With the premiere of E6000 series of processors and with proceeding to 65 nm, Intel informed its competition that it is time for new engineer propositions. While some of AMD engineers hectically worked on Brisbane core (65 nm), Intel did not have disturbances while working on the issue to put C2D processors into mass usage among people. In order to stay competitive, AMD ought to “swallow the noodle” and drastically reduce the prices of its products. Although the price of E6400 and E6300 processors was drastically reduced, AMD still kept the primary position within the lower and medium market segment, at least regarding dual core processors. Aware of this matter, Intel presents E4000 series of processors. But before all, let’s go a bit backward.
Conroe, a code name of E6600 core, E6700 and E6800 processors, has area of 143 mm2, and it also has 291 million of transistors. Code name of E6300 and E6400 processors is Allendale. Allendale is nothing else then Conroe core which has some number of dysfunctional transistors due to production error. As such, Allendale core comes with 2MB of partitioned L2 cache memory (Conroe has 4MB). Naturally, in real operation you will not feel any difference. The difference between Conroe and Allendale processors was only regarding multiplier. The issue that is mutual to E6300, E6400, E6600, E6700 and E6800 models was the issue that all of them worked on FSB of 266 MHz. That is the spot where we started our test with Intel E4000 C2D series of processors.
The “weakest” one processor occurred on our market (if any of C2D`s could be designated as weak) marked as E4300. Processor operates at a nominal rate of 1.8 GHz. Like E6300, even E6400 processor has Allendale core i.e 2MB L2 cache memory. Revision of the core is L2. The thing that outlines C2D processors from others is FSB of 200 MHz i.e. 800MHz (quadpumped). The multiplier of the processor is 9, similar to with E6600 model. Intel decided to make such step out of two reasons. The very first and basic reason is because this step will position them into the class above all other, primarily regarding performances of complete C2D processors branch. And if something operates slower, it is logical that it has lower price. This business strategy move approached Intel C2D processors to the epicenter of middle cost class of dual-core processors. The issue that brings other reason is more useful for final user.
C2D platform appeared as top class platform, at least regarding overclock. Prerequisite was possession of quality motherboard and memory. In order to "make" E6300 processor, which has multiplier 7, to establish stable operation of 3.5 GHz, you needed motherboard and memory which would operate at about 500 MHz for FSB. As E4300 has multiplier 9, for the same clock of 3.5 GHz FSB of only 389 MHz is necessary, which definitely will be supported by most motherboards and memories. Our test sample had fully stable operation at 3.4GHz and on 1.45V, which amounts 90% of overclock! Intel´s work on thermal characteristics was shown by the fact that our E4300 on BOX cooling was heating less (approximately for some 7 degrees comparing to all previously tested C2D processors).
Intel C2D E4300
@1.8GHz
@3.4GHz
Sandra 2007
CPU
16601 / 11541
31505 / 21887
Multimedia
99024 / 53761
187831 / 101985
Memory [MB/s]
4006 / 4016
6785 / 6794
Latency
117ns
78ns
3DMark01
9484
17522
3DMark06 CPU
1556
2928
AquaMark 3 CPU
10.113
17.372
Far Cry mediumQ
133.75fps
212.68fps
Quake4 mediumQ
95.36fps
121.75fps
Nuclearus
5631
10032
PhotoShop CS2
60.1s
31.8s
WinRar
809KB/s
1260KB/s
DivX
92.61fps
164.82fps
3DS Max 9
308.5s
166s
CineBench 9.5
565
1038
AfterEffects
305s
162s
Price
180EUR
Intel announced that introduction of E4400, E6320 and E6420 processors will visually reduce the price of E4300 models. Expected drop in cost will be around 120 dollars. If this information is correct, then final user will emerge as ultimate winner. InsideHW’s Editors Choice was ultimately logical epilogue.
