whodat

The 1MB cache is negligible in most applications, including games. Users have reported no noticeable lack of speed in comparison to their big brothers.

DonNiger

There is remarkable difference in applications that need a lot of memory power. Otherwise, no difference.

__________________
C D356@5.40 C D347@5,01 C351@4,51 P4 640@4.46 C D340@4.41 P D920@4.39 C2D E4300@3,71 C2D E2160@3.66

Kramy

Most likely. Overclocked, they should have a high enough FSB that the cache size doesn't matter as much. Still, it's a safer bet with an E4400, for all applications and games.
Good review. Very consistent. The lack of cache hurts it in some areas(as much as 15%), but it does very well in others. Unfortunately, when it comes to games, it doesn't matter - In 3Dmark01 it had a horrid score, roughly on-par with an Athlon X2. In Doom3, latency matters more than bandwidth/cache, so Athlon X2's would again provide similar scores to it. In Far Cry...same story.

True, but those aren't cache limited applications, are they? (excluding SuperPI, which loves cache )

I'd bet the X2 would cap out at under 3.2ghz.

That review cannot be taken seriously. They have different FSB speeds for every CPU, and the Athlon X2 isn't overclocked. There's no way to tell if cache makes a difference, since there are no common factors.

Yes, with a high FSB I'm sure.

Hey, that's insulting.

Has anyone tested a stock E2140 vs a stock Athlon X2? For all you know, I was telling the complete truth. With similar amounts of bandwidth, the Athlon X2 could soundly beat it in most tasks, for all you know. It's never just one thing that equates to performance. I could be 100% correct in that the lack of cache cripples it, and 100% correct in that a higher FSB once overclocked makes up for it. Don't assume someone is wrong, just because you can't grasp there's multiple factors.

Very good review. That's what I love about xbitlabs - they don't mix multiple factors, if they can avoid it.

The E2140/E2160 edged out the Athlon X2's in every task, except games, where the Athlon X2's beat their counterparts by about 3-5% (avg).

Overclocked, they'd certainly beat the Athlons, since they can reach a higher clock speed. I also like that the tests showed how much the extra cache helps, in a few gaming situations.

People with Athlon X2's don't notice a lack of speed either, unless they have an 8800GTX or other card like that. (and are benchmarking )

The difference is negligible to the eye, but there is a difference.

I'd love to see the differences in folding.

__________________
-Kramy

Athlon X2 ----- 3Dmark05 11569 ---- 3Dmark06 7138* ---- eVGA 7900GS ---- 738/1972mhz stable ---- [vmod]
Athlon XP ----- 3Dmark05 6845 ------ 3Dmark06 3519 ----- BFG 7800GS ------ 460/1450mhz stable
*1152x864


Check it out! - Videocard Power Consumption Graphs

aod2002

isn't it true that the higher FSB/lower multi doesnt make a whole lot of difference compared to lower FSB/higher multi to get the same final frequency?
I remember reading a few sites that did a bunch of tests to see the difference and there was only like a few % difference. with a 10x multi I think this would be an awesome chip if it can OC as good. I'd take it over a x2 personally if it can reach over 2.8ghz, then later upgrade to a q6600. Thats just what I would do though.

__________________

killerfromsky

how about this one:
a amd 64 x2:
200fsb 10x multi = 2.0ghz
and this e2180
200fsb 10x multi = 2.0ghz
memory
1:2 rating for both = ddr800

wich one of these 2 will perform better?
I'm like core 2 duo is supposed to be a whole new architecture!?
But benches show me almost same results for both!?
How come?
I always tought core 2 duo had dual fsb? doesn't that make any difference?

__________________
Clinically Dead

http://www.ripping.org

J3r3my

The 21xx CPUs still beat X2s in most benches.

Ben the OCer

I'm not sure what your talking about with dual FSB, there is no such thing. There's still only one FSB for both cores. The lower cache of the E2100 series hurts it most in games but when you overclock it helps a lot (though of course it's still going to be slightly slower than a 4MB Conroe). When clocked at the same speed a X2 (2x512KB L2 cache) and E21x0 (1MB shared L2 cache) would be very close to the same speed (although the E21x0 might be just slightly faster). I know this first hand because I have a E2140 @ 3.2GHz and a X2 4000+ @ 2.8GHz.

__________________
Stable Validations:
CPU-Z: E8400 @ 4.2GHz 1.4v, PII 550 Unlocked @ 3.75GHz 1.475v, PII 710 @ 3.6GHz 1.475v, E2140 @ 3.2GHz 1.3v
GPU-Z: HD4850 @ 685/1010, HD3850 @ 810/909

(Forrest Gump referring to Apple Computers) "He got me invested in some kinda fruit company."

sepheroth003

ben your OC so good because of your mobo or what? I think im gunna grab a 2180 and would like to see a nice oc, obviously yours is sweet

__________________
Games Currently Playing:
PC: CoD4, WoW
PS3: CoD4, GTA IV

Currently up to 20 blu-ray movies.

Kramy

No. It makes a huge difference in some applications. In WinRAR, with multiple instances running at once, it could be 30-40%, when comparing 800mhz FSB to say...1600mhz FSB.

But there's only a handful of applications that max out the bandwidth that much. Offhand I can only recall ~2, and I think there's only ~6 or so common ones.

__________________
-Kramy

Athlon X2 ----- 3Dmark05 11569 ---- 3Dmark06 7138* ---- eVGA 7900GS ---- 738/1972mhz stable ---- [vmod]
Athlon XP ----- 3Dmark05 6845 ------ 3Dmark06 3519 ----- BFG 7800GS ------ 460/1450mhz stable
*1152x864


Check it out! - Videocard Power Consumption Graphs

whe3ls

with mine i was able to take it to 3.2 on stock volts but it is a e2160

__________________