is the 6600 worth the extra money?

[Stupidpenguin]

To those that might have been able to play with both processors. Is the 6600 worth the roughly 100$ extra dollars. Im gonna order either the 6400 or the 6600 tonight and can't decide. Money saved will be spent on upgrading to a new case from my piece o junk case. Or ill live with the case and buy the 6600 if its worth it!!!

[crfracer290]

I would like to know peoples opinion on this too because I decided to go with a 6600 instead of the 6400 just for the cache a and just so i actually had a Conroe not an Allendal (kidding). But really, I was wondering the same thing, even though its too late since it arrives tommorow.

[crfracer290]

Ahh double post, stupid wireless.

[darkcow]

my brothers e6600 vs my friends e6400

basicly the EXACT same, except the e6600 has a big typhoon on it.


stock - e6600 = ~20 s e6400 = ~24 s
overclocked - @3.0 = ~16-17 s @~3.2 = ~19 s


please know that these arn't exact. im a gamer really, thats why i buy computers. im not "big" into benching and stuff. i usualy forget what my scores are. but basicly its a few seconds faster all around.


plus. i like the e6600 more. i dunno why. but i just do.

[Alchemy1]

The extra cache of the 6600 will help depending on what you use your system for. Not to mention the higher multi of the 6600 will help you if you don't have the RAM or mobo to run crazy high FSB.

[jcll2002]

im wondering the same thing also...

which combo do you guys like better

P5B Deluxe WIFI/e6600/Ballistix pc2 6400(~$750)
P5B/e6600/Ballistix(~$700)
P5B Deluxe WIFI/e6400/Ballistix pc2 6400(~$650)
P5B/e6400/Ballistix(~$600)

From most expensive to least

I have a watercooling loop and i want to hit 3.6ghz+. What do you guys think is my best bet? (on a budget)

[DumpALump]

Well the story is that it is anywhere from 1-10% increase in speed, but mostly towards the lower end in most areas.

So I don't know how much that increase is worth to you. It was like the 754 vs 939 athlon 64 motherboards. You could spend the extra money to get a bit of an increase or just get the 754 cpu/motherboards. Some people bought the FX A64 chips for the stock speed vs other cpus, but would generally overclock the same as regular chips.

[Stupidpenguin]

got a DS3 and kingston hyperx 900mhz ram. I play games on it mostly. I dont do any video editing or anytype of encoding or ripping. Pretty much games and internet. I know i dont really need the extra speed, but I have a compulsion to buy the faster chip because i have the money too. I'm sorry but i think im using you guys to talk me back from the edge!! :)

P.S. I have water cooling so heat shouldnt be an issue for the overclocking too much!!

[darkcow]

if your just gaming. the e6400 should be fine.


but Oblivion i will admit.. plays just a "bit" better on my brothers e6600. i don't know why. but i just feel like its a bit smoother (at an even higher resolution)


but then again it might be because his vid-card with the giant coper heatsink on it did OC more. (a full 50 mhz more on the CPU and 20 on ram)

[deathman20]

Well I was deciding originally between the 6400 and the 6600 as well.

I decided to go with the 6600 for a few reasons. I'd have the higher multi (know it wouldn't limit my OC), I did how ever get the nice G.Skill PC-6400 ram though so I really knew I wasn't going to be limited on ram speed. I could get a nice 1Gig OC out of it, knowing that it would last me for a while, and I could still go further but I'll be semi safe for the time being.

I chose the P5B-Deluxe WiFi for well 2 reasons, one it wouldn't limit my FSB like the 975x Asus board (sorry forgot name). And it had some nice features, like the wifi which I enjoy.


Overclocking varies but usually you can say that a higher speed processor will go further on OC's then slower ones. If your not picky about having very fast speed go with the cheaper one and save a few bucks to put tward a new graphics card or something.

My clock right now, coming from a Opty 170 @ 2.6Ghz is nearly a 60% boost in speed (not bench mark but real world 3D rendering test). Now I say thats a heck of a boost. If you compare what you have to what you'll be getting either or you'll be looking at least 40% boost in actual CPU preformance.

[jcll2002]

do you notice a difference in every day apps with the upgrade deathman? I think ill go with the same setup you have. i have an opty165 @ 2.8ghz rightnow

[Stupidpenguin]

bought the e6600. I couldn't sleep tonight thinking I might have not bought the best I could afford.

[kfc]

get the 6600. To get a 6400 to oc'd 6600 speeds you would need to spend $50 on a better HSF anyways. The 6600 can do 3.2 easy with the stock HSF at lower voltage and temps.

So think of the 6600 giving you 2MB more cache for $50 more.

[jcll2002]

yeah, i have watercooling...soo....

[itachi2k4]

hmmm i don't think it is worth it and i am sure most e6600 users do not get to 3.2 stock cooling. The extra cache makes it run hotter and u would definitly need something better than air cooling to get it past what a e6300/6400 can do and about double the price makes getting a e6600 even better buddy kekeke ^_^

[nd4spdbh2]

E6600 ftw... amazing processor its definetly worth the money... but if your on a tighter budget 6400 aint bad.

[jcll2002]

is it a proven fact that the extra cache makes it run hotter thus hindering an overclock... I have watercooling so does it really matter?

[greenmaji]

Id take a E6400 unless I had STRONG water cooling or better.
Air or normal water I like the allendales.

[deathman20]

do you notice a difference in every day apps with the upgrade deathman? I think ill go with the same setup you have. i have an opty165 @ 2.8ghz rightnow

Well I had quiet a big upgrade. Running 3x drives in Raid makes a huge difference in preformance as well so I can't compare them as every day apps.

Things load quicker due to the HDD's, but I know now that my CPU isn't the one holding me back in games anymore.

Don't get me wrong I love the new upgrade and its worth every buck I spent and shall last me at least another year ;) For me preformance is worth it, since I do 3D renderings and only having 1 computer now (other was a AMD XP2400+) This is like combining them both into one system and still having more power.

Id take a E6400 unless I had STRONG water cooling or better.
Air or normal water I like the allendales.

Who says you need strong or better water cooling for E6600's and up? Decent air setup treats them quiet well. I like cool and quiet but I'm not stepping back into the water arena yet since my last 2 run ins with water wasn't the best.

