News Headlines
- Fri, May 24
- Time and Eternity Preview: All the Single Ladies
- Joe Danger 1 and 2 set to crash onto Steam later this year, Big Picture and Workshop support included
- Sony explains why Gran Turismo 6 is staying on PS3, cites PS3 potential and install base
- Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy HD is comign to iOS on May 30, prepare your Apple devices
- PlayStation 4 could reach Europe within 2013, according to UK newspaper ad
New Articles
Related Articles
Intel is now gunning for the dual core low end now, an area currently dominated by the AMD 3600 X2 and 4200 X2 processors. With the excellent microarchitecture of the Core 2 Duo, Intel is betting on the E2140 and E2160 still performing better than the low end AMD parts; basically betting that the microarchitecture will overcome the crippling effect of the 800MHz FSB that the E21xx series are targeted for.
The E2160, like the previously released E4x00 series, are based on the new Allendale core, however unlike the E4x00 series which have 2MB of cache, the E2xx0 series only have 1MB of L2 cache (512KB per core). As many of you will recall, the original E6400 and E6300 were actually based on dies with 4MB of L2 cache, of which Intel disabled 2MB so that the lower cost E6400 (and E6300) would be more easily distinguished from its 4MB L2 cache E6600 and E6700 siblings; so it is not surprising that Intel has decided to simply reduce the FSB and L2 cache size of the E4xxx series to produce the E2xxx series of budget Core 2 processors.

In order that you can see how it places "on the totem pole", I've gone overboard, and included a very large number of past results - and I ended up comparing it to the following list of dual core processors:
- Intel E4300 (simulated by running the E4400 with an 8x multiplier)
- Intel E4400
- Intel E6300 (simulated by running the E6400 with a 7x multiplier)
- Intel E6400
- Intel E6600
- Intel E6700
- Intel E6750
- Intel QX6700
And from AMD:
- AMD AM2 X2 4200+ (which was chosen for having a very similar price point to the E2160)
As some of the chips will have been benchmarked with older drivers, there will be a small variation in the older results due to drivers; however the differences ought to be very small.
The E2160 runs at a lower default Vcore with a 200MHz FSB, and having a maximum 9x multiplier, it should be a pretty good overclocker - but exactly how good? We will see, because I'm going to take this E2160 and overclock it to its absolute limit!

And yes, it could be used with newer games at lower settings OR afer a bit of an overclock.
It has been seen betting the e6600 when clocked nicely.
One of these and PC6400 ram is a great budget combo which will last for several years as when the comp gets that slow feel, then the cpu be uped.
400 x 9 = 3.6ghz... hence you can really get some nice clocks.
That is just my opinon.
Very good review. Covered many fields. Adding a new game or to... maybe BF (cos of its cpu needs)...
Overclock it and then give it a go.
Very nicely done. and a great chip.
Yes, we are using old games - quite deliberately.
In these processor reviews we are concentrating on the *processor* performance, which means low resolution, low/no aa/af, so that the processor has the greatest impact on frame rates. We have been using the same old set of games for years, which means we have a large database of results for all sorts of processors - so, for example, you could go back and compare a socket 939 Doom 3 low res score to an E6750 overclocked result, and see the potential benefit of an upgrade at low resolutions.
At high resolutions, the GPU matters far more than the CPU, and we do test with new games in our video card reviews.
Hope this helps!