- Back to homepage
- Related articles
  Related articles

Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 vs E6300: Budget CPU Comparison

CPU by massman @ 2007-08-10

Last year Intel gave us the Core 2 Duo, a competitively priced CPU with very acceptable prices for the low and mid-range. This year Intel introduced newer models from low to high end, we take a look at the new low priced E2160 model which has less L2 cache but higher multiplier and compare it with the low end part from last year, the E6300.

Gaming performance

3DMark2001SE

The third product in the 3DMark series, after 3DMark99 Max and 3DMark2000, is by far the most popular. Although it doesn't really accurately represent the gaming performance of the system anymore, it still gives a good image of how good your system performs when changing certain components, like the CPU, for instance.

Madshrimps (c)

The 3DMark2001SE benchmark is known for being quite CPU dependant, meaning you will see a nice boost in score when you overclock your CPU, or swap it out for a faster one. In case of the E6300 vs E2160 the L2 cache difference is certainly noticeable, at stock speeds it’s 12%, both overclocked to 3Ghz it’s a bit smaller at 6%. To put it in geek benchmark terms (

) it will take 500Mhz of CPU power on the E2160 to overcome the lack of L2 cache; This was tested on an Asrock Core4Dual-VSTA with AGP Geforce 3 Ti200 system.

If you take a look at the different sub-tests from 3DMark2001SE charted here, you’ll notice a certain test not really being influenced by a higher and speedier CPU. Does the Nature test reflect real game performance? Let’s find out with the following test.

Prey & Fear

When you are living on a budget for PC hardware it’s always imperative you buy parts which give you the best bang for the buck, unless you don’t care about performance (what are you doing reading this site?). If you are a gamer and want to get the most out of your system, what should go for, the €160 E6300 or €80 E2160? Is that extra €80 better spend on a faster video card or more system memory? While I can’t give you answers (with tests) for the last 2 questions, I will try to answer the first.

Using Prey, based on id Doom 3 engine (or Tech4 engine, as it was recently announced) and FEAR, I ran a few benchmarks. No good in pairing a budget CPU with a €300 video card, so sticking to the same budget principle a 7300 GT 128Mb DDR3 video card (worth ~€70) was used. This is not a state of the art video card, so don’t expect miracles. With resolution kept at 640x480 these were the average frame rates in-game:

Madshrimps (c)

At identical clock speeds there is no difference to be found, both processors give you the exact same gameplay experience, the extra 1Mb L2 cache (which you’re paying €80+ for) doesn’t matter.

Let’s wrap things up ->

Comment from Sidney @ 2007/08/10

For normal office apps and occasional gamers E2160 should do just fine with less heat. Nicely done, Massman

Comment from jmke @ 2007/08/10

For cheaper thrills, E2140 will even suffice. Would not go lower, you'll loose 64-bit compatibility, and might come in handy... one day

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/08/10

Even for a budget system, it was too GPU limited for my taste.

the HL2 engine is usually also a nice bench to run

Comment from Sidney @ 2007/08/10

Quote:

Budget CPU Comparison

No where does it say budget system, does it?

Comment from jmke @ 2007/08/10

It's a CPU comparo

GPU that was available by the test was used

my current recommendation for budget GPU would be 8600GT at €99

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/08/10

yes but the CPUs couldn't be properly tested because the FPS were limited by the GPU

I wonder how Intel makes those CPUs, are they ones that have a partially damaged cache or a specific budget design?

Comment from jmke @ 2007/08/10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar

yes but the CPUs couldn't be properly tested because the FPS were limited by the GPU

you want resolutions lower than 640x480 to proof what point?

Games are not CPU dependent except for a few games where it's kinda more important, but still GPU mainly deciding how much FPS you get.

With a faster video card we would still have tested at higher resolution, to make it "real world";

HL2 engine might react well with CPU power, but it's worthless imho to know if HL2 runs at 150fps vs 160fps, if at higher IQ and resolution, with GPU bottleneck both systems run at 51 vs 52FPS.

Comment from thorgal @ 2007/08/10

Nice 1, Massie ! Quite impressive for a first review

Comment from Zenphic @ 2007/08/11

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

For cheaper thrills, E2140 will even suffice. Would not go lower, you'll loose 64-bit compatibility, and might come in handy... one day

The E2140 seems to get stuck at ~2.8 Ghz in overclocking though. Still decent, but for a dozen dollars more you can get more overclocking funness

Very nice review too, I've been looking for more comparison reviews with the E2160.
It might have been interesting to add a AMD processor in the test too

Comment from Massman @ 2007/08/20

Didn't see this one

Thanks Thorgal und lazyman.

The E2160 has really impressed me. I didn't really expect the cpu to be reaching the same perfomance level as a E6300 that easy.

All information and graphics contained in Madshrimps are sole property of the Madshrimps crew and may not be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from us.