![]() ![]() ![]() Hardware and software Testbed configuration CPU Judging by this lagging/outperforming we can, with a certain degree of probability, assume which of the models situated between X2 4000+ and X2 4800+ will be the closest to E6300 in terms of performance. And we can compare its virtual performance with that of a perfectly real E6300 we have for tests.Īs for its rivals from AMD camp, since we have no test results for a similarly clocked product for Socket AM2, we will provide results of the following couple: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (lags behind E6300 as a rule) and Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (usually outperforms E6300). That's the point! Our virtual product seems to have the same L2 cache as its senior brothers. It's obvious that our formula doesn't consider the halved cache of a real E6300. Given we know the results of a certain E6700 and E6600 benchmark as well as clock rates of E6700, E6600 and E6300, we can calculate a hypothetical result E6300 could get in that benchmark. It's merely a result of a simplest extrapolation sequenting from the following assumption: any drops and increases of this series' performance are a function of clock rate. Because of that we resorted to a little trick and expanded our charts with another "processor" existing purely in our imagination as a mathematical formula. ![]() E6600) and the Core 2 Duo E6300, it's hard to separate visually (judging by charts) the negative effect of smaller L2 from the effect of lower clock rate. However, due to a large clock rate gap between the lowest clock rate Core 2 Duo, for which we already have test results (i.e. Our today's processor is interesting by itself, as its the first representative of Intel Core 2 Duo series that we review that has shared L2 cache halved to 2MB (FYI, both E6600/6700 and X6800 feature shared L2 of 4MB). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |