few applications use it but it can indeed make quite some difference: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard ... _divx_6847
Still, even considering that (and if you get a new version E7x00 it will have VT too) it seems questionable if the E7x00 is really worth the price premium.

[Shamgar]

Bear in mind that the E6300 is a Pentium Dual Core (not a Core 2 Duo as the 7xxx series.

The differentiation is mainly marketing. The only missing feature from the E6300 is 2MB cache versus 3MB of the E7x00 series but it gains Virtualisation support which is arguably more useful. I’d rather have The Pentium Dual Core in this instance even if the clock speeds were equal.

I'd say the distinction is entirely marketing. So-called Pentium Dual Core are now based on Core 2 architecture, just like Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. They have nothing to do with the Pentium Dual Cores of yesteryear.

I am aware that PDC is based on C2D architecture, however, my understanding is that PDC is still limited in certain ways e.g. overclocking limit, that perhaps would not matter all that much to a user like myself and many others. I have commented on the E6300 in other places where I have already said it is a welcome product for Intel, especially since they have decided (or were forced) to include VT in processors below C2D E8200. AMD has some really worthwhile competition now in the low-mid range dual core sector, so it will be interesting to see which platform users will choose.

[smilingcrow]

I'd agree the cache size difference doesn't really make that much of a difference, however there's another feature missing on the PDC: SSE4.1. Few applications use it but it can indeed make quite some difference.

I forget about SSE 4.1. Apart from the DivX encoder does anything else significantly benefit from it?

I am aware that PDC is based on C2D architecture, however, my understanding is that PDC is still limited in certain ways e.g. overclocking limit, that perhaps would not matter all that much to a user like myself and many others.

The advantage of the E8x00 series is that they will typically over-clock highly at stock voltage whereas the older Pentium Dual Core often struggled to hit 3GHz at stock voltage.
I managed about 2.8 with a PDC and 3.6 with an E8400 which is a big difference especially when you consider that the E8400 is faster clock for clock as well.
If you are happy to overvolt then the difference in over-clocking is much less significant from the data I’ve seen.

I have an E8400 at 3.6GHz which I bought second-hand before the E6300 was released. I’ve read one review of an E6300 showing it hitting about 3.5GHz at stock voltage which makes it sound attractive. I don’t know how accurate that was as they didn’t give all the details. I’m wary because I’ve seen review sites claiming that a CPU runs at x GHz at stock voltage and then when you look at the screenshots the VCore is much higher when over-clocked which means they left VCore on Auto which over-volts.
An E6300 at stock voltage at 3.5GHz is probably the best value power efficient dual core on the market.
I'm tempted to order one unless I decide I need Quad core as I've just bought a HD Camcorder. It uses AVHCD as well as MPEG-2 HD and I’m hoping to use the latter as the quality is better and also less demanding on the CPU. Time will tell.

[mczak]

I forget about SSE 4.1. Apart from the DivX encoder does anything else significantly benefit from it?

Haven't seen anything but possibly more in the future.

The advantage of the E8x00 series is that they will typically over-clock highly at stock voltage whereas the older Pentium Dual Core often struggled to hit 3GHz at stock voltage.

I don't think there's really much difference in OC potential - unless you've got a board which can't adjust FSB strap in which case you probably won't reach very high frequencies. Anyway, in the same test as I mentioned above, the PDC6300 reached (slightly) higher frequency than E8400 or E7600, at same (or lower) voltage, so that's probably just luck of the draw - http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard ... 0_euro/32/. Also, when undervolting, it actually needed less voltage than either the E8400 or E7600 at stock frequency (though, it also got slightly lower frequency which could play a role here) - http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard ... 0_euro/33/. They didn't test overclocking at stock voltage but I can't see a reason why that E6300 would be any worse.

[Shamgar]

The advantage of the E8x00 series is that they will typically over-clock highly at stock voltage whereas the older Pentium Dual Core often struggled to hit 3GHz at stock voltage.
I managed about 2.8 with a PDC and 3.6 with an E8400 which is a big difference especially when you consider that the E8400 is faster clock for clock as well.
If you are happy to overvolt then the difference in over-clocking is much less significant from the data I’ve seen.

I have an E8400 at 3.6GHz which I bought second-hand before the E6300 was released. I’ve read one review of an E6300 showing it hitting about 3.5GHz at stock voltage which makes it sound attractive. I don’t know how accurate that was as they didn’t give all the details. I’m wary because I’ve seen review sites claiming that a CPU runs at x GHz at stock voltage and then when you look at the screenshots the VCore is much higher when over-clocked which means they left VCore on Auto which over-volts.
An E6300 at stock voltage at 3.5GHz is probably the best value power efficient dual core on the market.
I'm tempted to order one unless I decide I need Quad core as I've just bought a HD Camcorder. It uses AVHCD as well as MPEG-2 HD and I’m hoping to use the latter as the quality is better and also less demanding on the CPU. Time will tell.

Thanks for your informative post. The E8400 performs better than an E6300 in all benchmarks (as would be expected) but it costs a lot more -- even more than double the price here. I usually look for good stock performance and a good balance of features (cache size, VT, SSE etc) from my CPUs but I realise that overclocking can be worthwhile to get more out of it and push value for the dollar further. 3.5GHz sounds like a pretty good overclock at stock voltage.

