- 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.

Synthetical benchmarks

SuperPi

Since ages, the SuperPI program is one of the favorite benchmarks among overclockers. It can be used to test for quick stability (1M) and 24/7 stability (32M). As it's quite old it does not matter if the CPU is single, dual or quad core. In fact, most benchmarkers turn off cores to gain higher speeds. Cache on the other hand is very important, the more the better.

Madshrimps (c)

As you can see, the E2160 is definitely slower than the E6300 at stock, as the lower cache decreases the performance ~13%. Even at 3.3Ghz, the E2160 does not manage to surpass the E6300 at 3Ghz, the gap is closed to 6%.

Madshrimps (c)

Same conclusion in the 32M benchmark: the E2160 is completely outrun by an equally clocked E6300 (22% difference at stock and 20% at 3ghz)

Sisoft Sandra

The Sisoft Sandra application measurers system performance with different synthetic benchmarks, in the chart below you find the results of the CPU benchmark (Dhrystone/Whetstone) and memory bandwidth benchmark (int/buff’ed). Higher value is better:

Madshrimps (c)

At stock speeds there is a small gap in pure CPU power, this difference is gone once both models run at the exact same speed. The theoretical memory bandwidth for the E6300 is consistently higher as it run at a higher FSB speeds (266vs200Mhz).

3DMark06 CPU Test

The CPU benchmark subtest from Futurmark’s 3DMark06 is excellent performance gauge, it’s pushes a detailed scene, normally running at 30-60FPS on a VGA card, to render in software mode, this results in an average FPS of 1 or below on most systems. This CPU test is multithreaded and you will notice a higher score if your CPU has multiple cores.

Madshrimps (c)

While the SuperPi benchmark favored the extra L2 cache of the E6300 we see different outcome here, the results with both processors is pretty much on par, L2 cache doesn’t matter much here, 1Mb or 2Mb, the results are almost on par.

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.