Hi Guys,
Going on from my E4300 vs E6600 post I was wondering why I should not consider the E6420.
Prices I can get processors for is as follows:
E4300 - £72.85
E6420 (4MB 2.1g) - £118
E6600 - £141
The E6420 seems to be a nice place to be... 4MB cache, newer processor and still reasonably priced. While I understand the E4300 can easily overclock to out perform these... I am not a huge fan of overclocking. The price difference in the 6420 & 6600 is too great for the performance increase I think.
Would the E6420 be a good choice?
E4300 vs E6420 vs E6600 F/ Silent HTPC
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
leospagnol
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:00 am
Main differences:
E6420:
Nominal frequency: 2.13 GHz
Bus frequency: 1066 MHz
Multiplier: 8x
L2 cache: 4 MB
TDP: 65 W
E4400:
Nominal frequency: 2.0 GHz
Bus frequency: 800 MHz
Multiplier: 10x
L2 cache: 2 MB
TDP: 65 W
I don't think the E6600 is a good choice, when you can overclock the E6420 to the same clock without Vcore adjustment. I would choose de E6420.
E6420:
Nominal frequency: 2.13 GHz
Bus frequency: 1066 MHz
Multiplier: 8x
L2 cache: 4 MB
TDP: 65 W
E4400:
Nominal frequency: 2.0 GHz
Bus frequency: 800 MHz
Multiplier: 10x
L2 cache: 2 MB
TDP: 65 W
I don't think the E6600 is a good choice, when you can overclock the E6420 to the same clock without Vcore adjustment. I would choose de E6420.
Last edited by leospagnol on Tue May 22, 2007 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
leospagnol
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:00 am
Take a look at this review:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... e6420.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... e6420.html
If your not going to overclock much, the E4400 may be an option. It starts at 2.0Ghz rather than 1.86Ghz and is about £85. Otherwise the E6420.
The 4MB cache really only makes a big difference in databases and large excel spreadsheets - few other applications actually work with repeated access to data sets that large in a short space of time. Anandtech did a comparison of the E6420 and E6400 configured such that the cache size was the only difference between them and many applications showed no significant performance difference.
Personally I'm about to buy an E6420 but because of a slightly unusual feature - I use virtual PC a lot and the hardware virtiualisation support makes it worth buying. Otherwise I would be buying and overclocking an E4300 or E4400.
The 4MB cache really only makes a big difference in databases and large excel spreadsheets - few other applications actually work with repeated access to data sets that large in a short space of time. Anandtech did a comparison of the E6420 and E6400 configured such that the cache size was the only difference between them and many applications showed no significant performance difference.
Personally I'm about to buy an E6420 but because of a slightly unusual feature - I use virtual PC a lot and the hardware virtiualisation support makes it worth buying. Otherwise I would be buying and overclocking an E4300 or E4400.
Judging from the power consumption, you probably want a L2-step or a 6x20. See viewtopic.php?t=33425&
I chose the E6420 for three reasons.
1. I also use virtual machines quite a bit as another poster here, the E6420 offers hardware support for that.
2. I mildly overclocked the E6420 from stock 2.13 to 2.66 Mhz - essentially equated with the E6700 (for a lot less Euros). Here I use basic inexpensive Kingston Value 667Mhz RAM. So with the FSB at 333 Mhz, the ratio btw. CPU and RAM is optimal 1:1 - without the RAM being overclocked, and without buying (for my pocket) the expensive 800 Mhz RAM. My system is cool (around 22-25C idle, 39-41C load measured with TAT) and very stable.
3. The price/performace ratio was the sweet spot for my personal situation.
I considered the E4400 for quite a while, but as the Intel prices came down in April, I decided for the E6420 for the above reasons.
1. I also use virtual machines quite a bit as another poster here, the E6420 offers hardware support for that.
2. I mildly overclocked the E6420 from stock 2.13 to 2.66 Mhz - essentially equated with the E6700 (for a lot less Euros). Here I use basic inexpensive Kingston Value 667Mhz RAM. So with the FSB at 333 Mhz, the ratio btw. CPU and RAM is optimal 1:1 - without the RAM being overclocked, and without buying (for my pocket) the expensive 800 Mhz RAM. My system is cool (around 22-25C idle, 39-41C load measured with TAT) and very stable.
3. The price/performace ratio was the sweet spot for my personal situation.
I considered the E4400 for quite a while, but as the Intel prices came down in April, I decided for the E6420 for the above reasons.
You have sold the E6420 perfectly there. I think that will be my choice. Thanks,.sun.moon wrote:I chose the E6420 for three reasons.
1. I also use virtual machines quite a bit as another poster here, the E6420 offers hardware support for that.
2. I mildly overclocked the E6420 from stock 2.13 to 2.66 Mhz - essentially equated with the E6700 (for a lot less Euros). Here I use basic inexpensive Kingston Value 667Mhz RAM. So with the FSB at 333 Mhz, the ratio btw. CPU and RAM is optimal 1:1 - without the RAM being overclocked, and without buying (for my pocket) the expensive 800 Mhz RAM. My system is cool (around 22-25C idle, 39-41C load measured with TAT) and very stable.
3. The price/performace ratio was the sweet spot for my personal situation.
I considered the E4400 for quite a while, but as the Intel prices came down in April, I decided for the E6420 for the above reasons.
Thanks, glad I could help with your decision.
I forgot to mention in my earlier post, the reason the E6320 never came into question, despite its virtual machine support, is due to the fact that it only has a multiplier of 7x (therefore clocked at stock 1.86 Ghz). That doesn't make it very attractive for overclocking, particularly mild overclocking. Using the same FSB of 333 Mhz to have the 1:1 ratio to 667 Mhz RAM, would have only given me a CPU clockspeed of 2.33 Ghz.
I forgot to mention in my earlier post, the reason the E6320 never came into question, despite its virtual machine support, is due to the fact that it only has a multiplier of 7x (therefore clocked at stock 1.86 Ghz). That doesn't make it very attractive for overclocking, particularly mild overclocking. Using the same FSB of 333 Mhz to have the 1:1 ratio to 667 Mhz RAM, would have only given me a CPU clockspeed of 2.33 Ghz.