[dominick32]

hmmm i don't think it is worth it and i am sure most e6600 users do not get to 3.2 stock cooling. The extra cache makes it run hotter and u would definitly need something better than air cooling to get it past what a e6300/6400 can do and about double the price makes getting a e6600 even better buddy kekeke ^_^

Actually, I have seen many e6600's obtaining clocks of 3.1 to 3.3 on stock cooling. Mine topped out at 3.2 ghz, stock cooling, 1.4vcore. Although temperatures were quite toasty @ 61*C idle. The chip still ran stable. After I saw my temps of course I took her back down again but they are highly capable of great OC's.

This is still the best bang for the buck right now. Gaming, Video Editing, and Overclocking Performance. The extreme cooling guys here on OCF have been managing 4.1 to 4.5 Ghz 24/7 OC's on the 6600. Altough not 24/7, I have got about an 82% oc to 4.37 Ghz on mine.

I was considering the 6400 at my time of purchase as well. But, I am a gamer and heavy OC'er so I wanted the 9X multi and the 4mb cache.

Dont be dissapointed, you made the right choice on your CPU.

[hUMANbEATbOX]

why not a e6300? :D

http://static.flickr.com/91/243908578_2153074069_b.jpg

[Epox4life]

why not a e6300? :D

http://static.flickr.com/91/243908578_2153074069_b.jpg

Thats very nice for the price tag of an E6300, what cooling for that overclock?

[hUMANbEATbOX]

scythe ninja with included fan. :D

[DumpALump]

why not a e6300? :D


Because for $25 more you can have an extra multi just in case (atleast that was my reason) :)

[greenmaji]

Who says you need strong or better water cooling for E6600's and up? Decent air setup treats them quiet well. I like cool and quiet but I'm not stepping back into the water arena yet since my last 2 run ins with water wasn't the best.

results like this

why not a e6300? :D

http://static.flickr.com/91/243908578_2153074069_b.jpg

allendale air clocks.

[deathman20]

results like this



allendale air clocks.

And hes running 7-9C warmer then I am at that speed. I can hit 3.6Ghz and still be below his tempature. All it takes is a better air cooler and a bit of luck to reach those speeds for both CPU's so thats irrelevant.

[greenmaji]

XS has a few E6400's doing 4G on air, 32M stable.

No ambiants mentioned and core temp doesn't mean much of anything, thermal spec isn't monitored by any software.

[Stupidpenguin]

I do have pretty good water cooling. My 805 @4.0ghz with 1.55 vcore never saw over 36c. This chip being 65nm and using far less power should run even cooler than an 805D. I want to get 3.6 out of it and ill be happy (unless i can go higher)

[Daleon]

If someone sat an E6400 and a E6600 down in front of you and said take one, no way I'd not pick the E6600. So if money is not a consideration, there really is not much reason to not get an E6600.

[dominick32]

E6600 = $329
E6400 = $227

Recent Retail prices.
So were are talking a $100 difference for 9X multi and 4mb cache. I still say it is well worth it.

[jcll2002]

If someone sat an E6400 and a E6600 down in front of you and said take one, no way I'd not pick the E6600. So if money is not a consideration, there really is not much reason to not get an E6600.
uhh why?

[OniKoroshi]

Im pretty sure its a typo and he meant no one would take the E6400, because no one would take an E6400 over an E6600 at the same price.

[Stupidpenguin]

he said "no way he would not pick the e6600"

[MadMan007]

Clock-for-clock the performance difference due to the larger cache is 0-4% for most apps, with a select few in the 6-9% range - the one I remember in particular from a comparison was file compression. Suggesting that one benchmark, especially SuperPI, as a useful comparison is, well, (insert something that isn't in the spirit of ocforums) ;) It's clear that a 20% difference does not translate into real-world apps whatsoever. *found the comparison: link (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/14/intel_core_2_duo_processors/5.html)

You really have to qualify the question in a few ways:
What kind of cooling will be used?
What will the system be used for, and is it a situation where time=money?
And of course let's talk real-world 24/7 non-suicide run speeds.

For extreme cooling the 9x multi matters, maybe even for water. But dominick you have to realize not everyone has phase, many people are going to use high-end air. If that's the plan the question then is one of max attainable oc with high-end air. Are most 6600s regularly and easily able to get over 3.6G with air? I've seen enough that can't to figure it's not a certainty. But the right 965 boards are able to get 450FSB+ regularly enough and that should be enough for either the e6600 or e6400 to max out. The motherboard is key here, for a 975-based board that won't do a lot over 400MHz then the higher multi comes into play. Also the bit-tech comparison does not show whether a higher FSB/lower multi at equal speeds is better and surely that has some advantage although it can be done with either CPU.

It seems to me that for those who use good aftermarket air and whose most intensive apps that they are really bothered about max performance in are games, the extra $100 is better put into a nicer video card. My bang-for-buck choice with good air cooling would be the e6400, a 400MHz++ capable 965 board, ram that can be expected to do DDR2-900 and then the best graphics card that the budget allows. If someone has the money to spend then an e6600 would be great too but that can be said about most any hardware ;)

[jcll2002]

what about with water? then what would you get?

[MadMan007]

Not sure, I haven't read many water-cooling results, probably someone who reads xs regularly could say. It's not a given that water would be faster though, it's possible you could reach the same limits of a given chip on water and just have cooler temps.

[jcll2002]

this is my thinking:

If i get a motherboard such as the P5B Deluxe WIFI/AP that can go 500+FSB and ram like the ballistix ddr2 800 that is capable of 500mhz+, then why would I want to get a e6600 because i wont "need" the higher multi? Im really in a toss up...

[OniKoroshi]

Just because a MB says it can support 500+ fsb doesnt mean it will. Set some realistic goals then build your system around that.

[hUMANbEATbOX]

Just because a MB says it can support 500+ fsb doesnt mean it will. Set some realistic goals then build your system around that.
the p5b-deluxe doesn't just say it can do 500fsb (actually my bios goes up to 600), but it actually DOES it. as long as your cpu and ram can handle the speeds, there is no reason the mobo would hold you back.

[MadMan007]

It doesn't really matter because even a 'mere' 450FSB with an 8x multi (e6400) = 3.6Gand 450 should be a given with the good P965 boards and ram that can handle it. How many C2Ds do 3.6+ at 24/7 temp and voltage without extreme cooling anyway?

[Daleon]

I like my setup at 3.2. Now would I rather have a 3.2 E6600 vs my 3.2
E6400? Damn straight, why wouldn't I. If the E6600 had not been so scarce when I first bought I'd gotten it in a heartbeat. But is it now worth switching? Not a chance. I'm plenty happy with what I got, and I highly doubt there will be a real world app or game that will slow my system down for quite a while. A $100 was not going to make a difference in my build though either. If that $100 meant the difference between a 7600GT and a
X1900XT then that money would defintely be going to the video card.

