Intel Pentium Dual Core E2140 2x1.60GHz 1MB Cache 800FSB £50.94 Delivered - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
49Expired

Intel Pentium Dual Core E2140 2x1.60GHz 1MB Cache 800FSB £50.94 Delivered

£50.94 @ Ebuyer
This E2140 is compatible with Socket 775 motherboards. Its the cheapest Core2Duo processor on the market with a 10-15% reduction in performance on the E4300. Its stock speed is 1.6GHz, not to be put o… Read More
Archer Avatar
banned1d, 1m agoFound 1 decade, 1 month ago
This E2140 is compatible with Socket 775 motherboards. Its the cheapest Core2Duo processor on the market with a 10-15% reduction in performance on the E4300. Its stock speed is 1.6GHz, not to be put off as this is a dual core processor which is based on 2 processing cores on one chip which equates to 3.2GHz overall performance. Furthermore the reduced L2 cache of 1MB will mean lower power consumption and less heat generated. Also this baby can be overclocked to 2.6GHz by increasing the FSB from 800 to 1300 with default voltage levels!

Stock Speed: 1.6 GHz clock speed
Architecture: Conroe
Multi-Core Technology: Dual-Core
64-bit Computing: Yes
Compatible Processor Socket: LGA775 Socket
Front Side Bus: 800 MHz
Manufacturing Process: 65 nm
Cache Memory: L2 1MB
Features: Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology, SSE/SSE2/SSE3/Execute Disable Bit, Intel Speedstep
Comes with: Aluminum Alloy Heatsink/Fan

Choose super saver delivery to get this processor at £50.94!
- Archer
Deal Tags:
More From Ebuyer:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
Archer Avatar
banned1d, 1m agoFound 1 decade, 1 month ago
Options

All Comments

(16) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
It was £62 yesterday. Bargain.
#2
Anyone have a link for overclocking theses ?
I’ve o/c’d in the past but I’m getting no where with this one !!! I’m sure it’s something I’m missing to do with dual core’s but I’m damned if I can see what…
#3
These 1MB cache chips are poor for gaming otherwise they look fine:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2160_6.html
#4
says £52.09 not £50.94
banned#5
cells
says £52.09 not £50.94


Too bad the deal has expired :?
#6
SmilingCrow
These 1MB cache chips are poor for gaming otherwise they look fine:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2160_6.html


Having used one of these, once overclocked I can assure you they are fine for gaming.
#7
melbourne720
Having used one of these, once overclocked I can assure you they are fine for gaming.

You're absolutely right, I should have said they are poor compared to the versions with larger L2 caches. Whether this is important will depend on your other hardware, the games you play and the resolution that you run them at.
#8
SmilingCrow
You're absolutely right, I should have said they are poor compared to the versions with larger L2 caches. Whether this is important will depend on your other hardware, the games you play and the resolution that you run them at.


I don't really think they are poor for gaming because they are the most overclockable of all the dual cores with standard cooling and will overclock past the 10% gaming difference plus of course you benefit from faster desktop activities and serious stuff and save money too.
#9
bonzobanana
I don't really think they are poor for gaming because they are the most overclockable of all the dual cores with standard cooling and will overclock past the 10% gaming difference plus of course you benefit from faster desktop activities and serious stuff and save money too.

Have you not overclocked any of the Core2Duo's then yet ;)

imo they overclock better than this.
#10
bonzobanana
I don't really think they are poor for gaming because they are the most overclockable of all the dual cores with standard cooling and will overclock past the 10% gaming difference.

Read my second post; I said they are poor only when compared to the larger cache versions. The difference is more than 10% and will be still be there when you overclock as you can over-clock the larger cache chips as well. :roll:
#11
dcx_badass
The Core 2 Duo's are NOT pentiums!

Correct. But the Pentium Dual Core E21xx series are Core 2 Duo variations; they are L2 steppings with half the cache disabled.
#12
I've got the E2160 which is meant to be 1.8ghz but I've overclocked it to 3.2ghz and its stable and it still runs cool. I will try it at 3.4ghz later. I've read that it runs cool because it only has 1meg cache and thought this was the reason why its so good to overclock. My system is an ultra cheapy too making use of the recent google checkout £10 off offer and using fairly low end components. I've not overclocked the memory chips yet though. They are still at 667mhz. My system is lightning fast and I've no complaints at all.
#13
SmilingCrow
You're absolutely right, I should have said they are poor compared to the versions with larger L2 caches. Whether this is important will depend on your other hardware, the games you play and the resolution that you run them at.



Depends on the games tbh. CPU intensive games like Supreme Commander and RTS such as Company of Heroes have a 5-10% difference in frame rates, clock for clock (both at 3GHz), when you compare an e2160 (1MB cache) Vs an E6600 (4mb cache).

Games such as Doom 3, FEAR, Far Cry, almost no difference. (I noticed no difference in FEAR in minimum, average or maximum frame rates).
#14
melbourne720
Depends on the games tbh. CPU intensive games like Supreme Commander and RTS such as Company of Heroes have a 5-10% difference in frame rates, clock for clock (both at 3GHz), when you compare an e2160 (1MB cache) Vs an E6600 (4mb cache).
Games such as Doom 3, FEAR, Far Cry, almost no difference. (I noticed no difference in FEAR in minimum, average or maximum frame rates).

Xbitlabs measured a difference on average of ~17.5% between the 1 and 4MB cache chips; that's why I linked to their site above to give people hard data.
As you say it will vary from game to game and also on the resolution you run etc. I know how obsessive some gamers are about frame rates so I figured a difference of ~13% between the 1 and 2MB chips was worth mentioning as their price is so close.

Tangential:I see that the reviews of the soon to be released 1333 FSB chips that use a new stepping are showing a lot of potential for over-clocking: 3.9GHz seems to be typical (on air).
#15
SmilingCrow
Xbitlabs measured a difference on average of ~17.5% between the 1 and 4MB cache chips; that's why I linked to their site above to give people hard data.
As you say it will vary from game to game and also on the resolution you run etc. I know how obsessive some gamers are about frame rates so I figured a difference of ~13% between the 1 and 2MB chips was worth mentioning as their price is so close.


Fair point. It is interesting how they did there test though. They underclocked the bigger cache chips rather than overclocking the smaller cache chips. I found when overclocking the e2160 it performed comparably with the e6600 in the games I mentioned.
#16
melbourne720
Fair point. It is interesting how they did there test though. They underclocked the bigger cache chips rather than overclocking the smaller cache chips. I found when overclocking the e2160 it performed comparably with the e6600 in the games I mentioned.

The Xbitlabs test is good because it focuses purely on how the cache affects performance with all other parameters being equal.
As you’ve demonstrated to yourself if you compare a 1MB CPU with a 4 MB one but give the smaller cache chip the advantage of a higher FSB which equates to more memory bandwidth, the performance gap narrows or disappears. In some cases the 1MB chip will even outperform the 4 MB chip.
But that’s not particularly meaningful as you can raise the FSB on the 4 MB cache to the same level by lowering its multiplier. The question then is what is the performance difference between the two chips at the higher FSB? It may be that the affect of the larger cache is not so noticeable at higher FSB speeds due to the benefit of the higher RAM bandwidth. I’ve not seen any test looking at that.

There’s an interesting test at XBitlabs which looks at the affect of changing the FSB whilst keeping the CPU fixed at 3.2 GHz; they looked at the range 266 to 533. You can’t get some reasonable performance gains but you’ll need PC2-8500 to run at such a high FSB and keep the memory synchronous.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/asus-p5k-deluxe-overclock_6.html

Anyway, happy over-clocking. :thumbsup:

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!