Any “E6700” is going to be a core 2 processor. It’s just with different generations of cores, the old (Conroe) was slower/hotter/worse in general or the newer generation (Wolfdale) having the same name.
Unfortunately Intel seems bent on making their processor lineups as confusing as possible.
The correct name for the CPU is: Pentium E6700, indicating that it’s the “value” line from Intel (Celeron is the entry-level CPUs, Pentium the budget CPUs, I3 mainstream, I5 performance, I7 enthusiast)… The reason why this is important is that a long time ago Intel released the Core 2 E6700 which is actually a completely different processor that has now been phased out.
And yes, you are indeed correct that it’s a Wolfdale processor and thus very similar to the Core 2 Duo E7xxx’s (same family, less L2 cache)
The Conroe is a core 2 duo too. You might be right if they renamed their conroe chips to “pentium” (which would be obnoxious and confusing), but both the e6700 conroe and e6700 wolfdale belong to the same basic core 2 architecture.
They are not renaming their Conroe CPUs. What I’m talking about is that there used to be a Conroe processor at 2.66 Ghz, called “Core 2 Duo E6700”, which has been phased out a long time ago.
A few months ago, Intel released a 3.2 Ghz Wolfdale CPU (Based on the so-called Core 2 architecture), which they decided to call Pentium Dual Core E6700.
So while they both share the same fundamental architectures, they are different CPUs
Intel is attempting to streamline their CPU lineup and thus are trying to make sure that new budget CPUs are named “Celeron” or “Pentium”.
Thus new Wolfdale CPUs (such as the E6700, which in the past would have been called Core 2 Duo Exxxx) get branded as Celeron or Pentium Dual Core CPUs. That is what has happend with the Pentium E6700.
Anyway, Intels CPU branding is, strangely enough, is about as confusing as it can be with a mishmash of old and new CPUs with similiar names.
Okay, gotcha. I misunderstood. Didn’t realize they were bringing back the pentium name to try to differentiate “core 2” from “core i3/5/7” - it’s sort of a weird way to name your chips anyway I guess.
Excellent ideas! As Senorbeef said, it looks like memory might be a big deal. At this point, I’m thinking my best bet might be to go for a CPU and memory now, socking away any extra cash to spend later on a video card. If that means I bottleneck at the video card now, that’s okay–I can deal with low settings for a little while.
Thanks, folks!
I would recommend that if the video card isn’t far off. With a 5770 you’d have a nice rig.
I figure the video card comes in with my next chunk of disposable income.
Bought the CPU and RAM last night from TigerDirect (my Discover card gives me 5% off there), and got:
This memory (Crucial 2048MB PC6400 DDR2 800MHz Memory) and This CPU (Intel BX80571E6700 Pentium Dual-Core E6700 Processor - 3.26GHz, Socket 775, 2MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB, Wolfdale, Dual Core, Retail CPU w/ Fan).
I’m still a little leery of doing upgrades, worried that I’m missing something important in them. These two items look about right?
As I was ordering, I thought back to my first upgrade, when I bought 8 MB of RAM back in the mid-nineties. I only bought it because it was such an excellent deal: $200 for 8 MB. It’s kind of nice that I’m now paying less than a tenth of a percent for memory as I was paying during college.
Update: I played the game before installing CPU and RAM, and Starcraft set graphics at low to medium settings. After installing both, I’ve been able to raise some to high without any problems.
But something weird has happened:
Remember, I upgraded my CPU from an E6400 2.13 GHz dual processor to an E6700 3.2 GHz dual processor. On a lark, I checked the Windows Experience index, expecting a nice jump. The index, however, actually dropped, based on my CPU, from 5.1 to 4.7. It claims my new CPU is performing fewer calculations per second.
Is this possible, maybe a result of me not knowing WTF I’m doing with hardware installation? Or, more likely, is this another Microsoft dumbassery that I can comfortably discount?
Someone on another forum suggested that my BUS is too slow. I take it this isn’t a “rides the short bus” crack but is a real thing.
Microsoft’s Experience Index is not exactly the most precise benchmark, but it does give a good general indictation that something is probably wrong here.
First of all, I’d recommend upgrading your BIOS if you havn’t already, you should be able to find that on the Gateway website.
Second, try to download CPU-Z (http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html) and run it. Under “Specification” it should say something like: Intel(R) Pentium Dual Core E6700 @ xxx Ghz.
Look for the number that appears after the @ sign, if it’s not 3.2 something is off.
Also, it would helpful if you take a screenshot of the program and post it here (or alternatively write what CPU-Z reports as the “bus speed”, “core speed” and “multiplier”.)
“Bus” probably refers to your Front Side Bus (FSB), which is responsible for transferring data from the CPU to the rest of your system.
Your CPU speed is determined by your FSB times your CPUs clock multiplier (FSB * clock multiplier), so for example if your FSB or the CPU clock multiplier is too low, it run at a reduced speed.
