Hey guys, I'm looking to buy a new rig and the E4300 really caught my eye. I'm planning on overclocking the #### outta this thing but first wanted to know how this particular processor handles in fsx.The specs I'm looking into2 GB DDR2-800E4300 CPUGigabyte DS3 MoboEVGA 640 mb 8800 GTS320 GB Sata HDDI'm just curious if any of you E4300 owners are satisfied with the performance of this chip. :)

Stock at 1.8Ghz it isnt a really fast CPU, but at 3.5GHzish it is. Overall right now the C2D line is the way to go, I've seen the 4300 been run at a friends place, and it can hold its own in FSX., ofcourse you still need to tweak FSX to get optimum performance since its not a 6600 to a 6800 chip.1.8GHz to 3.5GHZ.http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=610&p=1OC'ing at your own risk, im not responsible for proving you that link ok ;)

I am also interested in getting a E4300 setup. Call me old and conservative but this sounds a little "too good to be true", so I'd also like to hear some first hand reports from people who are using this setup with FSX.

Apart from running at only an 800MHz bus and not supporting Intel Virtualisation Technology (which apparently has little impact on applications we see today), the E4300 has the same C2D heart of its bigger E6300 and E6400 brothers. Crank that bus speed up over 1066MHz and it matches their performance and even higher to eclipse them.In short, an E4300 should yield similar performance in FSX to an E6300 or E6400 overclocked to the same resultant core speed.Gary

This is the thing that really got me interested in this chiphttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172996.jpgI'm sorry but I found this downright incredible. Even if I get a chip that can't make it to that speed stable, it should atleast get above 3 ghz, especially with my Thermaltake 120 extreme.Essentially I'm buying an X6800 for $115, tell me that's not a good deal. :-eek http://firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core...iew/default.asp

The 6xxx and the 4XXX are the same chip. Initially, they were precisely identical. Prior to stamping E4300 on the thing, Intel would disable 2 of the 4 megs of L2 cache, disable the virtualation function and set the multiplier to 10. That's it. Intel did this so they could use one process to build ALL its C2D chips. It was much cheaper to produce chips this way. That's why a 4300 at 2.9 ghz performs just like a E6800 at 2.9 ghz. Its the same chip! The extra 2 megs of L2 cache makes less than 5% difference with a very few specific applications (like MS excel). You'd need scientific instruments to see any difference in FS.