[dominick32]

You guys all bring up valid points. However, forget about phase or extreme cooling for a minute.

Put a 6600 @ 3.0 ghz up against a 6400 @ 3.0 ghz. Same voltage, stock cooling. Which processor will perform better in Quake4, FEAR, Farcry, Superpi1m and 32m? The 6600 definitely would.

I would like to see a direct comparison of this. But I think it would be safe to assume an average of 5% more performance.

Is that worth the money? For someone that wants maximum performance, I definitely say its worth it. I know your opinions may differ. But lets take phase/ln2/dry-ice out of the equation.

[Stupidpenguin]

How bout this, my proc gets here tommorow. So arounf about 6:00pm i'll start posting what it will do on a pretty good water setup. I think the increase in performance from a 6400 to a 6600 will be worth the extra heat of the cache. Not to mention Windows Vista will be in full swing before long and apps coming out will be increasingly resource happy. The extra cahe might not make a big diff now, but in 6 months when software is being written to take advantage of it, it will be worth it.

Now I already have an 1800xt that clocks to 700/800 and performs quite nicely. So I wasn't planning on running out and buying a new vid card anytime soon. I was originally going to spend the savings on a case. But after much consideration, I couldn't bring myself to buy a nice 150$ case then hack it up to fit my W/C setup. I think I made the right decision in buying the 6600. But ill see tommorrow what it can do and confirm my choice hopefully.

[crfracer290]

I got the e6600 for two reasons.

The 100 bucks really wasnt a factor because when I had my 6400 rig priced out I still had extra money I was thinking about buying usb ports and fans with:rolleyes: so I just went witht the 6600.

Second, I plan on doing a pretty high end watercooling set up in the near furture and with a high end water you can max out both thr 6400 and the 6600, making the 6600 the better choice in the end.

[DumpALump]

The extra cahe might not make a big diff now, but in 6 months when software is being written to take advantage of it, it will be worth it.

And in 6 months I will sell my E6400 and take my $100(From not buying the E6600) and get a X6800...

[jcll2002]

I got the e6600 for two reasons.

The 100 bucks really wasnt a factor because when I had my 6400 rig priced out I still had extra money I was thinking about buying usb ports and fans with:rolleyes: so I just went witht the 6600.

Second, I plan on doing a pretty high end watercooling set up in the near furture and with a high end water you can max out both thr 6400 and the 6600, making the 6600 the better choice in the end.
i just pray to god i get a good week/stepping. i have a high quality loop but i dont want to waste it with a illegit stepping.

[Stupidpenguin]

One thing this thread has taught me for sure is "to each his own"

I'm not saying anyone made a faulty choice for choosing one or the other. I personally could never spend a 1000$ dollars on a cpu. Even if i happpened to have the money to spend. The original point of this post was to get some fact based comparsion between the two procs. Which no one has actually given.

[johnz]

I got this E6600 http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4953791?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

$314 shipped. Warranty isn't as long, and no stock cooling, but who cares? ;)

[jcll2002]

wait is the 1 year fry's warranty or intels?

[johnz]

wait is the 1 year fry's warranty or intels?

It's the reduced OEM warranty. The retail chips are 3 years I believe. OEM is the chip only. No box, heatsink, or fan. I don't think that's an issue for most here.

Edit: To actually answer your question :P the warranty is from Intel.

[jcll2002]

yeah, im running a wc loop, but for $10 more you get 3 year warranty, a hsf, and a nice box :)

[MadMan007]

The original point of this post was to get some fact based comparsion between the two procs. Which no one has actually given.

You missed the link in my long post then.

[Stupidpenguin]

I did miss it. That article compares cache sizes. the 6600 is clocked down to 6400 speeds for that comparsion. Thanks for the article though!!! The 6600 regardless will clock higher than the 6400. That is why I bought it. Benchmarking has started to become like drag racing to me. Tune and add parts just to see how fast you can go. I could have stayed with the 805D I have now and more than enough processing power to satisfy my computing needs, but hey, everyone has to have a hobby right?

[Stupidpenguin]

And for all the AMD guys that wander over here, I just really wanted a processor that spanked your top of the line FX-62 for half the cost :beer: :) :santa:

[crfracer290]

Lol, does it really spank it that bad? Seems like the benchies I have seend the 6600 has barely been ahead, albeit, the price and OC capabilty easily spanks the fx.

[greenmaji]

The 6600 regardless will clock higher than the 6400.

I don't agree with that personaly.

and the 100 dollars.
X1900XTX 512MB + the E6400
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102672
or
7900GS 256MB + E6600

FPS wich is better?

[Dragonprince]

If you do video work (like me) in addition to gaming the 6600's extra cache is very nice. I also run BOINC and most of the time the files fit in cache on the chip, I dont have to tell you how blazingly fast this rig is in that scenario. I feel it is definetly worth the extra money...6600 FTW!

[rainless]

E6600 = $329
E6400 = $227

Recent Retail prices.
So were are talking a $100 difference for 9X multi and 4mb cache. I still say it is well worth it.

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS!!!

Not everybody just has that lying around on top of the cost for a new motherboard and new ram. If it was a TEN or FIFTEEN dollar difference, then you could talk about how negligable it is. But there's always something you can get for an extra 100 dollars. For an extra hundred dollars I could have a P5W DH right now. I could've gotten 2gb of ram instead of 1gb of ram. A power supply that has more watts. A better looking girlfiend. A lunch special at the hotel Crillon.

I think it'd be preferable to cough up the extra 200 over an E6600 and get an E6700. But that simply isn't reasonable.

[Stupidpenguin]

My PERSONNEL opionion is that the 6600 is were price and performance meet (please notice the emphasis on personnel before we begin with the attacks). I have come to this conclusion with out actually getting my chip yet or playing with the 6400. Ive always spent about 300$ on any processors ive ever bought (the 805d I had was the exception). Thats just what I feel comfortable spending on a chip. Hence buying the 6600. It was the best you could get in that approximate range.

[DumpALump]

I went with the E6400 because thats where the price/performance met for me and my needs. 1-10% speed increase more towards the former was not worth almost a 50% increase in cost. If your needs require that extra bit of cache where it makes that lucky 10% increase in speed well then that was worth buying for you.

[dominick32]

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS!!!

