£50 wow. Thats a bargain. Especially if it overclocks even remotely like the rest of the C2D family. Also the final nail in the coffin for AMD's current line up.
If it comes out at £30 i'll buy one just to see how well it clocks.
and there was me about to build a rig around an x2 3800, or 5600 depending on funds. bah, humbug. more choices![]()
Some sites say it gives the E4300 a run for its money, for £50 I will buy one for my second rig
Benchies
Should clock well, good for 3.2Ghz with DDR2 800 without pushing the memory.
Last edited by Madafwo; 18-04-2007 at 12:41 AM.
surely going from 1.6 to 3.2 would have issues? thats like double![]()
Don't think so in the slightest to be honestCore 2 Duo's advantage is mostly explained by 4 IPC to X2's 3. Better mem-prefetch is in addition to that, but the way that's improved actually means you could get away with less cache - it's the way it's fetched, not the volume of cache, that's made the difference.
Sure, more cache provides some small benefits in some circumstances, but in the volumes we're talking about it's not going to be limiting, given such tasks fit perfectly fine with 512k cache of AMDs chips.
Last edited by kalniel; 18-04-2007 at 02:23 PM.
I agree, and you could get away with less cache in x86 compiled apps (which most people tend to use these days), however x86_64 compilers will make use of more optimisations because they are aware that x86_64 CPUs have heaps more registers and cache.
It's hard to say with absolute certainty of course until someone writes performance benchmarks that are designed to test cache. But I am fairly confidant that Intel gets away with it's lower memory bandwidth thanks partially due to it's larger cache on top of better modern pre-fetching hardware and software.![]()
The point about registers is interesting. There aren't all that many new anyway, but some of the earlier results comparing AMD X2 to Core 2 Duo showed that there was a bigger boost in performance for the X2 going from 32 to 64bit than doing the same with the Core 2 Duo.
What was actually happening had nothing to do with cache size - even 64bit intructions fit fine within 512k cache, but the length of them actually means you can't fit so many in the 16bit instruction fetch/predecode of core 2 duo, meaning it dropped back to 3 IPC.
So infact the cache size has no special importance for 64 bit processing, especially not L2 cache, but infact it's the width of the instruction fetch/predecode that's important, and in this regard the E2140 should be identical to the E6600.
Last edited by kalniel; 18-04-2007 at 02:45 PM.
death_metal posted this in the XS thread that I made.
http://fanboyreview.blogspot.com/200...clock-for.html
100% overclock. Looks good. Stock cooling and everything.
![]()
Engineering samples are 99.99% of the time a lot better then the final product.
Take that with a pinch of salt.
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)