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
  • Go to mainpage

Conclusive thoughts

Conclusive Thoughts

Intel and AMD have been “at it” the last 12 months, trying to win over the customer with faster processors at lower prices. This competition has brought us gems as this E2160 processor, which in our tests kept on par with the E6300 model. Available in stores at ~€80 you’d wouldn’t be making a mistake to build a budget system based around this CPU.

At default speeds it’s true that this model is a low-end part, lacking the required Mhz “oomph” to keep up with the high end units, but it has a nice trick up its sleeve, the lower FSB (and hence the higher multiplier) is a blessing for those willing to wander into the overclocking area. You don’t need an expensive motherboard to go with this CPU, any Intel P965, P35 DDR2, NVIDIA or ATI powered board will do, as long as they can reach ~350Mhz FSB (which should not be a problem). My E2160 sample was not hand picked, and reached 3Ghz easily with stock settings, to get to 3.3Ghz I had to increase vcore by a measly 0.05v. Temperature wise the stock Intel cooling was sufficient, with load temperatures never reaching disturbing heights.

If you don’t want to experiment with overclocking and want out of the box performance, the E2160 doesn’t do bad either, while it lags the more expensive E6300 is some areas (file/audio/video compression) in others it’s pretty much on par (games). Intel is phasing out the E6300 model for a newer one, the E6320 which features 4Mb L2 cache, the retail price for that one is ~€140, which is not a bad deal of course, but still features the low 7x multiplier.

In the budget Core 2 Duo area you now have 4 models to choose from, all are priced within ~€50 of each other, CPU speeds are practically identical, only thing changing is FSB and L2 cache.

  • E2160 – 1800Mhz – 200FSB – 9x – 1Mb L2
  • E4300 – 1800Mhz – 200FSB – 9x – 2Mb L2
  • E6300 – 1866Mhz – 266FSB – 7x – 2Mb L2
  • E6320 – 1866Mhz – 266FSB – 7x – 4Mb L2

    It’s safe to say that Intel will be eliminating the E4300/E6300 as their own products are now competing with each other instead of the AMD processors. Choosing between the E2160 and E6320 becomes a matter of personal preference.

    Do you want the best performance out of the box and don’t mind to spend a bit more? E6320 shall be yours. Not afraid to tweak the BIOS to get higher CPU speeds? E2160 will give you a very good price/performance deal.

    Most say overclocking is a hit and miss situation, I can’t agree more, however a nifty search&compare tool at HWbot does allow us to get an idea of the average overclocking potential of these chips:

    Madshrimps (c)

    With an average overclock of 3.6Ghz the E2160 doesn’t disappoint, reaching the speed of 3Ghz will almost be a guarantee and your system with €80 CPU will run only marginally slower compared to one with an expensive Core 2 X6800 inside.

    Thank you all for reading; hope this comparison will help you make an informed choice if you’re building a new system on a budget.
    • prev
    • Go to mainpage
    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