Not everybody just has that lying around on top of the cost for a new motherboard and new ram. If it was a TEN or FIFTEEN dollar difference, then you could talk about how negligable it is. But there's always something you can get for an extra 100 dollars. For an extra hundred dollars I could have a P5W DH right now. I could've gotten 2gb of ram instead of 1gb of ram. A power supply that has more watts. A better looking girlfiend. A lunch special at the hotel Crillon.

I think it'd be preferable to cough up the extra 200 over an E6600 and get an E6700. But that simply isn't reasonable.

I didnt mean to offend anyone here. lol I see you have a nice e6400 in your rig. Is that what calls for the agressive response? I have been nothing but polite and non personal in all of my posts.

Where can you buy a better looking girlfriend for $100?

[rainless]

I didnt mean to offend anyone here. lol I see you have a nice e6400 in your rig. Is that what calls for the agressive response? I have been nothing but polite and non personal in all of my posts.

Where can you buy a better looking girlfriend for $100?

BANGKOCK! I keep telling everybody about Bangkock. Nobody believes me. I was gonna take this guy there instead of him blowing 1500 bucks on a CPU. One of these days you'll all wise up :)

My response wasn't agressive. My response was typical (for 3:15am rainless anyway...) I mean personal would be me insulting your car or something. But I like your car. Red's my favorite color. (Though I think I'd go with a black one at this point in my life...)

It's just sort of a running trend on this (and admittedly other boards). The whole "for an extra X amount of dollars" thing. I see now that I wasn't really reading the subject well, and I apologize for that. It's FOUR SEVENTEEN AM now. I'm lucky I can read at all. I've gotta go to work... well I can't say in the morning... but in a few hours. I should be in bed. Had a tummy ache.

I guess you simply answered the question about whether or not it was worth the extra money. Haha! I actually agree with you. It IS worth the extra hundred bucks! Provided you've got it of course... And if you did I would still recommend using it to pick up women (not buying drinks... I don't buy drinks for women that aren't buying drinks for me. But to buy drinks for yourself in the COMPANY of women...)

[Daleon]

What I need is someone with a DS3/E6600/2x1GB G.skill HZ's with a 3.2 OC to bench against. A x1900xt would be good to if you got one. I think most of the similar builds I've seen all have E6300/6400's though.

[rainless]

What I need is someone with a DS3/E6600/2x1GB G.skill HZ's with a 3.2 OC to bench against. A x1900xt would be good to if you got one. I think most of the similar builds I've seen all have E6300/6400's though.

Yeah. The DS3 is basically an Allendale board.

[Stupidpenguin]

Rainless, you seem to have been able to play with your ds3 and these chips for awhile. Where do you adjust ram timings in the bios? I don't see it anywhere as an option in mine. And how did you drop the multi out of curiousity? Yet again nowhere do i see that as an option. I have the f5 bios.

And what can you do with girlfriends and 53$ Its what I have left now :) :)

[rainless]

Rainless, you seem to have been able to play with your ds3 and these chips for awhile. Where do you adjust ram timings in the bios? I don't see it anywhere as an option in mine. And how did you drop the multi out of curiousity? Yet again nowhere do i see that as an option. I have the f5 bios.

And what can you do with girlfriends and 53$ Its what I have left now :) :)

Chinatown! It's not Bangkock... but Chinatowns internationally are a bit cheaper than the cities in which they are located. (This was true in Chicago and is DOUBLY true here in Paris.) I discovered eight new species of Chinese soups and a hundred different chinese alcohols. We'll pick up a few girls on the street and roll that fifty three bucks into a weekend!

You hit Ctrl-F1 on the main bios screen to access the advanced options like changing the multi and the ram timings. Kind of silly actually because, if they're hiding that info from novice users, novice users wouldn't be able to FIND the bios to begin with!

I dare say, with all the problems I've had, I've become an EXPERT on the DS3.

[dominick32]

BANGKOCK! I keep telling everybody about Bangkock. Nobody believes me. I was gonna take this guy there instead of him blowing 1500 bucks on a CPU. One of these days you'll all wise up :)

My response wasn't agressive. My response was typical (for 3:15am rainless anyway...) I mean personal would be me insulting your car or something. But I like your car. Red's my favorite color. (Though I think I'd go with a black one at this point in my life...)

It's just sort of a running trend on this (and admittedly other boards). The whole "for an extra X amount of dollars" thing. I see now that I wasn't really reading the subject well, and I apologize for that. It's FOUR SEVENTEEN AM now. I'm lucky I can read at all. I've gotta go to work... well I can't say in the morning... but in a few hours. I should be in bed. Had a tummy ache.

I guess you simply answered the question about whether or not it was worth the extra money. Haha! I actually agree with you. It IS worth the extra hundred bucks! Provided you've got it of course... And if you did I would still recommend using it to pick up women (not buying drinks... I don't buy drinks for women that aren't buying drinks for me. But to buy drinks for yourself in the COMPANY of women...)
LMFAO!!! :beer:
When are we going to Bangkok??

[Stupidpenguin]

PARIS HERE I COME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rainless]

Alright guys, here's how it's gonna work...

StupidPenguin is coming to paris with 53 bucks. Him and I are gonna hit China Town (one of them) hard over the weekend as an appetizer. Then I stuff him in a suitcase, fly in dominick, and we're off to bangkock with the 1500 bucks I got from the guy who didn't know whether to get a conroe or allendale.

Nevermind about customs... That's what this bottle of Absinthe is for.

[thelostrican]

6600 is a better pick, if you go with an allendale, you will need to get better memory and higher fsb, to catch the 6600, and memory is expensive these days, they are coming down, but for 100.00 bucks i would go with a 6600...there are no "down dividers on 965" so the memory will have to go 1:1....

my 2 cents.....

[rainless]

6600 is a better pick, if you go with an allendale, you will need to get better memory and higher fsb, to catch the 6600, and memory is expensive these days, they are coming down, but for 100.00 bucks i would go with a 6600...there are no "down dividers on 965" so the memory will have to go 1:1....

my 2 cents.....

You don't need better memory. Certainly not to catch an E6600 at stock. I'm running at 2800 right now with 400x7 1:1. Stock volts and everything. I could run at 400x8 if I wanted to. And that's with "El Cheapo" XMS2 6400 CAS5 ram that I paid 120 bucks for.

