Core 2 Duo Variants — Does Cache Size Really Boost Performance?
Skip to main content
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.
Intel has a plethora of desktop processors on the market. While there are still some Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors around, the majority builds on the Core micro-architecture. We clearly recommend against purchasing any Pentium 4 or Pentium D processor, although their clock speeds of up to 3.8 GHz may look attractive. Any Core 2 processor at 2.2 GHz and up is capable of beating even the fastest Pentium D models (so does the Athlon 64 X2), because Core 2 offers much better performance per clock. Have a look at our CPU Charts to compare Pentium D and Core 2 Duo processors along with most AMD CPUs.
Thanks to its lower clock speed levels, Core 2 is more energy efficient. While the Pentium D 800 top models used to eat up to 130 W, only a Core 2 Extreme quad core can exceed 100 W. All dual-core processors are rated at 65 W. In addition, the idle power requirement of a Core 2 Duo processor is even lower, which is also due to the reduced idle clock speed (max. 1.2 GHz for Core 2 Duo/Quad versus 2.8 GHz for Pentium D/4 processors). The reduced power consumption is also made possible by improved transistor designs with reduced leakage current.
Right now, there are E and X models available. E represents the mainstream processors while X stands for Extreme Editions. A Q stands for a quad core, which Intel builds by putting two dual-core dies into one physical processor package. E6000 processors have 4 MB L2 cache if their model number is >E6400, or if it ends on -20 (e.g. E6320). Models ending on -00 (e.g. E6600) run at 266 MHz system clock speed (FSB1066), while the -50 parts (E6750) are specified for 333 MHz (FSB1333). The latter requires a P35 or X38 chipset and delivers marginally better performance. E4000 runs at 200 MHz system speed (FSB800) and only has 2 MB L2 cache.
The 1 MB versions are being sold as Pentium Dual Core E2140, E2160 and E2180, running at 1.6 to 2.0 GHz. Apart from the name and some features that Intel disabled for the low-cost models, these Pentium Dual Cores are identical to Core 2 Duo devices.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Processor Number65 nm | Cache | Clock Speed | Front Side Bus | Virtualization Technology | Trusted Execution Technology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6850 | 4 MB L2 | 3 GHz | 333 MHz | X | X |
| E6750 | 4 MB L2 | 2.66 GHz | 333 MHz | X | X |
| E6700 | 4 MB L2 | 2. 66 GHz |
266 MHz | X | Row 2 — Cell 5 |
| E6600 | 4 MB L2 | 2.40 GHz | 266 MHz | X | Row 3 — Cell 5 |
| E6550 | 4 MB L2 | 2.33 GHz | 333 MHz | X | X |
| E6540 | 4 MB L2 | 2.33 GHz | 333 MHz | X | Row 5 — Cell 5 |
| E6420 | 4 MB L2 | 2.13 GHz | 266 MHz | X | Row 6 — Cell 5 |
| E6400 | 2 MB L2 | 2.13 GHz | 266 MHz | X | Row 7 — Cell 5 |
| E6320 | 4 MB L2 | 1. 86 GHz |
266 MHz | X | Row 8 — Cell 5 |
| E6300 | 2 MB L2 | 1.86 GHz | 266 MHz | X | Row 9 — Cell 5 |
| E4600 | 2 MB L2 | 2.40 GHz | 200 MHz | Row 10 — Cell 4 | Row 10 — Cell 5 |
| E4500 | 2 MB L2 | 2.20 GHz | 200 MHz | Row 11 — Cell 4 | Row 11 — Cell 5 |
| E4400 | 2 MB L2 | 2 GHz | 200 MHz | Row 12 — Cell 4 | Row 12 — Cell 5 |
| E4300 | 2 MB L2 | 1.80 GHz | 200 MHz | Row 13 — Cell 4 | Row 13 — Cell 5 |
Current page:
Core 2 Duo Variants
Prev Page Large Caches: Performance Or A Business Decision?
Next Page Test Setup
Get instant access to breaking news, in-depth reviews and helpful tips.