In simple terms, “bus” refers to a subsystem that transfers data between two or more components inside a computer or even between computers. In practical terms, you can think of it a bus as a network, but rather than connecting multiple computing systems as a network does, it connects individual components that are part of those systems. And there are two types of busses: internal/local and external.
The internal bus is what allows the internal components of your system to communicate via the motherboard (i.e. CPU, memory, cache blocks, onboard video/sound, etc.). The external busses allow the peripherals (i.e. video cards, sound cards, hard drives, CD/DVD drives, thumbsticks, etc.) to communicate to the motherboard and to each other.
The person who said your bus was too slow is referring to your internal bus, and, asssuming he’s right, unless there’s a way to overclock it, it’s likley your only other choice is to get a new motherboard.
Okay, I’ve spent ten minutes trying to find some easy way to create a jpeg from a screencap, and I just don’t think I have the software for it–best I can do is get it into a Word document. So I’ll type it out:
-It does say 3.2 Ghz.
-Bus speed is 266.x MHz (the x is changing while I watch).
-Core speed is 1598.x MHz (the x is changing while I watch).
-The multiplier is x6.0
Is there any way for me to change this, short of swapping in a new motherboard?
FWIW, I updated my BIOS before installing the CPU, so that shouldn’t be the issue.
Hoopy, thanks for the BUS explanation!
Here’s the trouble: Your CPU multiplier is 6 instead of 12., making your computer run at 1.6 Ghz instead of 3.2 Ghz.
You need to enter your BIOS and change the CPU multiplier to 12.
To do this:
Start your computer.
You should see a brief message that says “press x to enter setup” where x is a key.
Press the indicated key (probably “delete” or “F2”).
Try find somewhere where it says “CPU multipler” or “CPU Clock ratio” and the change the “6” into a “12”. It’s probably somewhere under the “Power” menu.
You don’t need to do that. The reason your multilpier (and probably voltage) is lower is that you probably have intel or AMD’s power saving features turned on. The system underclocks your processor while idle saving power.
Try having CPUz on and do something processor intensive, like watch an Hd movie, or transcode a video file, or run a benchmark or a game. Guarantee that you’ll see the multiplier go up, and your CPU clock speed with it.
Hmm…I tried both ideas, and am stymied.
In the BIOS, I couldn’t find anything that looked like clock ratio or multiplier; I couldn’t even find the number “6” anywhere. I looked through every setting, I think, even ones that seemed highly unlikely (e.g., boot order).
I checked CPU-Z while Starcraft was running, and the multiplier stayed at 6. I also went into the control panel and changed power settings to “High Performance.” No change.
A couple things I noticed in the BIOS:
-The CPU is running at 90 C, which seems extremely hot. Is it possible this is a problem here? Do I need to put a more robust fan on it than the one that shipped with it? The ICH temp is 79 C, but I don’t know what that is.
-The system bus speed (which I couldn’t see an option to change) is 400 MHz. Is this a problem?
Also, in CPU-Z there’s a grayed-out field for “Selection”, with “Processor #1” chosen. In the BIOS, dual processing is enabled, but I’m wondering if CPU-Z is reading half-value because it’s only checking one processor at a time.
THanks for y’all’s help!
It’s not only possible, it’s virtually certain you will have trouble down the line if that’s not fixed. Typical temps for an idle Core 2 CPU with the stock fan shouldn’t go above 40 C, even in the middle of summer. You will probably need to replace the thermal paste and then make sure the cooling block is properly seated above the CPU.
As for the speed issues, both processor cores should normally run at 3.2 GHz, but it’s possible they have been throttled down due to exceeding the thermal threshold.
Uh, thermal paste…yeah, right! That must have been the gray sticky stuff that was on the back of the old CPU I took out, huh? :smack:
So there’s no thermal paste on the new chip whatsoever; I had no idea there even was such a thing. When my kid wakes up from her nap, she and I are taking a trip down to the local computer supply store to see if we can pick some up. Do I just daub it on the back of the chip with a Q-tip or something?
I wouldn’t, it might leave fibers in the paste. What I do is squeeze out a couple of drops and spread them out a bit with the head of a pin, and then flatten with the cooling block. It usually gives a pretty good result, and it’s not as messy as spreading with a credit card or whatnot.
I know you said a few drops but to make sure it is totally clear
Left Hand of Dorkness you only need a thin layer just enough to fully create a connection between the heatsink and the processor. If you smear tons on it will reduce the heat transfer.
Good news and bad.
Good news: paste successfully purchased (crazy expensive! $17 added to my project) and applied, and now the temp is down to 38 C, which seems much more reasonable. (My video card is 60C, but it’s always been high–not sure what to do about that until I buy a new card).
Bad news: the multiplier is still set at x6.
I looked around, and it looks to me as though the E6700 multiplier maxes out at 10, not 6, but it should default to 10. My motherboard is the 965G-DS3, if that matters, and this article makes me skeptical that I can change the multiplier. Maybe I’m just screwed here.