• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

6400 or 6600

C

cosmo3

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2001
Messages
190
Going to get one of these today and wonder if the 6600 is worth the extra money. It seems you have to up the voltage more to get similar overclocks on the 6600 where 6400s seem to overclock well at lower voltages. I have a Badax2 Intel board coming and not sure which cpu to get. I also have 2 meg of Corsair xms memory and a Thermalright Ultra 120 heatsink on order. I have my current 6400 running at 3200 at close to stock voltage on my DS3 but not sure which way to go on the Intel board.
 
I do concur! The cache performance difference is fairly minimal. Save yourself a hundred bucks and go for the 6400.
 
agree, if you a gamer and want max overclock the 4MB cache gets you little or no performance and can hamper overclocking to where the 2MB cache chips can catch up on total performance due to acheiving a higher overclock.
 
Not to highjack the thread or anything but what about someone that does not want to OC.
Would the 6600 be better than the 6400?
 
Forget the 6600. Keep the 6400 and overclock keep overclocking that baby. Plus you save 100 bucks. :)
 
If you are not going to OC get the 6600.

Also (i have both and have run both), the e6600 will get better performance per clock than the e6400. So if you can OC both to 2.8ghz, the e6600 will perform a bit better (from my findings it was around 5% overall).

Personally I choose to stick with the e6600 as both my e6400 and e6600 only wanted to be stable at 2.8ghz and the e6600 was better performing there. But I did the test at 3.2ghz and again it was about a 5% difference between the two even though they were at the same clock.

For another comparision: Super Pi to 1m:
e6400@ 2.8: 20 Seconds
e6600@ 2.8: 18 Seconds.

So there is a bit of a difference.
 
I guess he didn't read my post very close as I am already overclocking a 6400 to 3.2 and it will probably go higher but I was so happy with 3.2 I never tried to go higher. On the new systemI may try for a bit more.
 
Same here. I agonized over the 6600 vs 6400 thing before I bought, but decided on the E6400. I've got it running at 3.2 and I love it.

This was the easiest overclock I've ever done (including my celeron 300A overclock during those legendary days). My E6400 didn't even need any extra voltage. I started by bumping the FSB up a little at a time, then got sick of the wait when every boot was stable. I jumped straight to my goal OC (400 FSB, which gave me 3.2GHz) and everything was great.

Get the E6400.
 
Rob Black said:
What if I dont know how to over clock?
Click to expand...

Well. Many people dont know this but HOCP stands for hard overclocking comparison page. Im sure theres some info floating arund and one or two helpful people :)
 
michaLcoughliN said:
learn to oc the 6400 . And you will be amazed when you have it running at 3.3ghz for no extra cost ;)
Click to expand...

except if it doesnt run there stable....mine never would run stable over 2.8ghz despite everyone saying the e6400 will do 3ghz+ easy...


TheHalvie said:
wouldn't you think clocked at the same speed the e6600 would have a decent lead on the e6400? Look at the benches of the o/c e4300 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=6

for having that big of mhz lead the e6600 keeps up nicely. I would imagine at the same speeds the e6600 would have a decent lead.
Click to expand...

I think it does, based on my results:
Grentz said:
If you are not going to OC get the 6600.

Also (i have both and have run both), the e6600 will get better performance per clock than the e6400. So if you can OC both to 2.8ghz, the e6600 will perform a bit better (from my findings it was around 5% overall).

Personally I choose to stick with the e6600 as both my e6400 and e6600 only wanted to be stable at 2.8ghz and the e6600 was better performing there. But I did the test at 3.2ghz and again it was about a 5% difference between the two even though they were at the same clock.

For another comparision: Super Pi to 1m:
e6400@ 2.8: 20 Seconds
e6600@ 2.8: 18 Seconds.

So there is a bit of a difference.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top