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brandsReceive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors
Tom’s Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site .
©
Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street,
New York,
NY 10036.
cpu — Core 2 duo memory — cache «transfer unit size»
Asked
Modified
11 years, 8 months ago
Viewed
1k times
I’m developing a sort of «cache emulator» and I need to know what is the size of the transfer unit between main memory and L2 cache for a core 2 duo processor.
Anyone knows it? Thanks.
- memory
- cpu
Microarchitecture
«Core 2 Duo» processors are made with the Core microarchitecture design.
30 bytes/GB)
= 11,381,663,334 bytes/sec
ibus-clk-fq = (bytes-per-sec) / (ibus-transfer-amt/bus-clock)
≈ 355,676,979.19 Hz
≈ 355.7 MHz
fsb-divisor = (1333 MHz) / (355.7 MHz)
≈ 3.75
The Intel documentation also lists the FSB for this processor at 1333 MHz and 10.6 GB/s, so you should be able to calculate that similarly.
4
If your cpu is 64bit compatible, then each channel is 64 bits wide. Dual channel DDR2 memory should have a 128 bit wide pathway to the cpu. But the bus between the cpu and its l2 cache should be 64 bits wide.
1
Okay, I’ve discovered that, in x86 jargon, an L2 «cache line» is both the unit of storage allocation in L2 caches and the transfer unit between RAM and L2.
In a Core 2 duo, a cache line is 64-bytes wide, so that answers my question 🙂
Sign up or log in
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 is a nimble «baby» that pleasantly surprised with its speed second-level cache (recall that the E6600/6700 and X6800 share L2 size is 4 MB).
However, due to the rather large frequency gap between the lowest-frequency Core 2 Duo, for which there are already results (E6600) and Core 2 Duo E6300, it is quite difficult to visually (from the rulers in the diagrams) understand where we are seeing a loss due to a decrease in the L2 size , and where — because of the low frequency. In this regard, we went for a little trick, as a result of which another «processor» appeared on the diagrams, which exists only in our imagination and in the form of a mathematical formula — Prospective (supposed) E6300. What it is?
This is the result of the simplest extrapolation, which is a consequence of the assumption that the decrease (or increase) in the performance of processors of this line is a function of frequency. If we know the results of a particular test for the E6700 and E6600, and we also know the frequencies of the E6700, E6600 and E6300, we can calculate the hypothetical E6300 result for this test. It’s easy to see that the cache truncated in the real E6300 is not taken into account in this formula.
This is interesting! It turns out that our «virtual» has an L2 cache of the same size as the older models — and we can compare its (virtual) performance with the speed of a very specific E6300 participating in this test.
As for AMD competitors, due to the lack of a tested processor for the new Socket AM2 platform with approximately the same speed (at least approximately, in terms of the total score), we present the results of two on the diagrams: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (it is from the E6300, usually lags behind) and Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (it usually outperforms the E6300). Based on the lagging/leading values for each particular case, in principle, one can assume with a certain degree of probability which of the models standing between the X2 4000+ and X2 4800+ will be approximately equal to the E6300 in terms of performance. 975xbx (BIOS 1351)
- Video card — GeForce 7800GTX 256 MB (Gigabyte)
- Memorial volume on stands-2 GB (2 modules)
- HARD DIS-Samsung SP1614C (SATA)
- used coolers-standard, attached to processors
- BP-Chieftec GPS-550AB A
9000 9000
0021
* — if “2x…” is indicated, then it means “by … per core”
** — for AMD processors — controller bus frequency memory
*** — for Intel and AMD processors it is measured differently, therefore it is incorrect to compare directly
Software
- Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP1.
