E6600 OEM $129.99 + S/H @ Microcenter

Yay, got mine

Just a quick email to let you know your package has shipped and will be delivered to the address listed below.

i dont care if its a bad or early stepping, coming from an athlon xp 3000, and for $140, it's worth it.
 
nicepun said:
Are you kidding me? The E6600 has 4MB L2 Cache vice 2MB and that alone should improve peformance some. I bought one and once I get it I'll post results. I though with time the production process it supposed to improve the product not make it worse.
Click to expand...

That extra 2MB cache only provides at most a 5% performance increase. Dunno why the E6600 got worse in quality OCing but it could be due to the fact that the '50 series of C2D were coming out pretty soon and all of the quality parts, I guess, were being diverted to the '50 series. That would explain why the E6750 is such an amazing overclocker.
 
Danny Bui said:
That extra 2MB cache only provides at most a 5% performance increase. Dunno why the E6600 got worse in quality OCing but it could be due to the fact that the '50 series of C2D were coming out pretty soon and all of the quality parts, I guess, were being diverted to the '50 series. That would explain why the E6750 is such an amazing overclocker.
Click to expand...
Depends on your application. SMP Folding is an example of a program that takes advantage of every bit of cache it can get.
 
Got a shipment notification. Yay!

Finally get to upgrade from my aged s939 platform (which has treated me kindly over the years).

Great deal.
 
mine cancelled. thanks to the guy who ordered 15. been waiting on that price for over a year too,
 
RayDaddy said:
mine cancelled. thanks to the guy who ordered 15. been waiting on that price for over a year too,
Click to expand...

Yes, would have been nice if the guy who bought 15 bought one. If he can afford 15, he can afford to pay regular price, leave the deals to us poor folk. =P
 
RayDaddy said:
mine cancelled. thanks to the guy who ordered 15. been waiting on that price for over a year too,
Click to expand...

Mine got canceled as well. All 15 of them. :(

FYI I'm poor and in debt. I can't even get a credit card.
 
how were you going to pay for them? I didn't know they were giving these away. ;)
 
I hear that the e4400's clock very similarly to this one (3.4 GHz, roughly, on air), and retails for the same. That's what the little birds tell me, anyway.
 
SEALTeamSix said:
I hear that the e4400's clock very similarly to this one (3.4 GHz, roughly, on air), and retails for the same. That's what the little birds tell me, anyway.
Click to expand...

Did your bird tell you that E6600 is at 1066 fsb and E4400 is at 800 fsb with half the cache? That equates to roughly 20-25% speed difference at same clock speed.
 
Marvelous said:
Did your bird tell you that E6600 is at 1066 fsb and E4400 is at 800 fsb with half the cache? That equates to roughly 20-25% speed difference at same clock speed.
Click to expand...

WTF?

That equates to about 0-4% difference in speed clock for clock.

Where did you get 20-25%?
 
Marvelous said:
Did your bird tell you that E6600 is at 1066 fsb and E4400 is at 800 fsb with half the cache? That equates to roughly 20-25% speed difference at same clock speed.
Click to expand...

Average performance difference based on cache size: 3.5%. For games, it's even less.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

The FSB difference has no bearing - that's what downward-unlocked CPU multipliers are for.

The upside to a retail e4400 is the 3-year warranty (as opposed to 90 days for this OEM e6600), and a decent heatsink.
 
Why does no one care about Virtualization? I use it regularly, currently fighting a stubborn VPN client that no likey Vista. :)
For me, an e4400 would be absolutely unacceptable because of that.
 
mavalpha said:
Why does no one care about Virtualization? I use it regularly, currently fighting a stubborn VPN client that no likey Vista. :)
For me, an e4400 would be absolutely unacceptable because of that.
Click to expand...
I run virtual machines on 3 different Core 2 systems at home (2 PCs, 1 Mac) that lack VT. VMWare, VirtualPC and Parallels all support virtualization with or without VT or Pacifica. I'm not sure about Parallels supporting Pacifica since no Macs ship with AMD CPUs, but VMWare and VirtualPC don't care.

TBH, I can't really notice any speed difference vs the Woodcrest Xeon workstation I have at work which does support VT (I enabled it), although 2 of my home systems have much higher clock speeds and 1 system has twice the amount of memory. VT can help performance, but it's not a requirement.
 
Any links to where it shows 3.4GHz on air for the E4400?

I got mine to 3 GHz - it fails Orthos in about 7 seconds, but it's stable for everything from office work to intense gaming to multiple runs of 3DMark 06 in one sitting. I don't think anything can bring it to it's knees, besides Orthos obviously. And you can't beat stock voltage :D
 
SEALTeamSix said:
Average performance difference based on cache size: 3.5%. For games, it's even less.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

The FSB difference has no bearing - that's what downward-unlocked CPU multipliers are for.

