Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

sladesurfer

· Banned
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Quote:


Intel has spent millions making their "Core" brand synonymous with high performance processing. In these days of the Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, and Core 2 Extreme, it's pretty easy to find a Core microarchitecture-based processor to match nearly any possible price point. The performance levels of the Core 2 product lineup have been so dominating that Intel really didn't have to spend a penny if they didn't want to, although big time marketing campaigns are good for converting those who just want the latest and greatest and don't necessarily read enthusiast sites like ours here.

Despite the Core 2 being a successful lineup from top to bottom, Intel's Pentium product name is still a valuable asset. Intel's last Pentium-branded product launches happened mid last year, with the "Presler" core based Pentium-D processors hitting the market at speeds in excess of 3.0 GHz. Soon afterwards, the first generation Core 2 processors hit the streets and (more or less) dominated the Pentium-D in terms of performance, all the while consuming far less power and creating much less heat. From that point forward, many had figured the Pentium name would be essentially dead, simply living out its final days as inventory in warehouses until the Core 2 made it obsolete.

Apparently, this is not what Intel had in mind. A while back, we started to hear rumblings of a "new" Pentium processor. While the Pentium had always targeted the performance crowd, it appeared that Intel would be taking the name in a new direction, pushing it to the value sector where their Celeron brand typically resided. As the Celeron name does not have a strong following, replacing it with an aging (but still well known) brand like Pentium does make quite a lot of sense. The question is, what really is this "new" Pentium processor? Is this a new architecture, or simply a new chip based on something we've already seen?

The answers to those questions are finally here, as the first "new" Pentium processor has arrived and is running in our lab. This new processor is shipping at two speeds, 1.6 GHz (E2140) and 1.8 GHz (E2160), is based on a dual-core architecture, and ships in the same powder-blue box we've come to associate with the Core 2 Duo.


Quote:


For a $95 (USD) processor, the Intel Pentium E2140 put up a surprisingly solid performance, which is a testament to this chip's overall value. Albeit under a new name, Intel is finally moving their Conroe dual-core architecture down to the budget markets, bringing true modern dual-core performance to low-end systems, which is something everyone can appreciate.

In terms of raw performance, the Pentium E2140 only runs about 10% slower in most cases than Intel's cheapest Core 2 Duo processor, the E6300, which is impressive considering it has a lower clock speed and half the cache. However, the Pentium E2140 ($95) is currently 42% cheaper than the Core 2 Duo E6300 ($165), making it a better value compared to low-end Core 2 Duo processors. We should also note that, AMD does have dual-core Athlon 64 X2 processors which are as inexpensive as $55 in some cases, so if you're looking for extreme low-budget dual-core processing, AMD still delivers the lowest price. For Intel-based dual-core computing though, the Pentium E2100-series chips are excellent choices for those with limited budgets.

When looking at the benchmarks, we also see that the Pentium E2140 can provide extremely good performance when overclocked. Notably, the chip performs great in workstation and basic office-class applications, where the smaller amount of L2 cache does not hurt performance as much as one would expect. Gamers, however, would be better served by a chip with a larger amount of L2 cache, as the smaller L2 compliment on the Pentium E2100 series does hurt its clock-for-clock gaming performance against the Core 2 Duo. While others have pushed these chips further with more exotic cooling, we pushed our chip to 2.9 GHz with the stock cooler. At this level, the Pentium E2140 processor can provide performance similar to a Core 2 Duo E6700 ($320) in best case scenarios. The Pentium E2140 can push very high clock speeds with very little work, and the stock cooler which Intel bundles is whisper silent most of the time, which makes for a great combination.

Image
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/...cessor/?page=1
 
if it's 90$ then it's not really worth it since the e4300 is around 110$ with more l2 cache, ayways exactly how much L2 cache does this chip have? I heard these chips are great oc'ers.
 
1 MB shared. I think I'm with everybody else - spend the extra 20 bucks and get an Allendale.
 
Sorry but these cpu's have been out for about 2 months already, and it's been posted a few times before.

But on the other hand, these things get no attention at all. They are really great overclockers and I've seen an E2160 @ 3.2Ghz on stock vcore. Great value, great cpu.
 
I would get one if only on the fact that the E4300 Allendale has the thermal pasted internal heat-sink which severely limits the over-clocking capability.

I'd rather have a fully warranty in tact Pentium E2140 at 3.2GHZ than an Allendale that's unstable at 2.8-3.0GHZ that requires a voided warranty and risk of busting the chip to get it stable or at low temps.

The $90 price tag could mean a street price is more modest too.