[hUMANbEATbOX]

6600 is a better pick, if you go with an allendale, you will need to get better memory and higher fsb, to catch the 6600, and memory is expensive these days, they are coming down, but for 100.00 bucks i would go with a 6600...there are no "down dividers on 965" so the memory will have to go 1:1....

my 2 cents.....

ram is fun to oc :D i like having ddr2-1000...i like having 500fsb 1:1. :D i like that they can run at 600mhz. this ram only cost $50 more than a far lesser pair would be. ram is an investment. come january, e4300 is available, maybe i'll buy a higher multi then. :D

[MadMan007]

Considering the lowest cost performance name-brand DDR2, that Patriot PC5300 stuff, does 400MHz all the time and 450MHz often enough the cost of Ram isn't a factor. Besides which, how likely is it that someone is going to pair an e6600 with cheap ram?

[thelostrican]

Considering the lowest cost performance name-brand DDR2, that Patriot PC5300 stuff, does 400MHz all the time and 450MHz often enough the cost of Ram isn't a factor. Besides which, how likely is it that someone is going to pair an e6600 with cheap ram?
those that dont have an extra 100 usd around....:beer:

[Stupidpenguin]

well up and running with my stock 6600. Super pi went from 34sec w/ my 805d@4.0 to 21sec stock 6600. YEAH!!! More to follow!!!

[bobad]

Anyone with the 6600: Can you "feel" the 4mb of cache? In other words, do programs seem to launch a beat faster, does the HDD seem a tad quicker, do heavy apps like OpenOffice feel lighter? This will determine whether I get the 6400 or 6600.

[rainless]

well up and running with my stock 6600. Super pi went from 34sec w/ my 805d@4.0 to 21sec stock 6600. YEAH!!! More to follow!!!

Just ran a check to be sure I was at LEAST faster than a 6600 at stock:

...yup.

[rainless]

Anyone with the 6600: Can you "feel" the 4mb of cache? In other words, do programs seem to launch a beat faster, does the HDD seem a tad quicker, do heavy apps like OpenOffice feel lighter? This will determine whether I get the 6400 or 6600.

How would anybody know if the E6600 "felt" faster than the E6400 unless they had both chips? (Don't know anybody like that on this site... unless Joe Camel has a couple...)

Anyway I can simplify matters for you: If you can afford a 6600 then get a 6600.

[bobad]

Anyway I can simplify matters for you: If you can afford a 6600 then get a 6600.

I can't afford either one, but if the 6600 feels faster, I'll get it. :)

[rainless]

I can't afford either one, but if the 6600 feels faster, I'll get it. :)

:beer:

Well you'll NEVER know if it feels faster because I doubt you'll ever have both chips. Unless it's years from now and Intel drops its C2D prices like AMD dropped its whole line of CPU prices 5 years from now. When you can get an E6400 for 70 bucks and an E6600 for 100 bucks, then you'll know.

Until then just know either processor will "feel" a HELL of a lot faster than what you've got now. I'm running at 2800mhz now and there is no particular "load" of any program (except for Premiere Pro 2.0, and that loads VERY fast.) I don't think you'll notice any difference between the E6400 and E6600 unless you're running a lot of apps at the same time in a 64-bit environment like Windows 2003 server. Then we're talking about a difference in feel anyway if you've never run a REAL os before.

[Stupidpenguin]

Dual Prime stable @3294mhz with no vcore increase. 15.898 super pi. Im going for 3.6 BRB

[MadMan007]

those that dont have an extra 100 usd around....:beer:

Yea because they spent it on the e6600 :rolleyes: See what I mean? :p Imo anyone here who is going to get the e6600 is going to get non-minimum cost ram as well as maybe a more expensive mobo. 100% guaranteed 450MHz ram (the various ~$270 2GB sets which will also have more headroom to go beyond 450MHz) is maybe $50 more than 'decent' DDR2 and $90 more than the Patriot, the latter two are 'probably 450MHz' ram in either case you spend less than the jump from 6400-6600. What I'd like to see for a comparison is same clockspeed but obtained by DIFFERENT multi/fsb - say 390x9 e6600 440x8 e6400 and 500x7 e6400 :o - run on realworld apps (sorry no SuperPI :P) both on the same mobo and different ones (975v965) I'd like to know how much the extra FSB decreases the already small gap even more.

It also seems as if those getting the e6600 are getting 975-chipset boards as well which cost more. See when all the Conroe jazz started the 975s and other very initial boards were stuck at a little over 400MHz FSB in which case you *need* the 9x multi. The 965 boards don't need that multi. I suspect some people are stuck on the 'fsb limited theory' which isn't quite as true on the 965 boards.

It's all about the entire setup - motherboard ram AND CPU not just a simple 'x>y' And the situation in particular too - if they are keeping their video card or getting a new one for example. Ultimately rainless is right, if you've got the money to spend and are already getting the best of the other components you can then go for the e6600. Me, I'm a bang for buck real-world thinker, I don't see the logic in spending 40% more for a 5%-10% increase especially on a component that may not be a bottleneck. If the e6600 convincingly max oc's better all the time it would be tougher to decide but I don't know that it does. Other people are benchmarkers and get off on shaving a few seconds from SuperPI and they go for the extra few % performance.

Also the OP asked 'is it worth it' as if he had something else to spend the money on or really wanted to get the best cost : performance ratio - turns out he had the money anyway and he was in the 'keeping rest of system' situation so he kind of didn't ask the right question :)

[Stupidpenguin]

I did ask the right question. It just happened that halfway through the whole process I came into some more money to spend (knocked over a conveniece store j/k before someone calls the cops). Too many people are forgetting that it all comes to a matter of opinion and money. I didnt have anywhere else in my system that a 100$ would have made a difference. I keep hearing that there is just a 5-10% increase between the 6400 and 6600. Whats the increase between a 6300 and a 6400? Probaly about the same. So why spend 50 more? Cause you got it to spend, thats why. Im not knocking anyones decision. Buy what you want to buy. I bought the processors I wanted and am very happy. So lets all be merry and happy!!! I would kill for a 5-10% increase in my cars horsepower for 100$ :beer:

[MadMan007]

The 8x multi on the 6400 matters over the 6300 imo plus it's actually about $30 more ;) {[roughly a 15% cost increase, versus a 40% increase for maybe the same difference in performance]} <- that's how I define hardware 'sweet spots.'

What I should have said was, your question wasn't qualified well enough...not knowing that you'd have no where else to put the $100 and then your coming into more money :santa2: than you thought at first makes all the difference.

Now..OC it and tell us how it goes! :)

[Stupidpenguin]

well so far:

3.6Ghz@1.55 vcore
Dual Prime stable
Super Pi is 14.328
Still playing

[MadMan007]

:o 1.55V. What's your temps and cooling?