- 3ds max 7.0
- Maya 6.5
- Lightwave 8.5 x64 Edition
- WinRAR 3.51
- 7-Zip 4.32 x64 Edition
- LAME 3.98
- Monkey Audio 4.01
- OGG Encoder 2.8 (Lancer)
- Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Edition
- MATLAB 7.1
- Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 2.0
- SolidWorks 2005
- Microsoft Visual C++ Professional 6.0
- CPU RightMark 2005 Lite x64 Edition
- F.E.A.R. 1.3
- Half-Life 2
- Unreal Tournament 2004 build 3339
- Quake 4 Point Release 1.1
- FineReader Professional 8.0
- Adobe Photoshop CS2 (9.0)
- Canopus ProCoder 2.01.30
- DivX 6.1.1
- Windows Media Video 9 VCM
3D modeling packages
In this case, the reality turned out to be somewhat worse than expected: the virtual E6300 scored 143 points, and the real one only 138. We did not expect exact matches (although …. however, we will not get ahead of ourselves).
Apparently, sometimes the size of the L2 cache does matter. What a fresh idea, right? 🙂 However, this does not improve the situation for AMD in any way: even the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is almost on a par with the youngest of the currently produced CPUs from the Core 2 Duo line. CAD (Computer Aided Design) packages
Pretty good hit, virtual even a little slower. This, of course, pleases, especially considering that we are dealing with the results in a fairly serious group of tests: apparently, this is not so small — 2 megabytes of cache for 2 cores. However, really: why should this not be enough? AMD Athlon 64 X2 work somehow? AMD processors in this group look quite solid: they both outperformed the E6300, and not formally, by a couple of units, but by at least 6% (result of A64 X2 4000+).
Compilation
Quite a strange result, because in theory the compiler should be critical to the size of the second-level cache (and the «virtual», meanwhile, is even worse than the real Core 2 Duo E6300).
AMD’s budget processor performed well enough — it practically did not lag behind. RightMark project
And again, the amazing accuracy of the assumptions coincides with the results of real testing. However, CPU RightMark has never been particularly sensitive to L2 (up to a certain limit, of course — it still rejected the Celeron «Willamette-128» in our past tests. Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (with some assumption, this AMD processor can be called a budget dual-core , as well as the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300) demonstrates quite a decent result, and this is good news: at least in the lower price segment, the A64 X2 can compete in some tests with processors from the new Intel line, corresponding in positioning.0003
Bitmap processing (photos)
No, Core 2 Duo processors need a large L2 cache for something. Agree: it would be a mistake for development engineers if they equipped older models with 4 MB L2 only «for the sake of greater importance.» Also, for the first time we are seeing a situation where the E6300 is located not on one of the edges of the «AMD group», but approximately in the middle.
WEB-server
Yes, this is clearly not the realm of state employees — the E6700/6600 look like such clear winners against the background of the rest that the results of the E6300, as well as both AMD processors, do not even want to discuss … It is clear that some «penny» » There are also differences between them, but the winners of the first places have gone too far.
Packing files
Finally! The only group of tests in which the «virtual» E6300 convincingly outperformed the real one. Of course, due to the truncated cache of the latter, these are archivers working with large dictionaries.
Audio data encoding
And here the significant discrepancy between the results of the real and virtual E6300 turns out to be completely opposite: the real one is convincingly faster. We see only one logical explanation: with an increase in the frequency, the efficiency of the Core 2 Duo per unit frequency in some tasks still drops.
Video data encoding
Once again, the Core 2 Duo E6300 is almost on par with the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, significantly outperforming AMD’s budget dual-core processor.
Text recognition system
The situation is completely similar to the previous diagram.
3D games
In games, the Core 2 Duo E6300 scores between the A64 X2 4000+ and A64 X2 4800+, but still clearly closer to the latter. Which allows us to draw a sad conclusion for AMD, but supported by test data: even with a reduced cache, in games the new Intel core convincingly outperforms the rather old AMD core. It’s time to seriously upgrade the K8, obviously it’s time …
Total scores
Efficiency per gigahertz frequency
As we expected, the efficiency per gigahertz frequency of the younger Core 2 Duo turned out to be the highest among all the reviewed Intel models. Conclusion
Intel turned out to be a very interesting processor. In terms of performance, it’s quite close to Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (the difference in the overall score is about 6% in favor of 4800+), in terms of positioning, it seems to be a direct competitor of Athlon 64 X2 3800+/4000+ (the latter of which it outperforms by 9%, therefore, comparison with 3800+ will be even more losing for AMD).