I guess we'll have to see how this processor matures into the market.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NamelessMC View Post

I'd rather have a fully warranty in tact Pentium E2140 at 3.2GHZ than an Allendale that's unstable at 2.8-3.0GHZ that requires a voided warranty and risk of busting the chip to get it stable or at low temps.
You're inferring that an Allendale can't reach a stable overclock of 2.8 to 3ghz without removing the IHS?
Image
 
You guys will find this thread interesting:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=143549

The OP got the CPU to post and bench at 3.5GHZ, but with Swifttech water cooling.

Another guy said at 3.2GHZ he was getting 75C load temps on air.

His SuperPi time was as fast as an E6600 at 3.5GHZ, so very comparable to Conroe with double the L2 cache.

In gaming benchmarks, the difference between a 1.8GHZ Pentium E2160 and an Allendale 1.8GHZ E4300 was abysmal, around 1-3% in frame-rates.

Also, the MSRP isn't $92. It's $74 for the 2140 (1.6GHZ) and $86 for the 2160 (1.8GHZ), so these are right on the door step of the X2 Brisbane 3600/3800.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sccr64472 View Post
You're inferring that an Allendale can't reach a stable overclock of 2.8 to 3ghz without removing the IHS?
Image

Stop trolling me. It's a gamble.

There are literally hundreds of people with problems getting an E4300 to be stable at a decent temperature on air cooling without the IHS mod.

Google it before you come back with another half-witted response.

Some people get stable at 2.8-3.0GHZ on an E4300, some people don't.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=2048998
This guy couldn't get past 2.7GHZ unless he bumped voltage up to 1.4.

http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=439572
This guy could only hit 2.7 on air and his load temps were 74C. He threw water on it and could hit 3.0 @ 1.36, but even at 1.45 voltage he couldn't post at 3.2GHZ.

Have a look on our own forum if you're in disbelief:
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/...ighlight=E4300

Most people have trouble being stable at 3.0GHZ on anything short of 1.4 voltage, and even then, they get higher than 65C load temps unless they lap the IHS or remove it altogether. Voided warranty much?

Stop trolling me please, I don't like double posting to get my point across.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NamelessMC View Post
There are literally hundreds of people with problems getting an E4300 to be stable at a decent temperature on air cooling without the IHS mod.
I have no idea where your attitude comes from nor do I accept a few forum posts as validation that it is uncommon to achieve 2.8ghz on air. I've only used 4 of them and all 4 hit 3 ghz without hassle. Can you show multiple professional reviewers struggling to hit 2.8 ghz?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NamelessMC View Post
Google it before you come back with another half-witted response.
You can Google just as many posters stating their E4300s are stable above your reported cap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NamelessMC View Post
Stop trolling me please, I don't like double posting to get my point across.
Trolling you?
Image
Don't flatter yourself. If you're uncomfortable defending your countless claims and percentages, then perhaps you shouldn't make them.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472
View Post

I have no idea where your attitude comes from nor do I accept a few forum posts as validation that it is uncommon to achieve 2.8ghz on air. I've only used 4 of them and all 4 hit 3 ghz without hassle. Can you show multiple professional reviewers struggling to hit 2.8 ghz?

You can Google just as many posters stating their E4300s are stable above your reported cap.

Trolling you?
Image
Don't flatter yourself. If you're uncomfortable defending your countless claims and percentages, then perhaps you shouldn't make them.

Yet again you come in with more speculation than facts.

I've posted links to people claiming instability. I myself have seen the 4300's instability.

Where's your proof? CPU-Z validations? Pictures of being stable at optimum load temps?

Sounds like baseless thrown out words to me, yet again, which seems like it's all you do.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by NamelessMC
View Post

Yet again you come in with more speculation than facts.

I've posted links to people claiming instability. I myself have seen the 4300's instability.

Where's your proof? CPU-Z validations? Pictures of being stable at optimum load temps?

Sounds like baseless thrown out words to me, yet again, which seems like it's all you do.

You're confused and misguided. Rewind the clock and pay careful attention to the facts. You were the person speculating that an E4300 could not attain a stable 2.8ghz without removing the IHS. I simply questioned you on it and you got your panties in an uproar. Every post you linked as "proof" that E4300s struggle to achieve 2.8ghz also contain a greater number of posters stating they obtained higher clocks. You're now asking for proof, cpu-z validations, and pictures in defense to being asked to confirm your original statement?
Image
Image
You're the only person making claims and speculating about the E4300 performance.

Quote:


Originally Posted by NamelessMC
View Post

Sounds like baseless thrown out words to me, yet again, which seems like it's all you do.

Again, resorting to personal attacks is a sign of weakness. There's simply no place for them in intelligent forum discussions. Let's get back on topic and leave the childish antics for those "omg pwnzors" forums. In case anyone has forgotten, NamelessMC is implying that the average E4300 cannot obtain a stable frequency of 2.8 to 3.0 ghz on air cooling, but the thread is about the new lower priced E2140.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts