Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160 - The Next Overclocking Wonder

The CPU Frenzy

The processor wars are really sizzling these days and the recent spate of price cuts from both Intel and AMD in late July 2007 have sent a lot of DIY folks running to grab their new processor and motherboard upgrades. With up to 50% price cuts, who could resist?

AMD's move was merely a price revision to offer a competitive lineup that can hold up against Intel's current onslaught till the much-awaited Athlon X4 series which hopefully see daylight during the yearend holiday season. Intel on the other hand refreshed their entire mid to high-end processor lineup with CPU cores of newer stepping, speedier FSB operation and new processor model names to reflect these incremental changes along with the new price tags. For a lot of enthusiasts who by now are all too familiar with the advantages of the Intel's Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad series, it's quite a no-brainer on their platform of choice. AMD of course is still in the running and has had a slight market share increase as of recent times. One of the reasons is of course the price advantage of the AMD platform which has always been a little more affordable than Intel's and together with the competitive CPU prices, AMD has a decent solution for the mainstream and budget market.

Amidst all these, AMD has launched more power efficient entry level dual-core processors just prior to Computex 2007 in the guise of the BE-2xxx series. AMD's marketing and the online community quickly lapped up the power efficient angle of these processors, but realistically speaking, they offered little advantage over the competition in our lab test. This is because Intel had already launched a new line of processors known as the Pentium Dual-Core series which replaces the aging Pentium D lineup and are priced head on with the AMD's BE-2xxx series. The Pentium Dual-Core series is nothing but a 1MB L2 cache version of the Core 2 Duo series, and as such, Intel's offerings fared equally well if not better than AMD's processors with similar power consumption levels as revealed in an earlier article . It's still a puzzle though on why Intel couldn't just capitalize on the famous Core 2 Duo nomenclature than going with the old Pentium classification. On a side note, even the Celeron series still lives on, though the new 4xx models in the market are also based on the Core architecture. These are however uni-core processors just like the Semprons which they face-off. So Intel's processor lineup has finally completely shifted to the Core architecture.

The Pentium Dual-Core processors are available in two models currently, the E2140 (1.6GHz) and E2160 (1.8GHz) with a third 2GHz iteration coming out real soon. These processors use the same Allendale cores which are characterized by the 2MB L2 cache based Core2 Duo E4000 series, but with only half the working cache (1MB). As such, the Pentium Dual-core series share all the same features and specifications as well. Here's a table representation of how the Pentium Dual-core models stack with the rest of the Core 2 Duo series:-

Overclocking the E2160

As we highlighted earlier, what makes the Pentium Dual-Core E2xxx series so appealing is that this L2 cache constrained processor takes on all of the charming traits of the Core 2 Duo processors with the same processor microarchitecture. And with less L2 cache, this directly correlates to a nice price cut. Compared against the highly popular Core 2 Duo E6320 (the E6300's replacement at US$163), the Pentium Dual-Core E2140 / 2160 processors are 50% less expensive (US$70 and US$84 respectively) and the only differences are the slower 800MHz FSB operation and the 1MB L2 cache. So the burning question is of course the impact of the measly L2 cache. We'll leave you to find that out in our results segment coming up shortly.

With the very small price delta between the Pentium Dual-Core E2160 and E2140, we preferred showcasing the former model for the following reasons: it is a 1.8GHz processor, similar to the Core 2 Duo E6300 model that we first overclocked a year ago, the higher 9x processor multiplier allows speedier CPU core clock increase when stepping up the FSB ladder than the E2140's 8x multiplier and thus negating the need of an overclocking-class motherboard as well as not needing high speed memory. As such, overclocking the Pentium Dual-Core E2160 should be easier as well as a less expensive affair than with the E2140.

As usual, we set out to find out what kind of overclocking headroom one can get with just air-cooling and by using the default CPU cooler. Thus no extra costs are incurred in our overclocking process. All you need is a reasonable Intel P965 or Intel P35 motherboard and you're set for some massive speed boost. After some trial and error, we managed to boost the Pentium Dual-Core E2160 from 1.8GHz (200MHz x 9) to 3.33GHz (370MHz x9) - that's close to double the clock speed boost! And all this was achieved without any voltage increase to either the CPU or the P35 chipset of our motherboard. One note here is that we set the CPU's VID to AUTO and at this setting, the CPU actually boosts the required voltage as required depending on the clock speed. This is a phenomenon that we first observed when the Core 2 Duo processors first hit our labs and we were impressed that the CPU is clever enough to request more voltage when the clocks are beyond default operations. Essentially, for 'simple' overclocking like this, you may not even have to interfere with manual settings. Of course we did explore manual settings but we met with no luck. Still, rock-stable operation at 3.33GHz is something to behold from a sub US$90 chip.

Memory Notes

One note here is that at 3.33GHz, the FSB operates at 370MHz, which means the memory doesn't operate any slower than DDR2-740. So if you aren't too comfortable with memory being overclocked (until unless you are aware the full capabilities of the memory chips on your module), we suggest that you should stick with memory modules that are certified to handle the actual operating speeds on your system. In this case, DDR2-800 memory is your safest bet to ensure safe DDR2-740 operation. Memory errors are very diverse and can be a chore to diagnose if some your applications work fine in the overclocked state while some others throw bizarre tantrums. Sometimes you might not even hit this hitch till months later and that's when you would find it difficult to pinpoint the issue since your overclock has been stable all this while. Thus it pays to ensure you have the right memory for the job.

DDR2-667 memory is still the sweet spot and if you are trying to keep a close cap on your system upgrade expenditure and yet want to indulge in overclocking safely, you can do so but cap the FSB at 333MHz. At this FSB frequency, the Pentium Dual-Core E2160 would be operating at 3GHz which is still plenty fast. For those who would like to replicate our feat, value-class DDR2-800 memory can be had for just a little premium over the DDR2-667 models.

Test Setup

For a modest 370MHz FSB overclock to achieve 3.33GHz on the Pentium Dual-Core E2160, you really don't require any fantastic motherboards. Many Intel P965 boards and all Intel P35 boards can support the new 1333MHz PSB based processors which use a 333MHz base FSB. As such, 370MHz is a very minor boost that these boards can easily handle in their stride. On the other hand, to get the best out of the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6320 requires an overclocking-class motherboard to dish out an FSB much higher than 450MHz because of their low 7x CPU multiplier. In our performance comparison, we'll have the overclocked Pentium Dual-Core E2160 at 3.33GHz pitted against the Core 2 Duo E6300 overclocked to 3.36GHz as well the E6420 that was overclocked to 3.23GHz. Additionally, we'll have the new Core 2 Duo E6550, E6750 and E6850 processors in the results comparison. The various testbeds used for this article are as follows:-

Pentium Dual-Core E2160 Overclocking Setup

• ASUS Commando (Intel P965 chipset)
• Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160 @ 3.33GHz (370 x 9)
• 2 x 512MB Corsair XMS DDR2-1000 memory modules (CAS 4. 4-4-12) @ DDR2-800
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

Core 2 Duo E6420 Overclocking Setup

• ASUS Commando (Intel P965 chipset)
• Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 CPU @ 3.23GHz (404 x 8)
• 2 x 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR2-800 memory modules (CAS 4. 4-4-12) @ DDR2-808
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

Core 2 Duo E6300 Overclocking Setup

• Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 (Intel P965 chipset)
• Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 CPU @ 3.36GHz (480 x 7)
• 2 x 512MB Corsair XMS DDR2-1000 memory modules (CAS 5. 5-5-15) @ DDR2-980
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

Core 2 Duo Reference Setup

• Intel Desktop Board D975XBX (Intel 975X Express chipset)
• Intel Core 2 Core 2 Duo E6850, E6750 and E6550
• 2 x 512MB Corsair XMS DDR2-1066 memory modules (CAS 4. 4-4-12) @ DDR2-800
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

Athlon 64 X2 Reference Setup

• ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (nForce 590 SLI chipset)
• AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and 5600+
• 2 x 512MB Corsair DDR2-800 memory modules (CAS 4, 4-4-12) @ DDR2-800
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
• MSI GeForce 7900 GT 256MB - with NVIDIA Detonator XP 84.21
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2

 The benchmarks used in this review include:-

• BAPCo SYSmark 2004
• Futuremark PCMark 2005 Pro
• Cinebench 2003
• Lightwave 3D 7.5
• SPECviewperf 8.01
• XMpeg 5.03 (DivX encoding)
• Futuremark 3DMark06 Pro
• Unreal Tournament 2004
• AquaMark3
• Quake 4 ver.1.20

Results - SYSmark 2004

For overall productivity scores, the Pentium Dual-Core E2160 at 3.33GHz is about on par with the Core 2 Duo E6850 that's thrice its price. Peering in to the score details, the overclocked E2160 fared better in multimedia applications thanks to an increase in clock speeds but the reduced cache size took a hit in the core office productivity applications where the non-repetitive code nature and randomness of the tasks means more cache misses. That's where bigger caches can help to store more relevant data (predicted and non-predicted) closer to the cache. Nonetheless, the overclocked E2160 still put up a strong showing that's more than worth its dough.

Results - SPECViewperf 8.01

Although SPECViewPerf is primarily a graphic OpenGL benchmark, we've long noticed that its viewset's workload also places heavy emphasis on overall system performance where CPU and memory subsystem performance matters too. With the GPU capped in our testing procedure, the influence of the CPUs comes to view and the overclocked Pentium Dual-Core E2160 aced all the comparisons we've amassed. So far, it looks like the cache quantity deficiency has little impact.

Results - Lightwave 3D 7.5

As with any classic 3D render test, Lightwave too leans in favor of higher clocked processors due to the nature of rendering jobs requiring high floating point performance which scales linearly with clock speed increments. Again this meant that the Pentium Dual-Core E2160 at 3.33GHz swipes all other comparisons. AMD processors managed to perform rather decently in this test thanks to their high clock speed operation and a reasonable performing FP unit, but alas it still can't match the higher-end Core 2 Duo processors.

Results - PCMark05, Cinebench 2003, Xmpeg 5.03

PCMark05 is a more straightforward synthetic benchmark than many of our other benchmarks but we continue to use this for its ease and simplicity that end-users can use for simple reference testing purposes. As such the results in PCMark05 are quite skewed towards higher clock speeds and the likes where the Core 2 Duo E6300 system overclocked to 3.36GHz and its faster operating DDR2-1000 memory gave the system slightly better scores than the overclocked E2160 system. Still, it is plenty faster than all of the stock clocked dual-core systems as shown below.

However, as our XMpeg encoding test shows, clock speed advantage isn't everything. The trio of overclocked processors hadn't much advantage of the new Core 2 Duo E6850 that runs at 3GHz with 4MB of L2 cache. In fact when you look at the overclocked pack, the results indicate the Core 2 Duo E6420 at 3.23GHz managed a small lead against the overlocked E6300 at 3.36GHz and shows off its L2 cache prominence in this test while the E2160 at 3.33GHz is sandwiched between them. But technicalities aside, the price-performance ratio of the overclocked E2160 is amazing.

Results - Futuremark 3DMark06 and AquaMark3

On to the gaming segment, 3DMark06 paves the way for the rest of the benchmarks in this segment. Studying the results, the L2 cache size does make a small impact in the CPU test as the overclocked E6420 holds pole position here, but it's almost equally matched by the clock speed prowess of the higher clocked E2160 and E6300 processors. As for the actual 3D scores, CPU clock speeds once again took a higher precedence and the US$84 Pentium Dual-Core E2160 at 3.33GHz holds our new dual-core performance record here.

Different game engines react to subsystem improvements in different ways. Unlike 3DMark06, AquaMark3 had a bigger impact upon the L2 cache size and this affected both its CPU score and overall game performance too. Thankfully, the overclocked core made sure the discrepancy was small against the other overclocked processors.

Results - Unreal Tournament 2004 and Quake 4

Even in UT2004, the diminutive 1MB L2 cache of the Pentium Dual-Core processor put it overclocking performance on par with the Core 2 Duo E6750, but managed a tad better in Quake 4.

Small in Cache, Big in Returns

As the new entry level dual-core processor, the Pentium Dual-Core series entered into the processor market last quarter to offer an efficient and lower cost alternative to the aging Pentium D series and even the Pentium 4 processors. And so the Pentium Dual-Core series sported the same tried and tested Core microarchitecture of the Core 2 Duo series - with the exception of the 'puny' 1MB L2 cache and a constrained 800MHz FSB. Still, it did a dandy job for what it was destined for as compared in our .

Despite the entry level processor positioning with an almost Celeron-class price, the Core architecture based Pentium Dual-Core processors had tremendous untapped potential. And so we set out to unleash the overclocking beast within, not knowing how detrimental the 1MB L2 cache would be to modern day processing needs. Air-cooled at a rock-stable 3.33GHz, the Pentium Dual-Core E2160 demonstrated that it was more often than not, far speedier than the Core 2 Duo E6850, the highest performing dual-core processor. At worst, it was still as fast as the E6750 model, especially reminiscent in some of the gaming tests. From a low-end dual-core processor, just an 'ordinary' FSB tweak to 370MHz catapults it to the highest end of the spectrum. For a US$84 processor, if you ask us, that's an awesome capability. And having known the high yields and overclocking headroom of the processors, there's really nothing to lose if you're still not convinced.

Intel has been in the headlines for performance of its high-end processors for over a year now and there seems to be no stopping of that anytime soon with overclocking and all added into the equation. As explained in the article, you don't require any exorbitant cooling, or a high-end motherboard or memory for that matter. Any ordinary system can pull this off as long as the motherboard offers the necessary FSB clock control and at no extra cost, you get almost double the processing power! So if you are talking about value for money, absolutely nothing beats this.

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.