We can say that the current new low-end dual-core platform from Intel, even according to the most modest estimates, is quite close to a similar class and middle-end positioning from AMD. On the other hand, Intel’s Core 2 Duo product line is quite small, it has only 4 processors — while AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 models for Socket AM2 have twice as many. Accordingly, Intel has just a few steps from low-end to high-end. Namely, three: E6300 -> E6400, E6400 -> E6600, E6600 — E6700 (X6800 is already Core 2 eXtreme, a processor for enthusiasts like Athlon 64 FX). AMD positioning is more clearly expressed due to the wide range (Athlon 64 X2 / Socket AM2: 3800+, 4000+, 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, 4800+, 5000+, 5200+). Afterwards, one can complain that the promised Core 2 Duo E4200 is still not visible on the horizon (it was planned as the youngest processor in the line: core frequency — 1.6 GHz, 800 MHz bus, 2 MB shared L2).
As of today, the “seemingly low-end” (in the dual-core class) from Intel has performed well against the background of the “almost high-end” from AMD .
.. but still, I would like to see a few greater variety in the model range. We, ordinary users, are capricious creatures, we want perfection not only in technology, but also in positioning :). Let’s finish on this moderately optimistic (for Intel) note. Core 2 Duo E6xxx processors are good — all without exception, including the younger one. But it is a pity that there are only four of them.
Memories of memory modules for test stands provided
Russian representation Corsair Memory90,000 Intel Core 2 Duo -E4300 Allendale (1800MHz, LGA775, L3 -L2 2048 KB)
9000 :
Processor Model Number:
Processor Number:
Processor Core Name:
Number of Cores:
Processor Clock Speed:
Socket Type:
Process technology:
L1 cache size:
L2 cache size:
L3 cache size:
Maximum memory bandwidth:
Processor type:
Release date:
9
Processor Description:
Intel-brand processor with Core 2 Duo lineup and processor number: E4300.
This processor works on the Allendale Core, the CPU itself is designed according to the technological process (lithography) of 65 nm. The number of cores in the processor is 2, and the total clock speed is 1800MHz . This Intel brand CPU has a socket (connector) for connecting to the LGA775 motherboard. The volume of cache memory in the third level (L3) — and the cache memory in the second level (L2) is 2048 KB. Information about maximum memory bandwidth: -. By the manufacturer, this processor is positioned as a CPU for systems of the type: Desktop PCs. Known release (production) date for this processor: Q3 2006. Information about the technical characteristics of the goods listed on the pages of the site is solely reference character and does not mean the presence of goods from sellers on the radio market.
Specify the availability of goods directly from sellers , contacting them using the contacts listed in the catalog of radio market companies.
CPUs most unlike this
CPU The AMD CPU is represented by the Opteron model line with the number 4170 HE . This processor uses the Lisbon Core and is made in Process 45 nm . The number of cores in it is 6 , and the total clock frequency of this processor is 2100MHz . This AMD Corporation product is connected to the computer motherboard using the C32 connector (socket). The memory of the third level is 6144 KB , and the amount of memory of the second level is 3072 KB . Maximum memory bandwidth found on the manufacturer’s website: — . This processor is presented by the company as a CPU for systems: Server . Start date of production (release) of this processor: 06/23/2010 .
The AMD CPU is represented by the Opteron model line with the number 4240 .
This processor uses the Valencia core, and the processor itself is made according to the 32 nm manufacturing process. The number of cores in it is 6 , and the total clock speed of this processor is 3400MHz . This AMD Corporation product is connected to the computer motherboard using the C32 connector (socket). The memory of the third level is 8192 KB , and the amount of memory of the second level is 6144 KB . The maximum memory bandwidth found on the manufacturer’s website is — . This processor is presented by the company as a CPU for systems: Server . Start date of production (release) of this processor: 05/01/2012 . The AMD CPU is represented by the Opteron model line with the number 2435 . This processor uses the Istanbul Core , and the processor itself is made according to the 45 nm manufacturing process.
