1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Increased processing power?

By Neji49 ยท 13 replies
Mar 16, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. Recently I upgraded from an Intel Core 2 Duo E6400(2.13ghz) to a Pentium Dual Core E6700(3.2ghz). Or so I thought. When I first booted into the BioS it said my processor speed was at .4ghz. It also gave some values right below it(system memory and bus, I think), that seemed lower than usual. At first, I ignored this, especially since my fan was running a lot louder than before, I assumed it was more powerful. However, when I ran the Windows index, it registered my processor as a 4.9 instead of a 5.3 that it was before. I don't know how accurate of a measurement this is, but I expected some sort of increase. Based on my research and comparison tests I've seen, I should've experienced an improvement, but what is happening? I should also point out this processor was given to me by a friend. Is it it possible that it might be underclocked(even thought the fan is still running extremely loud)? Or is it defective? How can I verify?

    Intel Pentium Dual Core E6700
    Intel Desktop Board DG965WH
    4 GB of RAM
  2. Mark56

    Mark56 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,880

    Check in the Bios to see what the voltage is set to, it should be set between .85V to 1.5V.
  3. Mizzou

    Mizzou TS Enthusiast Posts: 783

    Also, check to see if your new processor is on the supported cpu list for your motherboard. It might be necessary to run a bios update for your Pentium Dual Core E6700 to recognized correctly.
  4. Mark56

    Mark56 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,880

  5. Mizzou

    Mizzou TS Enthusiast Posts: 783

    That's curious since it listed as 3.2GHz on this Intel page along with the listing on newegg which also states it's 3.2GHz.

    Comment: Looks like the Core 2 Duo E6700 is 2.66GHz but the Pentium E6700 is 3.2GHz.


    Core 2 Duo
  6. Mark56

    Mark56 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,880

    Yup, that is confusing, two different processors with the same number, but I would guess that the one Neji49 has is the slower one.
  7. Neji49

    Neji49 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 57

    No, I'm certain it's the Pentium. That's what is said on the processor chip and that's what the computer lists it as, so I don't think it's that(I'm going to try a BIOS update anyways). I looked it up on intel and it said only certain board revisions are compatible with certain processor models, so I'll have to look up those and the voltages.
  8. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,370   +3,599

    Ya know, if you can't read, or you don't know what you're talking about, it might be for the better to withhold your, "advice".

    Our OP >> plainly states<< that his CPU is a "Pentium Dual Core E6700", and not the earlier C2D E6700.
    That said, if there is "confusion", it seems to reside with you.

    Moving along:
    This is vague enough to be both useless and perhaps dangerous. Not to mention that it covers almost all the CPUs of the past 6 years, some of which are much needier than others with respect to actual voltage requirements.
    This is the problem. I doubt that any Intel 965 chipset board would run a Pentium Dual Core E6700. I'm reasonably certain that you have indeed confused the earlier C2D E6700 with the Pent Dual Core E6700, when you checked the BIOS version required.

    As a general rule, Intel 965 WON'T run 45nm CPUs period, and Intel in general, places less emphasis on getting old boards to run new CPUs, than they do selling new boards
  9. Lokalaskurar

    Lokalaskurar TS Enthusiast Posts: 514

    As for the Windows Experience Index; I'm surprised that nobody mentioned this from the beginning.

    Maybe it's just me being a noob, forgive me if that's the case. But isn't the Core 2 "architecture" way stronger/faster and more efficient than the Pentium-architecture?

    Didn't Intel mention themselves that comparing Pentium to Core 2 is like comparing a slug to a "crystallized" chimpanzee? At least I think there was a lot of fuzz about that when the Core 2 hit the market.

    And that might, in addition to the other TechSpot-members' suggestions, explain why the Index is a bit slower.
  10. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,370   +3,599

  11. Mark56

    Mark56 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,880

    Captaincranky, thanks for clearing up the confusion. Perhaps you could elaborate on the Voltage setting. The range I quoted of .85V to 1.5V came from the 2.13GHz CPU specs on the Intel site so how is this the wrong information, where would you find the correct voltage to set it to, if indeed anyone would want to change it from default.
  12. Neji49

    Neji49 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 57

    Hmmm, I guess you're right. I looked it up again and when it said my processor was compatible(
    http://processormatch.intel.com/CompDB/SearchResult.aspx?ProcNbr=E6700) with certain revisions it only used the E6700 designation, so I guess they were referring to the Core 2 duo version. If the processor isn't supposed to be compatible, I guess that's why I'm having so many issues, I'll have to switch back. Thanks for the clarification
  13. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,370   +3,599

    "Vcore" (CPU Core voltage) needs are CPU specific. As I sit, here my ancient P-4 is reading 1.34 Volts, while my Core i3-530 is reading 1.01.

    So, it is dangerous to to offer such a wide range of voltage possibilities, without deference given to the CPU in question. For example, if I summarily decided that the i3 system malfunctioned, and went blasting into the BIOS. A bump to 1.34 might be enough to fry it.

    The BIOS knows the Vcore for the installed CPU by heart. It should only be raised for reason of overclocking, and then only with additional cooling, and of course, at your own risk

    All of that notwithstanding, the Intel same number, different series CPU conundrum is a rather common occurrence here at TS. And most times, posters think a CPU should work because they want it to. Hope springs eternal, but it can lead to disappointment.

    OK, there isn't a 45 nm CPU in an LGA775 package currently being sold that will run in an Intel 3 digit chipset board. (915, 925, 945, 965, or 975).

    In the specific issue here, the E2XXX Pentium Dual Core CPUs are of the same era as the C2D E6XXX CPUs. But, as they are slightly later releases with different steppings, they require a later version BIOS.

    The E6XXX "Pentium Dual Cores" are Wolfdale issues, and most of them won't run in boards (2 digit chipsets G31, P45 etc.) that accommodate the original E8xxx Wolfdales , without a BIOS update.

    Just don't ask me any questions about AMD, fair enough?
  14. Mark56

    Mark56 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,880

    Thank you for explaining that in such detail, this thread has added to my knowledge and I've learnt a couple of things to look out for with Intel CPU's. I had not quite appreciated that there was such a major difference between Core 2 and Dual Core, obvious when you know, but I am sure this must mislead and confuse a lot of people especially when the number is the same, this thread being a good example.

    I understand what you are saying about the CPU core voltage settings and was aware that these vary from one processor to the other. In this case, I can see my advise was incorrect and could have caused CPU damage as the Dual Core processor has a smaller voltage range to the Core2. I gave this advise in good faith before realising we were talking about two completely different processors.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...