Intel Pentium E2140 & E2160 review

Julio Franco

TechSpot Editor
Staff member
The Core 2 range has been highly successful for Intel, delivering unbeatable performance at a price many have been unable to refuse. However, not to be outdone with such a successful product Intel has quietly unleashed a few new - even more affordable - dual-core processors based on the Allendale core.

Intel is relaunching the ever so popular “Pentium” brand name. So what are these new Pentium dual-core processors? Well, in essence they are stripped down Conroe processors featuring a tiny 1MB L2 cache with an 800MHz FSB.

There are two versions currently available, the Pentium E2140 and the E2160. Clocked at 1.8GHz the E2160 matches the E4300 in terms of clock speed while featuring half as much L2 cache. The E2140 on the other hand is now the slowest desktop “Core 2” processor, clocked at just 1.6GHz. With both CPUs priced below the $100 mark ($84 and $99, respectively), this should make for an interesting race against its more expensive siblings.

https://www.techspot.com/review/53-pentium-e2140-e2160/

Please leave your feedback here. Thanks!
 

Mirob

TechSpot Paladin
Good review! I have also read a review of them a xbit labs. They showed that the 3600+ and 3800+ both were faster in gaming. If your going to overclock these things will out do a 6000+. :knock:

I wonder how well they perform at Folding at home--does the cache make that much difference?
 

MetalX

TechSpot Chancellor
Seems interesting. However, 1MB L2 Cache on a Conroe/Allendale CPU feels a bit uncomfortable to me.
 

cfitzarl

TechSpot Chancellor
It's still a cheap alternative to the Core 2 Duo :D ! I'm amazed with Intel and how they keep dropping prices :eek: ! I think AMD has some big plans up their sleeves though ;) .
 

CMH

TechSpot Chancellor
Apparently when overclocked, they will outperform the E6420 stock. Thats pretty good if you asked me.

But the 1mb cache really hurts. Then again, for that market segment, my 5 year old P4 will probably satisfy all their needs..... all this power is overkill...

Personally, I think for this review was written for enthusiasts, with all the performance graphs and overclocking, while this is a product for the average Joe, or the business sector. While the average Joe might be interested in these graphs, I'm not too sure how many would actually come and look at these reviews. The business sector might be more interested in its power consumption and how much heat it produces, which has been skipped entirely in the review.

I know we get a good number of average Joes in this forum, and this review would really suit them.
 

Steve

TechSpot Editor
Staff member
Quote from the conclusion "For general-purpose Windows performance, the E2100 processors are more than powerful enough. Particularly for those that just want to run office applications as well as Internet and e-mail usage." ... I dont understand all this was covered.

Just so you know the majority of the readers will be more interested in gaming and overclocking performance than how it handles e-mails. We would have been crucified if we didn’t test games and the overclocking abilities. Anyway thanks for the feedback!
 

CMH

TechSpot Chancellor
Lol, I did say it was good, but it'd be nice to have some info on how much juice it takes :D
 

Mirob

TechSpot Paladin
CMH said:
Apparently when overclocked, they will outperform the E6420 stock.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=653&p
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2160_14.html#sect0

They can outperform a x6800, but it takes 300 to 400MHz to overcome the cache deficit. Granted it will also take a good HSF costing around $50 so it may be better to just get a Conroe. Still, some may have less quibbles with overclocking a sub $100 CPU.
CMH said:
it'd be nice to have some info on how much juice it takes :D
THG did power consumption tests in the AMD low power BE 2350 review. The E2160 system used 7 watts more at idle and 5 more at full load.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/18/amd_smart_strike/page10.html
 
Don't want to break the chain of praise but... You failed to include AMD processors in the benchmark. Making the article appear biased towards Intel.

Otherwise great job.