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
bob661 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Give me a break dude the Intel fanbois were doing the same thing. Nothing to see here. Move along.araczynski - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
looks like i'll be gettig the E6600 for great base performance with capability to overclock decently. I'll probably be sticking with a P965 mobo since i won't be going for crazy overclocking or crazy cooling solutions (that turniq cooler looks just about right for my tastes).now i just have to figure out whether to get a 7900gt/gtx/50gtx.... to last me until the second generation of the dx10's comes out...
drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
The pricing in this article is inaccurate. The Conroes are too low and the Athlon64s are too high.Seems to me you're using vendor pricing for one and suggested retail for the other.
coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
No the pricing is completely accurate they are using AMD's price lists that come directly from AMD itself, and they are using Intel's prices for 1000 Unit Quantities, that will also be published on their website.If your talking about actualy price on online retailors that will remain to be seen.
drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
No, I'm not talking about online retailers.I'm talking about actual prices that I can get right now from my distributors and the listed suggested retail prices.
Where, exactly, are you getting your prices?
coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Go to AMD.com and you can get their official pricing, the listed numbers are what will be on Intel's website when they get updated for Core 2 Duo.OEM Distributer pricing is a different metric.
drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Distributor pricing is what determines street and retail pricing.Intel can post the MSRP of $999 all they want, but if distributors are selling their products for more than that, the price will never be seen.
What matters is that these prices are not accurate, and paint an entirely different story than should be painted.
goinginstyle - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link
Neither are the AM2 prices currently as most places are selling the FX62 well above the $799. So what was your point? It is all about supply and demand, the same thing happened when AMD launched S939, the prices were way over the stated numbers by AMD. You have to start with a base, the published pricing is the base.
drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link
Genius, $799 is not MSRP for the FX-62. $799 is the price at which AMD sells the processor to its distributors. The distributor then sells the processor to retail and/or wholesale outlets with a markup. The retailers and wholesalers then sell the same product with yet another markup. Currently, my price for an FX-62 is $811. MSRP is near to $1000, but then I, and many other sellers, do not use MSRP. I use cost-based pricing.
I'm not trying to prove anything here other than that the prices listed in this article are incorrect, and that the conclusions drawn are vastly different than conclusions that could be drawn were the pricings correct.
By the way, all prices I've quoted have been for PIBs, not tray processors. I don't use OEM processors...too much liability.
coldpower27 - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link
And, that's the thing the prices quoted are correct.
Using distributer pricing isn't a good idea as it could vary between the companies, depending on the deal you got as well, those particular prices can't be verified.
The prices listed on this chart can be since they are listed on AMD site and will be on Intel's.
There isn't a choice, unless you wish to use the real world pricing floating around as that is what matters at the end of the day, but there are issues with that, as that fluctuates.