The upside to a retail e4400 is the 3-year warranty (as opposed to 90 days for this OEM e6600), and a decent heatsink.
Click to expand...

Of course FSB has a bearing in performance as well. Would you like to bet some money on that? :D

You show me year old results with 1900xt crossfire @ 1600x1200. Do you think maybe if they used a different video card they would have better performance in games or no? Lower resolutions? No or yes? :rolleyes:
 
TheGodfather47 said:
Any links to where it shows 3.4GHz on air for the E4400?

I got mine to 3 GHz - it fails Orthos in about 7 seconds, but it's stable for everything from office work to intense gaming to multiple runs of 3DMark 06 in one sitting. I don't think anything can bring it to it's knees, besides Orthos obviously. And you can't beat stock voltage :D
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1138241

Scroll down to the E4400. 3.45Ghz on Air.

Do remember that not all chips have the same predilection towards overclocking.
 
Marvelous said:
Of course FSB has a bearing in performance as well. Would you like to bet some money on that? :D

You show me year old results with 1900xt crossfire @ 1600x1200. Do you think maybe if they used a different video card they would have better performance in games or no? Lower resolutions? No or yes? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I somewhat doubt a processors FSB can be compared to a video card...:rolleyes:
 
RoboticPotPie said:
I somewhat doubt a processors FSB can be compared to a video card...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? :rolleyes:

FYI higher FSB CPU DOES perform better at the same clock speed.

I mentioned video card because the guy was talking about game performance is 1 or 2% with cache differences. If the reviewer used a different card or at lower resolutions where you are not video card limited the performance does increase. Anandtech used 1600x1200 resolution where the video card gets limited. :rolleyes:
 
I got one, it shipped, but fedex apparently forgot how to ship next day air. The package is lost, and I'll probably never see it. How crappy is that to actually be lucky enough to NOT be canceled, just for Fedex to screw you. I hate Murphy and his stupid law.
 
Marvelous said:
What the hell are you talking about? :rolleyes:

FYI higher FSB CPU DOES perform better at the same clock speed.

I mentioned video card because the guy was talking about game performance is 1 or 2% with cache differences. If the reviewer used a different card or at lower resolutions where you are not video card limited the performance does increase. Anandtech used 1600x1200 resolution where the video card gets limited. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't clear enough - you find the max overclock of a processor using the highest multiplier, then adjust it down and bump the FSB up. That way, you end up with the highest system FSB speed as well as the highest CPU overclock. AFAIK, that's the whole point of downward-unlocked multipliers on CPU's.

As for performance decreases due to cache - if you've got a link to benchmarks showing a different setup with worse performance in a real-world setting due to CPU cache, I'd love to be proven wrong. Seriously, I love having the best information, and I'll admit I don't always get things right.

We are getting a bit off-topic, though - perhaps we could move this discussion to a different section? I've made this thread to try to help this thread stay on topic.
 
Marvelous said:
What the hell are you talking about? :rolleyes:

FYI higher FSB CPU DOES perform better at the same clock speed.

I mentioned video card because the guy was talking about game performance is 1 or 2% with cache differences. If the reviewer used a different card or at lower resolutions where you are not video card limited the performance does increase. Anandtech used 1600x1200 resolution where the video card gets limited. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You said then difference in FSB results in 20% performance increase or loss. Show me some source to back that up.
 
pxc said:
I run virtual machines on 3 different Core 2 systems at home (2 PCs, 1 Mac) that lack VT. VMWare, VirtualPC and Parallels all support virtualization with or without VT or Pacifica. I'm not sure about Parallels supporting Pacifica since no Macs ship with AMD CPUs, but VMWare and VirtualPC don't care.

TBH, I can't really notice any speed difference vs the Woodcrest Xeon workstation I have at work which does support VT (I enabled it), although 2 of my home systems have much higher clock speeds and 1 system has twice the amount of memory. VT can help performance, but it's not a requirement.
Click to expand...

This may not matter to some, but I thought I would mention it. VT is required on Intel processors to be able to run 64-bit virtual machines on VMWare. AMD doesn't have this requirement, but did require a specific revision of the AMD Athlon 64. Thus our Intel servers at work last year that were about 8 months older than my Athlon 64 X2 3800+ at the time didn't support 64-bit guests, but my desktop at home did. ;) Now it doesn't matter as almost all current Intel/AMD chips include the ability.

http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/dy...&command=show&forward=nonthreadedKC&kcId=1901
 
Noob question? In laymans terms, what is virtualization, because it sounds interesting and important? Why would I want to run a virtual machine, instead of a real one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top