[Stupidpenguin]

Cooling in sig. 55c in Intel TAT 49 in Easytune

[Stupidpenguin]

Here is my max on stock vcore: Thought I would get higher on stock, but its more than fast enough for me!!!

[mrslinky]

i would get a e6300 but it depends on the ram and mobo too.
my 6600 doesn't play well with my P5W DH Dlx can only hit 3.1 on 1.4v but does wonders on my intel board and wc loop hits 3.45gh but i would still pick my 6300 over the 6600

[mrslinky]

its more than fast enough for me!!!
what ?who are you? you can honnestly say its fast enough ............it can never be fast enough.

[deathman20]

Here is my max on stock vcore: Thought I would get higher on stock, but its more than fast enough for me!!!

Thats not stock vcore. Stock is like 1.3V..... But damn wish I could hit that speed with that voltage. Hitting it with 1.5V bios (1.44V loaded in windows).

[crfracer290]

what ?who are you? you can honnestly say its fast enough ............it can never be fast enough.

Wait? What? Who are YOU?? :rolleyes: And I doubt he's lying that its fast enough, how can a opinion be a lie:confused:

And why would you pick a 6300 over a 6600?

[Stupidpenguin]

It is the stock VCORE, Cpu-z does not report correctly. My bios has the voltage set to normal. And how bout it's fast enough for a day to day baisis. She'll do 3.6 on my water setup. The vcore has to be jacked through the roof to be stable though. My super Pi at my lasted posted speed was 15.000 even. Not bad I think!!

[greenmaji]

She'll do 3.6 on my water setup. The vcore has to be jacked through the roof to be stable though.

And what Vcore would that be?

[Stupidpenguin]

1.5375
The super PI improves slighlty to 14.328. Not worth the heat gain and lower cpu life to me to run it at that all day.

[greenmaji]

lower cpu life

Would you happen to know how much that would that be in days, months, years or precentage of life expectancy?
Or the average life span for a CPU?

[rainless]

i would get a e6300 but it depends on the ram and mobo too.
my 6600 doesn't play well with my P5W DH Dlx can only hit 3.1 on 1.4v but does wonders on my intel board and wc loop hits 3.45gh but i would still pick my 6300 over the 6600

:welcome: Make sure you update your bios on that DH, and I doubt your 6300 would overclock better on the DH. The 6300 would overclock better on a DS3. Unless you had one of the newer revisions of the DH. I intend to hold-on to my DS3 as long as possible, until much newer and more practical motherboards are released. I don't put much faith in this first wave of boards. Not even the P5B Deluxe. Although I think I may just heed everybody's call and switch out my IDE hd for an SATA. IDE is just too darn slow.

As for speed, I think 3.4ghz is perfectly reasonable for an E6600 on non-alien cooling, and 3.2ghz is perfectly reasonable for an E6400... though I run mine at 2.8ghz. I may try using my 8x multiplier to get the speed up to 3.0ghz... Matter of fact I may try that now :)

[dominick32]

Thats it guys. I am buying a 6400 to compliment my 6600. Lets put this issue to rest. :beer: Anyone want to donate $200??? lol

[rainless]

Thats it guys. I am buying a 6400 to compliment my 6600. Lets put this issue to rest. :beer: Anyone want to donate $200??? lol


No way pal! That's BANGKOCK money, remember?

...but if you've got a "spare" E6600 lying around that you'd like to send me, I'd love to put the matter to rest myself. :rolleyes:

[Daleon]

Just so you know, when you leave the DS3's Vcore on Automatic\Normal it jacks up the vcore on its own to what it needs to run. Thats why I still always prefer to manually set it just so I know for sure what its getting. So I don't think you were running 1.325 vcore. Cpu-Z usually only misreads voltage on the DS3 when its pushed really high.

[MadMan007]

Would the Bios 'health monitor status page' show the actual jacked up auto-voltage then?

[Stupidpenguin]

Would you happen to know how much that would that be in days, months, years or precentage of life expectancy?
Or the average life span for a CPU?


Not the slightest clue. Could have zero effect for all I know. But if it does, it will effect my wallet to the tune of about 330$ :beer:

Rainless, I'm selling one of my kidneys for BANGKOCK money!!! Drunken stupor here I come!!!!!!!!!:beer: :beer: :beer:

[Daleon]

Would the Bios 'health monitor status page' show the actual jacked up auto-voltage then?

Not sure, maybe if you have it OC'd and save it and then go back into it.

[Stupidpenguin]

Even at stock settings w/ no overclock it shows the same voltage on cpuz. There is a feature in the ds3 bios that will step up the voltage and fsb automatically. But i have it disabled. At work right now so cant see what its called.

[MadMan007]

Not sure, maybe if you have it OC'd and save it and then go back into it.

Well you have the board maybe you should try it :beer: More out of curiosity than anything, it would be interesting to se how the 'auto' voltage compares to the user-set voltage at a given speed.

[largon]

Even at stock settings w/ no overclock it shows the same voltage on cpuz. There is a feature in the ds3 bios that will step up the voltage and fsb automatically. But i have it disabled. At work right now so cant see what its called.Actually, Gigabyte P965 boards do automatically float the vCore with the FSB increase. It's not a feature one could disable except by setting the voltage manually to stock (1.325V).

[rainless]

It is the stock VCORE, Cpu-z does not report correctly. My bios has the voltage set to normal. And how bout it's fast enough for a day to day baisis. She'll do 3.6 on my water setup. The vcore has to be jacked through the roof to be stable though. My super Pi at my lasted posted speed was 15.000 even. Not bad I think!!

Even though you have a ridiculously old version of CPUz (UPGRADE DAMNIT!) I'm sure it's the other way around: CPUz is reporting your voltage correctly and the bios is not.

[Stupidpenguin]

Oh well. Im retarded. All i know is that the voltage in the bios says normal. My mem is running at 948mhz and the chip is 377x8. Only things i have messed with so far. What were your settings rainless when you hit 3.32?

[deathman20]

Even though you have a ridiculously old version of CPUz (UPGRADE DAMNIT!) I'm sure it's the other way around: CPUz is reporting your voltage correctly and the bios is not.

Never trust software for "Accurate readings" unless you actually test it with a DMM.

On my last board my voltage reading in software, including CPU-Z was only off by .005. Now I don't consider that bad at all, while other motherboards where off considerably sometimes in the range of .05V.

You can't say its reading it correctly unless you have that board, that revision, a bit of luck that its very similar, and have tested it with a DMM.

