{"id":302,"date":"2008-11-06T18:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-06T18:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.alienbabeltech.com\/?p=1119"},"modified":"2008-12-19T23:26:40","modified_gmt":"2008-12-19T23:26:40","slug":"core-2-duo-e7200-vs-e6300-working-title","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/alienbabeltech.com\/main\/core-2-duo-e7200-vs-e6300-working-title\/","title":{"rendered":"Core 2 Duo E7200 vs E6300"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"e7200-vs-e6300\"<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Written by: Leon Hyman<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The current Intel line-up of desktop processors boasts a wealth of choices for the consumer.\u00a0 The focus of this review will be on the Core 2 Duo E7200<\/strong>. It is currently the cheapest 45nm Core 2 Duo processor and I will compare it with the cheapest 65nm Core 2 Duo at the time of launch, roughly two years ago, the E6300.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

It is understandable that everyone would want the best of the best all of the time. On the other hand, the reality is that not everyone can afford it. Hence, the price to performance ratio or bang-for-buck value of an item becomes increasingly important.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

One of the things that the smaller 45nm process was able to achieve, is being cheaper to produce and hence cheaper to purchase.\u00a0 Two years ago I purchased a 1.86GHz E6300 for US$183. Just under a month ago, I purchased a 2.53GHz E7200 for US$120. More performance for less cash … let the good times roll baby!<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

TECHNICAL INFORMATION<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The E7x00 series is a stripped down version of the E8x00 series. Basically, one FSB strap lower and half of the L2 cache. The E8x00 series runs at 1333FSB with 6MB of L2 cache while the E7x00 series runs at 1066FSB with 3MB of L2 cache goodness.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

The E7200 can be considered to be most closely related to the E8500. Both possess a 9.5 Bus to Core Ratio (commonly known as the multiplier), with the E8500 having 6MB of L2 cache and using 333FSB for a stock speed of 3.16GHz. The E7200 has 3MB of L2 cache and uses 266FSB for a stock speed of 2.53GHz.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

If both were clocked to the same speed, the performance difference caused by L2 cache size would be no more than 5-10%. Synthetic benchmarks can easily show up these differences but the real world impact is not as noticeable.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Taking a look now at the E6300, we see that it has 2MB of L2 cache and also runs at 266FSB. However, this CPU has a multiplier of only<\/em> 7, which leaves us with a stock speed of 1.86GHz. With a 1MB L2 cache difference between the E6300 and the E7200, we see the performance difference — in situations where L2 cache is used intensively — become only 1-3% which is even less noticeable.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Anyway, I’m sure what everyone wants to see now is the test setup and the benchmarks.\u00a0 So let’s get to that.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

TEST SYSTEM SPECS & METHODOLOGY<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

I tested both CPUs on the following platform. The table shows its specifications with the CPU comparison following.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"system-specs\"
<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"cpu-specs\"
<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

The method of testing is very important. You might be wondering why I would test two processors built on the same architecture with such a large gap in clock speed; one which would see the E7200 being some 36% faster than the E6300.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Simple … I’m not<\/strong>.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

I will not be testing these CPUs at stock speeds. Core 2 Duo CPUs all have such wonderful overclocking headroom, that it is very hard not to take advantage<\/em> of that. Both of these processors easily overclock to 3GHz and so that is where I will benchmark them … for a true<\/strong> clock-for-clock comparison.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

There are several ways for these processors to hit 3GHz, although less ways for the E6300 with its limited multiplier of 7. That being said, the benchmarks will all be run at 3.003GHz using 429FSB and a multiplier of 7 for both<\/strong> processors.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

I could have easily run the E7200 at 333×9 or 400×7.5 for 3GHz also, but then again, that might introduce FSB and RAM speed-related variables which I think would affect the results in one way or another. So the most accurate way is to keep everything the same<\/strong>.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

With that said … let’s get to the benches!!<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

PCMARK VANTAGE<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

PCMark Vantage<\/a>, from Futuremark<\/a>, is the newest and most complete utility for benchmarking your computer system(s). It tests the CPU, GPU and HDD subsystems but since all other hardware remains exactly the same, the section that will make the difference in the scores, will be the CPU tests.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Here is the list of tests that the CPUs undergo:<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n