I can understand your wanting to wait for the new quad core releases. I've thought about getting a HD camcorder and doing some home video editing myself. But I wonder if quad really is necessary unless you are doing a lot of work in a fully featured program like Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas. I haven't researched much into this subject so I could be way off. Getting a quadcore system to me is somehow like buying a performance car just for the rare times you want to take it onto the racetrack yet it spends most of its time driving to the corner store and going to and from work. But if the racetrack occupies a significant part of your life, then I can see how one would benefit from the investment. It may soon be that quadcores drop to such a pricepoint that to opt for a dual would seem like selling oneself short, given the potential gains in multi-threaded applications like video editing from a quad based system. As you say yourself, only time will tell.

[stead]

for what its worth, my e7200 at stock runs at 1.05 volts (my mobo won't let me change the voltage)

at 3ghz it runs at 1.11v (again can't change voltage)

also

when using 45nm chips all the voltages on my motherboard run lower, was looking thru the bios the other day and on average voltages are .1v lower with a 45nm chip over the 65

i upgraded from a e6600, i know its a bit different to the e6300

one thing i can safely say, i've never missed VT and to be honest, even with the e6600 chip, when switching between using the VT and not i saw no difference with virtual pc's, (only tried it with vmware)

[Shamgar]

one thing i can safely say, i've never missed VT and to be honest, even with the e6600 chip, when switching between using the VT and not i saw no difference with virtual pc's, (only tried it with vmware)

That is an interesting observation. Most articles that I have read almost demand the use of hardware assisted VT, especially to use the forthcoming XP Mode in Windows 7. I do not tinker with virtual machines much,--only occasionally--but I think having VT on board gives me comfort that things will work as they should on the occasion that I do employ a virtual machine. I suspect that they would work successfully without hardware VT but I have not tested it myself. I wonder if there are any tests which show the differences between assisted and non-assisted virtualisation?

[stead]

one thing i can safely say, i've never missed VT and to be honest, even with the e6600 chip, when switching between using the VT and not i saw no difference with virtual pc's, (only tried it with vmware)

That is an interesting observation. Most articles that I have read almost demand the use of hardware assisted VT, especially to use the forthcoming XP Mode in Windows 7. I do not tinker with virtual machines much,--only occasionally--but I think having VT on board gives me comfort that things will work as they should on the occassion that I do employ a virtual machine. I suspect that they would work successfully without hardware VT but I have not tested it myself. I wonder if there are any tests which show the differences between assisted and non-assisted virtualisation?

i haven't used vm's for a while now, but i used to very often, maybe the benchmarks were quicker, but it 'seemed' the same to me.

I only ever used it for testing software, mainly networking stuff & experimenting, maybe more demanding stuff there is a difference, I was under the impression virtual pc and vmware used the hardware directly regardless of VT support, at least cpu wise, video and sound functions i thoguht were just handed over to regular windows drivers (if there was driver support in the vm, like with vmware's display drivers), but to use the Hyper visor and the more advanced virtualisation software needed hardware support?

[smilingcrow]

The advantage of the E8x00 series is that they will typically over-clock highly at stock voltage whereas the older Pentium Dual Core often struggled to hit 3GHz at stock voltage.

I don't think there's really much difference in OC potential - unless you've got a board which can't adjust FSB strap in which case you probably won't reach very high frequencies. Anyway, in the same test as I mentioned above, the PDC6300 reached (slightly) higher frequency than E8400 or E7600, at same (or lower) voltage, so that's probably just luck of the draw.

.
I think you are referring to over-clocking using increased VCore which is not what I was referring to.
At this point I’d take a punt on the E6300 if I didn’t already have the E8400 and might swap it out anyway. The older 45nm PDC were disappointing at stock VCore but the newer versions may be another story.

Also, when undervolting, it actually needed less voltage than either the E8400 or E7600 at stock frequency (though, it also got slightly lower frequency which could play a role here).

It has a lower clock speed, less cache, lower FSB so it’s not a surprise that it required less VCore; it’s only one sample anyway.

They didn't test overclocking at stock voltage but I can't see a reason why that E6300 would be any worse.

I’ve tested a number of PDC (65 & 45nm) and low end Core 2 Duo (64 and 45nm) and none of them over-clocked well at stock voltage. Hopefully the E6300 will break the mold.

The link you gave was very interesting.

[smilingcrow]

I can understand your wanting to wait for the new quad core releases. I've thought about getting a HD camcorder and doing some home video editing myself. But I wonder if quad really is necessary unless you are doing a lot of work in a fully featured program like Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas. I haven't researched much into this subject so I could be way off. Getting a quadcore system to me is somehow like buying a performance car just for the rare times you want to take it onto the racetrack yet it spends most of its time driving to the corner store and going to and from work. But if the racetrack occupies a significant part of your life, then I can see how one would benefit from the investment. It may soon be that quadcores drop to such a pricepoint that to opt for a dual would seem like selling oneself short, given the potential gains in multi-threaded applications like video editing from a quad based system. As you say yourself, only time will tell.

I wouldn’t upgrade the whole system, just sell the E8400 and buy a second hand Q9550 and hopefully run it at about 3.4GHz at stock voltage. It would cost me about £50 to do so which would be worthwhile if it speeds things up considerably.