What Core 2 To Buy Now?

The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack of
L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
be better in real world day to day use?


Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?


I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
(Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.


thx

bob

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
_____

Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about
overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?

A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than a
week.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
E2160.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
|
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|

"Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
> | The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
> Are
> | all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
> | luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
> of
> | L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
> would
> | be better in real world day to day use?
> |
> |
> | Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
> |
> |
> | I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
> | (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
> _____
>
> Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about........




Yes, and they all seem to OC well.




> overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?
>
> A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than a
> week.


And those would be....?

And what is there price/performance ratio?

I guess I should have said best bang for buck, price/performance, etc which
is what I meant.



bob




>
> I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
> answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
> E2160.


Perform better meaning it will be faster w/ stock cooling?


>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
> | The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
> Are
> | all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
> | luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
> of
> | L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
> would
> | be better in real world day to day use?
> |
> |
> | Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
> |
> |
> | I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
> | (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
> |
> |
> | thx
> |
> | bob
> |
> |
>
>

Phil, FYI:

The QX9650 quad extreme is scheduled for release 11/12.

The rest of the non extreme 45nm quads and duo's (wolfdales) will be
released sometime in Janurary.

Nuke
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 21:34:47 -0400, "Phil Weldon"
<> wrote:

>'Bob Johnson' wrote:
>| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
>| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
>| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
>of
>| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
>| be better in real world day to day use?
>|
>|
>| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
>|
>|
>| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
>| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
>_____
>
>Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about
>overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?
>
>A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than a
>week.
>
>I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
>answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
>E2160.
>
>Phil Weldon
>
>"Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
>news: ...
>| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
>| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
>| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
>of
>| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
>| be better in real world day to day use?
>|
>|
>| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
>|
>|
>| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
>| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
>|
>|
>| thx
>|
>| bob
>|
>|
>

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| And those would be....?
|
| And what is there price/performance ratio?
|
| I guess I should have said best bang for buck, price/performance, etc
which
| is what I meant.
_____

Bang for the buck? Price performance ratio? Not really meaningful questions
for a CPU in isolation from the applications, benefits of faster processing,
cost of the rest of the system (especially when you are considering only ONE
system.) These days a CPU can be the least expensive component in a new
system
You can easily spend
$150 -$200 US for a large capacity high quality power supply
$150 - $300 US for a high performance motherboard
$300 - $600 US for a high performance graphics card (or twice that for two).

All up a high performance (but not bleeding edge) system can cost $1000 US
exclusive of the CPU. At that point, doubling the cost of a CPU (say, from
a $135 E4300 to a $270 Q6600) adds only 12% to the system cost. If you
measure 'bang for the buck' against total system cost, then an overclocked
Core 2 Duo Q6600 quad wins. Or, if you wait a few months, then a Penryn 45
nm process CPU might be a better choice. Of course, the Nehalem CPUs coming
late in 2008 will require DDR3 memory and a new motherboard.

'Bang for the buck' and price/performance ratio are pretty useless measuring
sticks if the CPU isn't capable of handling the processing task in a
reasonable length of time.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
|
| "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
| news:...
| > 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| > | The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
| > Are
| > | all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is
it
| > | luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the
lack
| > of
| > | L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
| > would
| > | be better in real world day to day use?
| > |
| > |
| > | Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
| > |
| > |
| > | I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
recording
| > | (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
| > _____
| >
| > Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about........
|
|
|
|
| Yes, and they all seem to OC well.
|
|
|
|
| > overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?
| >
| > A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than
a
| > week.
|
|
| And those would be....?
|
| And what is there price/performance ratio?
|
| I guess I should have said best bang for buck, price/performance, etc
which
| is what I meant.
|
|
|
| bob
|
|
|
|
| >
| > I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
| > answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
| > E2160.
|
|
| Perform better meaning it will be faster w/ stock cooling?
|
|
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
| > news:. ..
| > | The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
| > Are
| > | all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is
it
| > | luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the
lack
| > of
| > | L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
| > would
| > | be better in real world day to day use?
| > |
| > |
| > | Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
| > |
| > |
| > | I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
recording
| > | (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
| > |
| > |
| > | thx
| > |
| > | bob
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

Bob Johnson wrote:
> The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
> all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
> luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
> says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed
> but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
>
>
> Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
>
>
> I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
> recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that
> matters.