[rainless]

Oh well. Im retarded. All i know is that the voltage in the bios says normal. My mem is running at 948mhz and the chip is 377x8. Only things i have messed with so far. What were your settings rainless when you hit 3.32?

Almost the same as they are right now: +.1v to MCG +.2v to Memory 1.35v to CPU. Maybe lower. Maybe it was 1.325. It was running fine when I had it up there, but then wouldn't reboot and I had to reset CMOS. I'm guessing I wasn't using enough volts. 1.35 probably would have done. Oddly enough it was running just great though the whole time I was in windows. Temps were a little high, but nothing to raise an alarm over.

[dominick32]

Well, here is a direct comparion overclocked 6400 vs. my 6600. The 6400 is on DRY ICE:eek: and I am on Phase.

The DRY ICE 6400 is at 4.36 Ghz and his FSB is @ 545 :eek: RAM @ 545 :eek:

SUPERPI 1m = 13.218 ms
http://www.hwtweakers.net/files/forum/0609/screen021.jpg
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=116421


Myself E6600 @ 4.37 Ghz FSB = 486 RAM @ 486
SUPERPI 1m = 11.625 ms


http://strippoli.com/phase/4374.JPG

My honest opinion is that when extreme cooling, the e6600 offers a rather substantial increase in CPU performance over the 6400. Here we have almost identical clock speeds, phase vs. dry ice, and the 6400's FSB and RAM clocks absolutely destroy my own yet my rig is substantially stronger at identical clock speeds.

Everyone please offer your suggestions, and or comments. lol :santa:

And here is our very own EPOX4LIFE @ 4.4 Ghz =

http://star.walagata.com/w/fetuskiller/11.515small.JPG

[dominick32]

If I am crunching the numbers correctly. That would mean (using very similar setups) that when extreme cooled and overclocked to the max @ 4.37 Ghz. An e6600 w/4mb cache offers an improvement of almost 14% more performance over a 6400 w/2mb cach using SuperPi1m as a tool for benchmarking raw power. Not to mention the comparison displays my competition using even tighter timings than my own, a huge jump in FSB and a huge jump in ram frequency compared to my meager 486 mhz.

[Jizzzared]

but that is 14% difference in superpi, where we all know the 4meg cache will make a much bigger difference than in any other program that I could think of. If you could run some kind of real-world bench comparisons, I'd love to see how the extreme cooled e6400 and e6600 match up. Thanks.

[rainless]

First of all... that is by no means a direct comparison. Which motherboard was he using vs. which motherboard were you using? Which ram was he using vs. which ram were you using? And I didn't see your ram timings vs. HIS ram timings...

You can't use clock speed to make a broad general statement like that. There are too many ifs involved. Plus, less than one second in SuperPi doth not a substantial overclock make.

A REAL direct comparison would be you leaving all your settings exactly the same, taking out the E6600 and putting in the E6400. Then we can start talking direct comparison.

Nice overclock though :)

[dominick32]

REAL[/B] direct comparison would be you leaving all your settings exactly the same, taking out the E6600 and putting in the E6400. Then we can start talking direct comparison.

Nice overclock though :)

You 6400 buffs are real tough!!! lol
However, you are absolutely correct. The only real comparison would be myself putting a 6400 in my rig for a direct swap. However, give me at least the fact that at identical clock speeds there is a rather substantial drop in superpi1m times with 4mb cache? Than I will leave you alone.

[MadMan007]

Broad performance conclusions based on SuperPi = :bang head

Yes, what you just posted is correct and all well and good for the benchmarks junkies and SuperPi competitors. I just prefer to do more than run the same calculations that have been done umpteen times with my computer aka 'real world apps.'

[dominick32]

Broad performance conclusions based on SuperPi = :bang head

Whatever you may think. Synthetic or not, that is still a 14% increase with clockspeeds identical in one piece of software. So, the 6600 has the edge in at the least 1 piece of software.

[rainless]

You 6400 buffs are real tough!!! lol
However, you are absolutely correct. The only real comparison would be myself putting a 6400 in my rig for a direct swap. However, give me at least the fact that at identical clock speeds there is a rather substantial drop in superpi1m times with 4mb cache? Than I will leave you alone.

Nope... Your time is like 12.3 seconds his time is 13.2. That's not a SUBSTANTIAL drop. You'd need at LEAST one whole second to even talk about much of a drop at all. Another .1 seconds and I coulda given it to ya but...

Then again we still don't know what ram we're talking about... we still don't know what board... Given the same RAM and board as you we could probably negotiate... but we'd still be negotiating over less than a second. If he was getting 15.9 seconds and you were getting 12.3.. Hell... if he was getting 14 seconds and you were getting 12.3... I'd have to say "Okay dom... that's a hell of a difference..."

But tell me what your ram timings are versus his? I know you probably have all that stuff on your own thread, but I'd rather have the info at my figertips. :beer:

Edit: Ooops! Just noticed that "11" there... DAMN that's a significant increase :)

[rainless]

...but for all I know he's running on some suped-up, cherry-picked, Asrock board :)

[dominick32]

Nope... Your time is like 12.3 seconds his time is 13.2. That's not a SUBSTANTIAL drop. You'd need at LEAST one whole second to even talk about much of a drop at all. Another .1 seconds and I coulda given it to ya but...

Then again we still don't know what ram we're talking about... we still don't know what board... Given the same RAM and board as you we could probably negotiate... but we'd still be negotiating over less than a second. If he was getting 15.9 seconds and you were getting 12.3.. Hell... if he was getting 14 seconds and you were getting 12.3... I'd have to say "Okay dom... that's a hell of a difference..."

But tell me what your ram timings are versus his? I know you probably have all that stuff on your own thread, but I'd rather have the info at my figertips. :beer:

Edit: Ooops! Just noticed that "11" there... DAMN that's a significant increase :)

Dude, my time is 11.625 ms, not 12ms. lol *Edit just realized you made a mistake.

[dominick32]

His E6400 = 4.36 Ghz FSB/RAM @ 545 4-4-3-4
Superpi = 13.218

My E6600 = 4.37 Ghz FSB/RAM @ 486 Timings = 4-4-4-12
Superpi = 11.625

[rainless]

Hahahahahahaha! :)

Keep telling you guys about late-night rainless... :P

[Epox4life]

His E6400 = 4.36 Ghz FSB/RAM @ 545 4-4-3-4
Superpi = 13.218

My E6600 = 4.37 Ghz FSB/RAM @ 486 Timings = 4-4-4-12
Superpi = 11.625
4mb cache, wins.

