Before I waste time and money on a new server, I'd like to know for SURE that an

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86Ghz


is better than my current server, an Intel Pentium D Dual Core 3.4Ghz

processor      : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model            : 6
model name   : Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.40GHz
stepping         : 4
cpu MHz        : 3393.023
cache size      : 2048 KB
physical id      : 0
siblings           : 2
core id            : 0
cpu cores       : 2
fdiv_bug          : no
hlt_bug           : no
f00f_bug          : no
coma_bug       : no
fpu                  : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level        : 6
wp                   : yes
flags                : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl est cid xtpr
bogomips         : 6788.77


Thanks for any input on whether or not it'd be worth it to cancel what I currently have for the new server.



If you OC the 6300 to 3ghz then it will really slaughter the pentium D. Even at stock speed the 6300 should be faster... plus the core 2 line runs much cooler and consumes less power. For the current price of a 6300 I'd say go for it!!!


Really appreciate the reply.

Overclocking is out of the question since this will be a server in a datacenter.

I was looking at getting another server to replace the one I currently have and I found a dedicated server that includes an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Conroe 1.86GHz 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor for $115 a month.
It also comes with 2x160GB hard drives - 70GB more space than what I have now. I'd throw a $10 upgrade to 100Mbps uplink on it and come out paying $125 a month.

I'm currently spending $147 a month for a dedicated server with an Intel Pentium D 945 Presler 3.4GHz 2 x 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor with 1x250GB hard drive.

My husband and I are going to both get the Intel Core 2 Quad

Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor for our

desktop pc's we're building, so ANY amount of money saved every month will be a blessing considering how much we're going to end up spending on building them.

But considering that I'm hosting clients sites on the server, I can't afford to downgrade what I have and is why I'm here making sure that the server I'm looking to get isn't going to be a downgrade as far as performance goes. As far as space and price, it's better, but I also need to look at performance.
Even if there's a slight bit of better performance then I'll definitely be cancelling what I have and getting the new one.

I was looking at this (link below) and as far as what I've read it seems that it makes even the highend Pentium D's look homely, so.... if anyone knows something about them that wasn't said here, please s[censored] it.

As far as what I've read and what you have said, I'm already very close to pressing the "SIGN YOUR SOUL AWAY BUY NOW!" button....

Thanks, recoveringknowitall.



The 6300 deffinately would not be a downgrade... go 4 it!!!


I'd say get yourself an E6320 -- same price and gives you 4MB L2 instead of 2MB........basically a free upgrade so why not?

LINK TO 6320


~What he said~  [I]


 Thanks for the tip, ice. However, this is a server that I'm ordering from a hosting company that I use. I can't exactly change the processor that they are offering with this server for this price.

 My desktop computer that I'm planning on will be sporting an Intel Core 2 Quad

Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor. Will definitely hurt the wallet a bit, but will be definitely worth it considering I can overclock it and it would be just as good as the $1100 one.


Regardless the 6300 is a solid choice 4 the $. Skip the quad unless you are a serious multi-tasker or use software that can take advantage of multiple cores/threads. What kind of GPU are you lookin at?


As far as the server goes, I ended coming out better than I had anticipated. I was originally supposed to get an E6300 and when I got the server I checked and found out I ended up with an E6320, so I got the 4mb cache instead of 2.

I am a happy camper!

Anyway, as much as I'd love to stay here and go on about this, I really have to get back to working on this site.

Thanks again, recoveringknowitall, for the info. You were right, it was an upgrade and a da** good one at that. Noticing the difference didn't take long at all.