Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 & E6400: Tremendous Value Through Overclocking
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 26, 2006 8:17 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Encoding Performance using DivX 6.1, WME9, Quicktime (H.264) & iTunes
Multimedia encoding is typically a very good CPU benchmark, with performance that scales very nearly linearly with faster CPU clock speeds. Video testing was conducted using three popular codecs and applications: Xmpeg 5.03 with DivX 6.1, Windows Media Encoder with WMV9, and QuickTime 7.1 with H.264. The complexity of the encoding process increases as we move from DivX to WMV9, and H.264 encoding is in a league of its own in terms of the amount of CPU time required. Audio encoding performance was also tested using iTunes; MP3 encoding is less time-consuming than video encoding, but it continues to stress CPU performance.
Video encoding was always one of the strong points of the NetBurst architecture, and the results in DivX and WME9 are one of the few instances where the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 can actually outperform all of AMD's dual core offerings. This is in part due to optimizations in the applications, and the advantage doesn't extend over to QuickTime H.264 encoding or MP3 encoding.
Both of the low end Core 2 Duo chips continue to impress, especially the overclocked E6400 which once again manages to surpass the stock X6800 in performance. How can a slower clocked chip outperform the X6800? Video encoding also stresses FSB bandwidth, and the FSB is running faster and providing more bandwidth with the low-end parts due to overclocking. Obviously, neither chip is actually faster than the X6800 if you test that with overclocking thrown in, but for those looking to save money the performance offered is definitely impressive.
DivX performance is very strong with the new Core 2 processors, and it looks like it'll take K8L to restore AMD's competitiveness here. The E6300 performs like a 4600+ while the E6400 performs like a 5000+, but once overclocked there isn't an AMD CPU that can touch either one. Given that most current 90nm X2s top out at around 2.8 - 3.0GHz on air, there's not much hope here for AMD until 65nm.
The situation is pretty much unchanged using Windows Media Encoder 9: the E6300 and E6400 are competitive at stock speeds but once overclocked they are now able to hang with their more expensive 4MB brethren.
Our Quicktime H.264 test is the most stressful out of all the video encoding tests we've got here, but the Core 2 line is quickly changing that as the majority of Core 2 parts complete the test in around 2 minutes. The E6400 is already faster than the FX-62 at stock speeds and overclocking it gives the X6800 a new neighbor at the top of the chart.
The AMD lineup is far more competitive under the iTunes MP3 encoding test; the E6400 is the same speed as the X2 4600+ while the E6300 is just under the performance of the X2 4200+.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
137 Comments
View All Comments
coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Assuming you have the Socket AM2 platform, then yes you can, remember 5000+ only exists for Socket AM2, and not Socket 939.Since that platform is relatively new, only a handful who have would consider upgrading to anything.
Gigahertz19 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
I'm definetly going with the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4GHz since it is the cheapest one that has 4Mb of L2 cache and overclock it to 3GHz or whatever is stable.Olaf van der Spek - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
I'm also missing any mention of single core solutions. Sure, dual core is the future, but in the present, single core is just as fast for games and a lot cheaper.An Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4 ghz costs only 110 dollar/euro.
krisia2006 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
AMD left me wanting for an affordable dual core cpu and Intel answered.I bought the Pentium Ds and will buy the Core 2 Duo.
In the present, I play games fine on my Pentium Ds.
Olaf van der Spek - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Isn't way too much attention given to CF/SLI?
Given the costs, it's only interesting to 'diehard' gamers that spend very much money on their systems.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
The benefits in some games are huge, and I would say just about any gamer would at least *think* about CF/SLI before making a decision as to what to buy. That doesn't mean they have to go that route, but without CF/SLI you will certainly be GPU limited at higher resolutions. This is a well-established fact, as in recent titles you can't run 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 with 4xAA/8xAF and still get CPU-limited results.samuraiBX - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Hey guys, I like the article, but I was wondering, why did you go with medium settings instead of ultra high or high? I'd like to see the performance in that arena more than the medium settings. Any chance we could get those? Thanks!coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
The performance is obvious, even on a Crossfire system with image quality settings tunred up you will get a straight line down the middle between NetBurst, K8, and Core based products due to the GPU being the bottleneck, since the emphasis was CPU performance, they need to kick back on the GPU settings a tad to make sue the CPU is the limiting factor.Real world, a Pentium D 915/945 would be sufficient for gaming.
bob661 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
What impresses me the most about these Conroe's is their OCing ability. Almost as fast as a Conroe EE for less than a 1/4 of its price.mkruer - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
You might want to pick up the new stepping 6 (mass produces ones) A lot of people over at xteamesystesm are complaining that the stepping 6 doesn’t over clock nearly as well as the stepping 5 and that the temperatures are staring to go though the roof.Personally I would love to know if this is true
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...