Intel Core 2 Duo E4300

I agree with you Tim, it was a good review - as said, it could've focussed more on the OC results in the benchmarks, but these things take enough time as-is, so I can see why you didn't.

The real disappointment is that the E4's are patchy OC'ers, it'd be nice to recommend them for phenomenal OC ability like the E63, then it could be used on a 975X board without reaching the board's FSB limit, but it's just not so...

 

If you can make assumptions about his intent can we make some about yours.

Edit: ah, wait, never mind - I missed the "Don't feed the Troll" sign.

 

Tim.

The reason I might sound a little upset is for those of you that want to know, not everyone can afford the finest in this world and I am one of those when the web lights up about a product that will allow me to have champagne on a beer budget I am interest even if Jim and BitTech are not. Before I spend my hard earned money I like to have trusted sites do some of the leg work for me and test products just as I would use them on my system.

Well my intent was to ask why the link to this story on the home page would read Intel core 2 duo E4300 which is exactly what an Individual like myself was excited to read about since the review was being done by Tim and on the Bittech site. To my my disappointment and surprise what I received from the review was a bunch of out of the Box numbers that I could have gotten from Intel themselves. I go to BitTech not Intel to get the inside the numbers facts about a product that have other sites raving.

As far as your not understanding what I wrote in my first reply, what parts did you not understand? Was it the part that any CPU that is clocked at 1.8 GHz and running on a 800 MHz bus would be at a disadvantage when compared to AMD and other C2Ds? If you did not understand that I guess you do not understand why other sites raved about the E4300 when appearing as such an ugly duckling out of the box could become such a swan when OC'ed. Disadvantaged turns into advantage right before your eyes.

I apologize that I said you used the time constraint excuse for this mislabeled review ( E6300 and X2 4200 would have made a better title) it was actually another person that replied and made the excuse for you, I guess I went ballistic when you replied " I'll see what we can do about an OC comparison article". This tells me you had not intentions of OCing this CPU for real tests in this article.

I know I may be a little critical for something so unimportant on the grander scale of things but not everyone needs to tell you that your review was great and then ask for the meat and potatoes after praising you first do they?

 

Greetings!

Actually, I think there is a result missing from all the E4300 reviews out there (AnandTech, XbitLabs and LegionHardware).

Someone should have put the E4300 at 7*266 and compare it to the E6300 (or 8*266 and comparison to E6400).

 

It sounds like the overclocks you've acheived are destined for a seperate article, which sounds good!

I found the article rather refreshing, it certainly made a difference to the myriad other 'omgz, it o/c's zo much!' reviews.

 

Greetings!

FiringSquad joined the party.
They managed 3,582Ghz.

 

The fact still remains we do not know if Tim actually overclocked the E4300 since he never added a result from a test to compare between a stock clock and one that is OCed. At least many of the other sites did not waste a space on their home page and a straight link to the full review if they where not going to allow the E4300 to go at it against the big boys. How much this core oc's will be how well this core does for Intel. if gamers can get high scores at Futuremark on both 3DMark05 and 06 using this core then Intel will have a winner in the entry level gaming world where most of the price of your system will be in purchasing the correct GPU to get the highest score. Then to actually play games you can lower the clock some to make it long gaming session proof.

One other question I had about this core do you think that with the e4300 Intel may introduce a 800 MHz FSB laptop?

 

Wow there, you're starting to dip well below the midrift here... your second comment was below the belt and this one is almost touching the tops of my socks.

Thanks for your feedback, it's appreciated. However, I don't have the time to deal with your attitude. If you don't like the content, there are plenty of other sites on the web to read and they won't cost you a penny.

For what it's worth, focusing a review on overclocking results is and never has been something that I've agreed with because overclocking is never guaranteed - it's a lottery. By the looks of it, the chip we have here sucks and many have fared better - it would've been nice to get a chip like Firingsquad's but we didn't. You can choose to take this as a reality check, or you can choose to ignore the overclockability of the chip we've got here. Afterall, it's an engineering sample.

I wish you all the luck getting a chip that clocks as well as either Anand's or Firingsquad's, but I can't guarantee that you will. I can't even guarantee that you'll get one that clocks as well as the one I've got sitting on my desk.

 

"By the looks of it, the chip we have here sucks and many have fared better"

When has it ever been said that + 1.35 GBs stable that you where able to reach, sucks?

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2005/05/13/xbox_360_pc_enthusiasts/

I guess we have not gotten off on the wrong foot, but I will continue to read BitTech since I have done so from Google searching information on the Xbox 360 and found Wil Harris's fine Xbox 360 column of the 360's abilities. Wil was right on the mark back then and ever since then BitTech has been a visual link on my browser. So for me there are many sites on the web I could read but few have a link on my browsers screen as BitTech has.

You have explained your position very well and certainly you have the right to not OC a product for testing since as you say every user experience may differ. In fact that is the reason for my dissatisfaction with your review, I would rather see you fry the E4300 than have myself do it because a few websites where only hyping for Intel, the more websites that are successful in not turning this into a piece of toast the more confidence I will have in purchasing this CPU on my budget to get a medium to high end gaming system off of a low to medium budget.

My last question from my previous post remains do you think with this low frequency E4300 will Intel introduce a laptop with a FSB of 800 MHz? It seems to me that this may be one heck of a chance to introduce a very powerful CPU and chipset to the laptop gaming world that would truly be a desktop replacement since it was only last year that Intel desktops where running at that speed as for as the FSB is concerned. Since it is my understanding that their are very few difference between each platform of C2D the size of the L2 cache and the frequency of the FSB. Other than that they are one size fits all, so why not introduce 800 MHz to the laptop?

 

Im sure they will once the 1333FSB desktop "50" chips are out, but 800>667 isn't a massive difference. You still can't change memory timings and you're mostly limited by the graphics included by the ODM. Depends when Intel are going to release new mobile chipsets that support 800FSB.

 

You are correct but all the same being able to use true 200 MHz quad pumped would still be faster than using a lesser bandwidth FSB which was part of my problem with the article. the 800 FSB when two cores clocked the same would most likely lower the result for the lesser frequency FSB system which is the E4300. but raise the result if it where placed in a laptop when all other laptops are running on 533 or 667 MHz.

All DDR memory on Intel FSB systems that are clocked higher than the FSB itself are for the most part overkill and that is why Intel needs to either go to an on-board CSI memory controller or keep pumping up the volume on its FSB.

I was just wondering since Intel will launch this core in a month or so, will run on the 800 MHz FSB and right now the hole in the market is right between desktops FSB speeds and Laptops FSB it seems this core E4300 could slip right into that slot and give Intel another level when it comes to high performance gaming laptops added to the two they are after now, the low budget entry level desktop and the enthusiast low budget gaming desktop system. Two out of three would be enthusiast and the other which perhaps Intel is really aiming at the entry level, huge market desktop group that only cares that the box can function and they get all the components that go with it for $600

As far as graphics are concerned in the high end the G8800 is not represented yet but the 7900 and X1900 I believe are. They may be able to benefit from higher bandwidth to system memory in the retrieval of executions. Many people complain about their gaming rigs even though they have Mobile versions of high end desktop GPUs and always blame the GPU and never take in account the slower FSB of the laptop that may lend to CPU and memory slowdowns outside of the GPU ability to render.