Intel Core 2 Duo E4x00

The Core architecture keeps on its procession while while driving out the CPU lines of competitors and diminishing the population of predecessors based on NetBurst. We see that Pentium 4 and Pentium D are gradually disappearing from retail stores, and there is a growing shortage for even customary low-end Celerons. New processors are coming to replace the "outdated" models – the above mentioned Pentium D are being replaced by Intel Core 2 Duo E4xxx, and soon we'll see Celeron 4xx which is a single-core version of the Core 2 Duo. Anyway, let's look at the capabilities of Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 and Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 which have recently arrived at out test lab.

Intel Core 2 Duo E4300

Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 is shipped in the same retail box as all the others based on the Core architecture. Apart from the CPU itself, the box contains the same boxed cooler, an installation manual, and a logo sticker.

The CPU is easy to distinguish by the marking on the heat-spreading lid with the technical specifications on: the operating clock speed – 1.8 GHz, 2 MB of L2 cache size, system bus speed 800 MHz, with the requirement to the motherboard's electrical ratings PCG 06. For details of the CPU, we visited Intel's web site and found them with the search phrase sSpec Number SL9TB.

For comparison, we bring in the specifications for Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 as the principal and most interesting subject of today's comparison which by and large differs in only the system bus speed.

As we can see, apart from the slower system bus speed - 800 MHz versus 1066 MHz - Core 2 Duo E4300 has been deprived of support for the Intel Virtualization Technology through migration to the new stepping L2.

CPU-Z 1.39 displays more details of the CPU's technical traits.

The architectural changes are confirmed by the changes in positioning of the transistors on the bottom side of the CPU.

Intel Core 2 Duo E4400

Recently, one more low-end Core 2 Duo numbered 4400 has appeared on the retail stores.

Foe now, there are only BOXed versions of this interesting and promising CPU. It is interesting above all for its 2 GHz clock speed. Recall that the lower model of this product line ranks higher, the Core 2 Duo E6300 offers a bit lower clock speed - 1.86 GHz - but offers the much faster 1066 MHz system bus. Today, we'll find out which of the frequencies is more important, but now let's come back to the CPU.

Its distinguishing features are marked on the heat-spreading lid – the increased clock speed and the model number.

Unfortunately, Intel's web site has not yet published any info on CPUs with sSpec Number SLA3F, but according to the comparative tables we can surely state that Core 2 Duo E4400 differs from Core 2 Duo E4300 in only the multiplier, which is now 10 instead of 9, and thus in the operating clock speed.

Viewed from the bottom, Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 looks the same as its lower-end counterpart.

Overclocking

Certainly, those who are into boosting performance without extra investments, that is, through overclocking, would find the two representatives of the Core 2 Duo E4x00 family more attractive than the lower-end Core 2 Duo E6x00, both in terms of the lower price and the good overclocking capability.

The Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 specimen which we got for tests was able running stably at 3.28 GHz under the system bus speed 365 MHz (QP 1460 MHz).

But Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 pleased us even more especially when it was running stably at 3.5 GHz and at FSB 350 MHz (QP 1400 MHz).

Of course, we can't state that Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 offers better overclocking capability than Intel Core 2 Duo E4300, because overclocking is always a lottery, therefore your results could be better or worse than that produced by us. In both cases, the stability threshold was at 1400 MHz of the effective speed of the system bus

Tests

We ran the tests with the following hardware:

The popular benchmarking suite PCMark'05 shows not only the expected superiority of Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 over Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 at computational tasks due to its higher clock speed but also some minor lag in other tasks.

CrystalMark confirms the formerly produced results – therefore, at tasks which require faster computations a CPU of higher operating clock speed will be a bit faster, whereas at tasks of processing large amounts of data a processor having the faster bus may prove more powerful. We are verifying the theoretical inference through practice...

For instance, data archiving packages are sensitive enough to the RAM exchange speed, and Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 finds itself to some more advantage at that.

But already at media data encoding it is the clock speed that proves to be more important, so Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 leaves Core 2 Duo E4300 and Core 2 Duo E6300 having approximately equal operating clock speeds behind.

3DMark’06 forecasts some advantage of Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 at modern games as well, but Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 will nor lag behind.

It turns out that once the overall performance is not restricted by the video card's performance, then Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 proves to be more efficient than Intel Core 2 Duo E6300.

Final words

Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 is therefore the slowest Core 2 Duo processor to date, lagging behind the more expensive model and even Core 2 Duo E6300 by 5-10%. At the contest between Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 and Intel Core 2 Duo E6300, the winner is the former because at most tasks it has proved a bit more powerful with the price set lower. At the same time, Intel Virtualization Technology supported by Core 2 Duo E6300 remains unclaimed in most ways. Therefore, the choice is evident especially if you are into getting higher performance without paying extra.

We presume it's just these results which compelled Intel make a transposition in the Core 2 Duo E6xx0 product line through a release of Core 2 Duo E6320 and Core 2 Duo E6420 which offer twice as much of the L2 cache size with the clock speeds being the same. We hope that the hopefully early tests will tell if the move has proved reasonable...

We appreciate LLC "PF Servis (Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine) for the hardware presented for tests.