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.

  • prev
  • next

Application benchmarks

Winrar & DIVX encoding

The Winrar applications stresses your system as it handles the bits and bytes to find ways to make the target file smaller and more compact. At normal compression setting the CPU is taxed quite a bit. I used a folder with 296Mb of JPG photo and .WMV movies and timed the total time it took to create the archive.

Next up I used a 67Mb .avi movie featuring Dry Ice and LN2 cooling action to test the speed of movie compression and processing, the AutoGK tools was set to encode the movie with the DIVX5 codec at a 75% compression rate.

The chart below displays the results from both applications, value in seconds, less is better:

Madshrimps (c)


I redid the Winrar test several times on the E2160 at stock speeds, the results remained the same, at default speeds the E2160 is ~130% slower than the E6300. L2 cache at lower CPU speeds is vital. Once overclocked to 3Ghz the difference is a lot smaller (~20%).

The DIVX5 encoding test is different, no real sign of a performance impact here, the extra 1Mb L2 cache on E6300 doesn’t make a real difference here.

PCMark05

PCMark is not really a daily-used application, but it manages to give quite a good impression of the performance level of you computer.

Madshrimps (c)


The overall PCMark05 doesn’t show a big difference between the two processors. The compressions sub-tests even have the E2160 running slightly ahead:

Madshrimps (c)


An overview of the other sub-tests you can find here.
  • prev
  • next
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.

 

reply