I'm don't want to put too much money towards my new build upcomeing based on the conroe. Honestly, in canada prices are to high for everything, so 400 dollers for a chip vs 250 .. its pretty different. So, can anyone tell me if theres a HUGE difference in the 2MB and the 4MB catche's? I'm not worried about the clock frequencies, I can overclock easy.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
E6300... Or... E6600
- Thread starter ChRiZo
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Location
- Asheville NC
ChRiZo said:
The cache difference of the two procs has yeilded anywhere from 0-10% increases.
I went E6400 myself. Friday night stay tuned(unless you have a life lol) I will have all kinds of benchmarks of my E6400 posted here.
FudgeNuggets
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2006
- Location
- Gone Racing
E6600 hands down. Many tests show the extra 2MB makes a BIG difference.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Location
- Asheville NC
FudgeNuggets said:
WTF does that mean lol. I stated numbers, pure fact. anywhere from 0-10%.
Proof:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/14/intel_core_2_duo_processors/5.html
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2004
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
I would consider up to 10% a big difference as well.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Location
- Dallas, Georgia
I must be misreading something. Average in that link was stated at 2-3%. 
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Location
- Folding in the Pacific Northwest.
consitter the fact that they similarly clocked the processors. So the x6800 was actually running a lot slower than it should have been. So the $150 is actually going to get you higher clocks & more cache, and will yield you a higher overclock as well.
FudgeNuggets
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2006
- Location
- Gone Racing
The bit-tech review was done with engineering samples here's the link and an excerpt (the important stuff) from a review done with the OEM/Retail chips. Either way you're getting a good CPU but I like the extra cache and scalability of the E6600. Also the article states that E6300 and 6400 can be overclocked to e6700 and e6800 levels but they mean STOCK levels. The 6600,6700 and 6800s have been hitting 4ghz pretty consistantly.
The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+ in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts. In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price. Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
The E6400 finds itself in between the X2 4200+ and X2 4600+ in price, but in performance the E6400 generally lands in between the 4600+ and 5000+. Once again, with these 2MB parts the performance advantage isn't nearly as impressive as with the 4MB parts (partly due to the fact that their native clock speed is lower, in addition to the smaller L2 cache), but even with AMD's new price cuts the Core 2 is still very competitive at worst. If you're not opposed to overclocking, then the E6400 can offer you more than you can get from any currently shipping AMD CPU - our chip managed an effortless 2.88GHz overclock which gave us $1000 CPU performance for $224.
The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12
The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+ in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts. In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price. Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
The E6400 finds itself in between the X2 4200+ and X2 4600+ in price, but in performance the E6400 generally lands in between the 4600+ and 5000+. Once again, with these 2MB parts the performance advantage isn't nearly as impressive as with the 4MB parts (partly due to the fact that their native clock speed is lower, in addition to the smaller L2 cache), but even with AMD's new price cuts the Core 2 is still very competitive at worst. If you're not opposed to overclocking, then the E6400 can offer you more than you can get from any currently shipping AMD CPU - our chip managed an effortless 2.88GHz overclock which gave us $1000 CPU performance for $224.
The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Location
- Spokane, WA
Silver said:I must be misreading something. Average in that link was stated at 2-3%.
Yeah those numbers just don't seem right.... But consider the higher clockspeed of the E6600 and now you have a 15% total boost over the E6400 (unless I missed something in my guestimation).
- Thread Starter
- #13
>.< damit, i'm rethinking now. God.. what to do.. I'll by putting it on a Blue Orb II Heatsink.. and i'll be overclocking it either way. I want to keep it as low as possable for price (Eg, i'll be putting 2x 7600 GS in SLI for video cards).
I'll wait and see what Ranger's benchmarks on the E6400 will be.. then i'll decide..
I'll wait and see what Ranger's benchmarks on the E6400 will be.. then i'll decide..
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Location
- Folding in the Pacific Northwest.
well if your keeping the price down I'd go with the e6400. at $250 its a very nice chip and will overclock really nicely.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Location
- Virginia
If you can affored it, I would really go with the 6600. Not only does the cache make a difference, but the higher multi will help out much more when overclocking. People have been trouble maxing out their Conroes because their board cannot handle such a high FSB speed. So, every multi helps.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Location
- Asheville NC
Silver said:I must be misreading something. Average in that link was stated at 2-3%.
You are right, and the given 10% was being generous in favor of the 4mb model.
Not everyone can afford the higher end models. I plan on taking my E6400 past C2D XE speeds. Friday we will see first hand my results.