[MadMan007]

Whatever you may think. Synthetic or not, that is still a 14% increase with clockspeeds identical in one piece of software. So, the 6600 has the edge in at the least 1 piece of software.

Yup, that much is clear and certainly better than implying it has a 14% performance advantage in everything. So I wholeheartedly concur with your statement about 1 piece of software :) Now, if it wasn't something as esoteric as SuperPi and served a real purpose we'd be REALLY talking :bday:

[rainless]

Okay. The 4MB cache is an obvious advantage to people with dry ice or phase cooling who are running their chips at 4ghz. I'm ready to admit that now :p

[dominick32]

Okay. The 4MB cache is an obvious advantage to people with dry ice or phase cooling who are running their chips at 4ghz. I'm ready to admit that now :p

hahahah

Rainless, take that bangkok money and put it in a high yield savings bond, until quad core s released. Than buy yourself a 6600 for $150... :santa:

[rainless]

If and when the 6600 hits 150 bucks... I'm all over it.

Then you can see a REAL direct comparison. :)

[Stupidpenguin]

Rainless you have the same board i do. Clock your 6400 to 3200mhz and run super pi and ill do the same. See what the difference is on the same board.

[Epox4life]

You can get an E6600 for like 324$ now.

[MadMan007]

No point, we already know SPi is going to be better on the e6600.

Are there some other CPU benchmarks which mimic real programs better but won't be affected by total memory or video card?

Epox - yea, and an e6400 for ~$225.

[Stupidpenguin]

what do you want to do? How bout 3dmark06? Sandra?

And can you 6400 guys please try to contain your jealousy? Its getting a little ridiculous!! J/K :beer: :)

[jcll2002]

ive just decided to get the e6600/P5B Deluxe Wifi/2gb Ballistix 4-4-4-x ddr2 800

what do you guys think?

[Stupidpenguin]

ive just decided to get the e6600/P5B Deluxe Wifi/2gb Ballistix 4-4-4-x ddr2 800

what do you guys think?

AAAHHHHAAA!!!! Another one comes to the 6600 side!!!!:beer:

[MadMan007]

oo wait you have 1GB of Ram too that just means no video-card dependent comparisons. Yea maybe you and rainless can start a thread for comparison and we can find some benchmarks ranging from pseudo-realworld synthetic like 3DM and Sandra and some more real ones like video encoding or 3D rendering and then run them. The only catch is if we're limited by rainless' oc so it wouldn't be at 3.5G+...maybe something like 3.2G at normal multi, so 8x400 for the e6400 and 9x356 and also 8x400 for the e6600. Maybe get HBB into the mix as well with his crazy-clocking e6300.

btw penguin have you read the end of this thread?: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=478385
...wierd stuff that throws another kink into the mix.

[deathman20]

If you want comparison you need raw preformance real world tests.

Either like a cinebench test or some sort of 3D rendering program and running the same file and seeing how long it takes. You want some nice level fields yet you want ot force out the preformance of the CPU.

[hUMANbEATbOX]

i feel all alone in the e6300 club. not many of us around here. :D makes me feel special. :beer:

[rainless]

I don't see how a 3D rendering program would be a real comparison, we have two different video cards. So if said program uses OpenGL at all, his would probably be faster. And I'm sure his ram timings are lower than mine, but he could always set his ram to 5-5-5-15... unless he's got a D9 chip or something. But anyway... (And I'm certainly not jealous... if he was hitting 6ghz or something, THEN I would be jealous. But with my week 24 chip if I had dry ice or phase I'd be hitting 4ghz like everybody else with only a 2 second super pi difference 4mb cache or no... The REAL person I'm jealous of is HumanBeatBox... How the HELL do you get an E6300 that overclocks to nine gigahertz? :) )

[greenmaji]

4mb cache, wins.

uhh uhhh
low multi wins!
http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/showpost.php?p=191563&postcount=3

FSB FTW!! :p :p :p

[rainless]

...I then overclocked my RAM to 1ghz just to see if I could.

I CAN :bday:

[Stupidpenguin]

here are some benchmarks. settings are as follows:

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=505687

cpu - 370x9 = 3330
ram 925mhz 5-5-5-15
vid card - 702core/792mem
no voltage changes

[deathman20]

I don't see how a 3D rendering program would be a real comparison, we have two different video cards. So if said program uses OpenGL at all, his would probably be faster.

3D Rendering program doesn't use the graphics card to render it. Its all done by the CPU. 3D Rendering benchmark programs do take into account for graphic cards but have a seperate CPU and combined total (Cinebench). So you can use that as a benchmark.

[rainless]

here are some benchmarks. settings are as follows:

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=505687

cpu - 370x9 = 3330
ram 925mhz 5-5-5-15
vid card - 702core/792mem
no voltage changes

So let me see if I get this... You had me overclock my E6400 to 3.2ghz and then you overclocked your E6600 to 3.33. Okay... I'll be right back.

Edit: There. Now we have a slightly more fair comparison. Only thing I changed was 1.4vcore and 417x8 (416 would've been just under 3.33)

[rainless]

I really don't think SuperPi shows the advantage of 4mb cache, I think what we're seeing is the advantage of 9x over 8x multi. This would be a nice place for HumanBeatBox to chime in with HIS 3.33ghz Pi scores. (Then again he has the enchanted processor.)

[Stupidpenguin]

2.5 sec diff. Can you run 3dmark06?

P.S. My new passport is in the mail!! BANGKOCK!!!!

[rainless]

2.5 sec diff. Can you run 3dmark06?

P.S. My new passport is in the mail!! BANGKOCK!!!!

No I don't think I can run 3Dmark06... That one requires Windows Media Player 10 doesn't it? I don't quite TRUST microsoft enough to install Windows Mediaplayer 10. I've personally had to deal with too many Windows Mediaplayer 10-related issues on other people's computers to install it on mine.

Passmark seems pretty good though.

[Stupidpenguin]

PCmark05 requires WMP 10. 3dmark06 only requires directx 9.0c. Download it for free from http://www.futuremark.com

My board does not like 8x multi on this chip. Locks up when i try 417x8

[rainless]

PCmark05 requires WMP 10. 3dmark06 only requires directx 9.0c. Download it for free from http://www.futuremark.com

My board does not like 8x multi on this chip. Locks up when i try 417x8

That's odd... my DS3 runs 7x multi just fine. Do you have the latest bios update?

[Stupidpenguin]

F5. F6 says it helps 6300 and 6400 so i haven't tried it yet