I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an 4300 on a
decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160 setup was
about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.

I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB walls.


--
Phil

Thanks, Phil

I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
7900GT vid card.

I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much difference??

thx

bob



"Phil" <> wrote in message
news:47345752$0$20588$...
> Bob Johnson wrote:
>> The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
>> all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
>> luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
>> says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed
>> but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
>>
>>
>> Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
>>
>>
>> I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
>> recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that
>> matters.
>
> I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an 4300 on a
> decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160 setup
> was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.
>
> I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB walls.
>
>
> --
> Phil
>

Bob Johnson wrote:
> Thanks, Phil
>
> I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram
> and a 7900GT vid card.
>
> I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
> difference??
> thx
>
> bob
>
>
>
> "Phil" <> wrote in message
> news:47345752$0$20588$...
>> Bob Johnson wrote:
>>> The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other
>>> reviews. Are all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock
>>> cooling? Or is it luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My
>>> guru says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower
>>> speed
>>> but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
>>> recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if
>>> that matters.
>>
>> I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an
>> 4300 on a decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that
>> the 2160 setup was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by
>> 3 months.
>> I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB
>> walls.
>>
>> --
>> Phil

It doesn't make that big of a difference for everyday usage. If you're
gaming, maybe... I'm no expert. Anything above 1.8G seems the same speed
to me.

--
Phil

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
| 7900GT vid card.
|
| I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much difference??
_____

The short, simple answer to your question "I still would like to know if the
L2 cache makes *that* much difference??" is that the size of the L2 cache
can make a HUGE difference. But that difference the depends on the
applications and the mix of applications. Image processing, audio
processing, and similar transforms use large chunks of repetitive code and
thus benefit greatly from a large L2 cache. Standard office applications
benefit less. The smaller the L2 cache, the greater the benefit of doubling
its size. The higher the clock speed of the CPU, the more difference the
size of the L2 cache makes (a good reason to get a larger L2 cache if you
plan to overclock.)

Sometimes the difference in processor cost is trivial (example - a Core 2
Duo E6320 1.86 GHz 4 MB L2 cache costs $5 US more than a Core 2 Duo E6300
1.86 2 MB L2 cache - $176.90 vs. $171.80 US.) I recently bought a Dell
Inspiron 1520 and spent an extra $75 US to get a Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz with a 4
MByte L2 cache rather than a Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz with a 2 MByte L2 cache.

Why have an L2 cache? Well, a CPU needs much more data (including
instructions) than the memory bus can supply. A Core 2 Duo CPU is 'super
scalar'; each core can execute more than one instruction per clock cycle.
Two cores together can execute as many as six instructions per clock cycle.
Even discounting the effect of memory latencies a 800 MHz FSB can deliver,
at most, about 3 bytes per CPU clock cycle, less than one tenth the amount a
2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo might require. Without the L1 and L2 caches a CPU would
spend most of its time waiting for data.

The on die L1 cache can supply data as fast as the CPU can use it. But the
L1 cache is very small - a larger percentage of the data the CPU needs will
not already be loaded into the L1 cache. When the data required is not in
the L2 cache, then the CPU will obtain from the L2 cache which is much
larger. The L2 cache operates at the CPU clock speed, but there is a
latency that makes it slower to supply data than the L2 cache. But this
delay is MUCH smaller than retrieving data from main memory. Caches work
because there is a larger probability that the next instruction and/or other
data needed is in a memory location near the location of the current
instructions and other data. The L2 caches store data in chunks that are
large enough to include long loops of repetitive instructions as well as
arrays of data. The larger the L2 cache, the higher the probability that
the next data needed will already be in the L2 cache. The probability
depends on the type of application and how it is programmed. You can use
the web to find the cache 'hit' probability (the probability that the data
requested is already in the cache) dependency on the cache size. This will
be different for different applications. There are standard chunks of code
that have different mixes of instructions. These standard chunks are used
to show the performance of caches. This information is available on the web
for various processors.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
| Thanks, Phil
|
| I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
| 7900GT vid card.
|
| I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much difference??
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|
|
| "Phil" <> wrote in message
| news:47345752$0$20588$...
| > Bob Johnson wrote:
| >> The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
Are
| >> all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| >> luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
| >> says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed
| >> but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
| >>
| >>
| >> Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
| >>
| >>
| >> I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
| >> recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that
| >> matters.
| >
| > I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an 4300 on
a
| > decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160 setup
| > was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.
| >
| > I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB walls.
| >
| >
| > --
| > Phil
| >
|
|

