E6600 vs 6400

[Tek Jansen]

I am planning an upgrade during Spring of next year, and I am very inclined toward a Core 2 processor. I've noticed that the E6600 has extra L2 cache, but I've seen many posts talking about just overclocking the 6400's to get alot more out of them. Are they more easily overclockable than their bigger brethren, and what does the extra L2 cache do for the computer overall. A huge increase, or not worth the extra cost?

[hUMANbEATbOX]

its not a HUGE increase, but it can help UP TO around 10% in apps that like lots of cache. superpi will show a very big increase, but its just a quick benchmark.

basically, you can clock a e6400 to speeds that will more than satisfy you, and you can put that money somewhere else if you want. if i had to do it again, i would go with a e6600, because hey, its just money. :) mind you i was strapped when i bought, so it did influence my decision.

do some searches of the forums and you will find lots of debate on this topic. ;)

and welcome to the forums! :welcome:

[Tek Jansen]

Not to sound like a complete novice, (:) ) but what kind of applications use a large amount of cache?

And thank you for the welcome :)

[BossBorot]

also something to consider when they come out are the e4300 chips. They will launch in Q1 2007 so they should be out by the time you decide to build.

the e6600 has a max multiplier of 9
the e6400 has a max multiplier of 8
the e4300 has a max multiplier of 9

the e6600 has a shared cache of 4mb
the e6400 has a shared cache of 2mb
the e4300 has a shared cache of 2mb

the e6600 costs $316 each in units of 1000
the e6400 costs $224 each in units of 1000
the e4300 costs $163 each in units of 1000

Basically the e4300 has the same cache size as the e6400 and the same multiplier as the e6600 but cost less then either. Therefore performance wise when you compair all three of the chips at the same fsb using their max multiplier the e4300 will fall in between the performance of the e6400 and the e6600.

[CanadianTSi]

Another thing to Consider is that Intel is coming out with 63 and 6400's that will have 4MB of cache

[BossBorot]

Another thing to Consider is that Intel is coming out with 63 and 6400's that will have 4MB of cache

That will happen in Q2 2007

the e6420 will launch at $183 (the e6400 will also drop to $183)
the e6320 will launch at $163 (the e6300 will also drop to $163)

also at that time they will launch the e4400 with a multiplier of 10 :drool: for $133 but it only has 2mb cache.

Basically if you are going to wait until Q2 2007 then you will have quite a few options to consider and we should have little info about the 45 nm intel move for the second half of 2007.

[DumpALump]

Not to sound like a complete novice, (:) ) but what kind of applications use a large amount of cache?



Notice that not a lot of people respond? I've been wondering this too, because whenever I look at benchmarks the differences are usually 1-5% increase in speed on average. The 10% is in very few benchmarks/tests. So really why would you spend another $90-$100 for a E6600?

[darufe]

well for those who have e6600 that CAN manage 400+fsb at 9x multi its nice.
i'm not one of them tho :P
need 1.5vcore for 3.3ghz :(

[OnDborder]

6420's.. That's what I'm waitin' for..http://techreport.com/ja.zz?id=157090

[fordf250]

I have not updateded my sig but have both a e6400 and an e6600. both topped out at 3.6G for overclock and they benchmark the same at that speed, superpi showing the only real change

[Jod]

well for those who have e6600 that CAN manage 400+fsb at 9x multi its nice.
i'm not one of them tho :P
need 1.5vcore for 3.3ghz :(

Exactly. It's the $100 gamble. :D

[MadMan007]

I have not updateded my sig but have both a e6400 and an e6600. both topped out at 3.6G for overclock and they benchmark the same at that speed, superpi showing the only real change

Really, so the higher bus speed doesn't matter for the e6300? Maybe at the higher bus speeds the internal timings on the NB are slowed down and it balances out. What motherboard were you using, and what programs did you use to test? (SPi is all about the cache and shows a much larger increase from the cache than any other program.)

[deathman20]

I have not updateded my sig but have both a e6400 and an e6600. both topped out at 3.6G for overclock and they benchmark the same at that speed, superpi showing the only real change

Yup thats same results here with 2x E6400's and 2x E6600's that I've tested. There basically the same except the few. SuperPI, Video encoding, etc. Game play is the same.

As you have to look at it and mention it each time its brought up. Your not paying ~$90 for the E6600's 4mb of cache, your probably paying roughly $50 for the extra 2mb of cache enabled and ~$40 for the 9x mulit.

[deathman20]

Really, so the higher bus speed doesn't matter for the e6300? Maybe at the higher bus speeds the internal timings on the NB are slowed down and it balances out. What motherboard were you using, and what programs did you use to test? (SPi is all about the cache and shows a much larger increase from the cache than any other program.)

The timings on the NB isn't slowed down. The E6300's become a huge bottleneck due to the boards preformance and if it can take the higher FSB let alone the ram taking it.

[meionm]

I had better luck overclocking E6400 rather than E6600. I had 2 E6600 and non of them reach oc level of E6400.

[deathman20]

I had better luck overclocking E6400 rather than E6600. I had 2 E6600 and non of them reach oc level of E6400.

Indeed my sig this one I can at least hit 3.76Ghz easily with a mild 1.575V for testing.

[MadMan007]

Yup thats same results here with 2x E6400's and 2x E6600's that I've tested. There basically the same except the few. SuperPI, Video encoding, etc. Game play is the same.

As you have to look at it and mention it each time its brought up. Your not paying ~$90 for the E6600's 4mb of cache, your probably paying roughly $50 for the extra 2mb of cache enabled and ~$40 for the 9x mulit.

Gameplay is video card limited, obviously. SPi is *meh whatever* not a real-world app. What non-gaming/video card real-world benchmarks are there or which ones did you try?

[deathman20]

Gameplay is video card limited, obviously. SPi is *meh whatever* not a real-world app. What non-gaming/video card real-world benchmarks are there or which ones did you try?

3D tests on a model I made, results where nearly the same if not the E6400 for some reason in my cases was faster at the same FSB and speeds. Others show they are on but they where close.

Gameplay is not always video card limited. RTS games are highly CPU dependent as well as some other games.

[fordf250]

Really, so the higher bus speed doesn't matter for the e6300? Maybe at the higher bus speeds the internal timings on the NB are slowed down and it balances out. What motherboard were you using, and what programs did you use to test? (SPi is all about the cache and shows a much larger increase from the cache than any other program.)

Its a p5w dh and I only game so the benches are doom3, 3d06,3d05 and fear.I was not that happy with conroe, as my 940 running 5.2G benched the same also , 1-2 fps diff in shooters and 3-5% in 3dmark.Some drivers make more diff.Plus the fsb was only 50mhz higher from the 6400 to 6600, my ram will run 12-4-4-4 1:1 for both cpus

[Jod]

I had better luck overclocking E6400 rather than E6600. I had 2 E6600 and non of them reach oc level of E6400.
Only played w/ one of each, but the 6600 topped out @ 3.3 w/ 6400 @ 3.6. Both @ 1.475V.

[MadMan007]

Deathman - if you haven't seen it, here's the NB timings and strap info I mentioned. http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=30

[StrandedMartian]

reading this thread makes me think the 6600 is not worth it over the 6400 if money is an object - 90 bucks is money to me.

[Tek Jansen]

reading this thread makes me think the 6600 is not worth it over the 6400 if money is an object - 90 bucks is money to me.

Indeed, I was also intrigued by the e6420's. If I'm reading it right, they will cost the same as the 6400's but carry 4mb cache instead of 2. This thread has convinced me to go with the 6400 rather than the 6600, but the 6420 might be worth waiting for.