Thanks, Phil

I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The 2160
should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what I read, CPU
speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is that true?


thx

bob



"Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
> | I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
> | 7900GT vid card.
> |
> | I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
> difference??
> _____
>
> The short, simple answer to your question "I still would like to know if
> the
> L2 cache makes *that* much difference??" is that the size of the L2 cache
> can make a HUGE difference. But that difference the depends on the
> applications and the mix of applications. Image processing, audio
> processing, and similar transforms use large chunks of repetitive code and
> thus benefit greatly from a large L2 cache. Standard office applications
> benefit less. The smaller the L2 cache, the greater the benefit of
> doubling
> its size. The higher the clock speed of the CPU, the more difference the
> size of the L2 cache makes (a good reason to get a larger L2 cache if you
> plan to overclock.)
>
> Sometimes the difference in processor cost is trivial (example - a Core 2
> Duo E6320 1.86 GHz 4 MB L2 cache costs $5 US more than a Core 2 Duo E6300
> 1.86 2 MB L2 cache - $176.90 vs. $171.80 US.) I recently bought a Dell
> Inspiron 1520 and spent an extra $75 US to get a Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz with a
> 4
> MByte L2 cache rather than a Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz with a 2 MByte L2 cache.
>
> Why have an L2 cache? Well, a CPU needs much more data (including
> instructions) than the memory bus can supply. A Core 2 Duo CPU is 'super
> scalar'; each core can execute more than one instruction per clock cycle.
> Two cores together can execute as many as six instructions per clock
> cycle.
> Even discounting the effect of memory latencies a 800 MHz FSB can deliver,
> at most, about 3 bytes per CPU clock cycle, less than one tenth the amount
> a
> 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo might require. Without the L1 and L2 caches a CPU
> would
> spend most of its time waiting for data.
>
> The on die L1 cache can supply data as fast as the CPU can use it. But
> the
> L1 cache is very small - a larger percentage of the data the CPU needs
> will
> not already be loaded into the L1 cache. When the data required is not in
> the L2 cache, then the CPU will obtain from the L2 cache which is much
> larger. The L2 cache operates at the CPU clock speed, but there is a
> latency that makes it slower to supply data than the L2 cache. But this
> delay is MUCH smaller than retrieving data from main memory. Caches work
> because there is a larger probability that the next instruction and/or
> other
> data needed is in a memory location near the location of the current
> instructions and other data. The L2 caches store data in chunks that are
> large enough to include long loops of repetitive instructions as well as
> arrays of data. The larger the L2 cache, the higher the probability that
> the next data needed will already be in the L2 cache. The probability
> depends on the type of application and how it is programmed. You can use
> the web to find the cache 'hit' probability (the probability that the data
> requested is already in the cache) dependency on the cache size. This
> will
> be different for different applications. There are standard chunks of
> code
> that have different mixes of instructions. These standard chunks are used
> to show the performance of caches. This information is available on the
> web
> for various processors.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
> | Thanks, Phil
> |
> | I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
> | 7900GT vid card.
> |
> | I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
> difference??
> |
> | thx
> |
> | bob
> |
> |
> |
> | "Phil" <> wrote in message
> | news:47345752$0$20588$...
> | > Bob Johnson wrote:
> | >> The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
> Are
> | >> all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is
> it
> | >> luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
> | >> says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed
> | >> but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
> | >> recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that
> | >> matters.
> | >
> | > I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an 4300
> on
> a
> | > decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160
> setup
> | > was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.
> | >
> | > I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB
> walls.
> | >
> | >
> | > --
> | > Phil
> | >
> |
> |
>
>