![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
ANY merit to an E6700 ???
- Thread starter aamsel
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,677
None at all. You see, nobody's actually tried to buy one yet, but if they did. they'd find out that the CPU doesn't even run code. It's not even a processor! It does have a shiny heatspreader though, and a nifty keychain attachment. Mmmmm, keychain.
All sarcasm aside, the difference between it and an E6600 is the fact that it has a 266 MHz higher clock speed. That means it does things faster. Some people will pay more money for a faster PC. Hence, merit.
Case in point: while most have moved on from their beloved 2.4Cs that everyone and his brother had back in the day, some people bought 3.4Cs. If they still have them, they still make formidable systems, even in the face of the releases of Prescott, the A64, the Pentium D, the Athlon 64 X2, Conroe, and quite possibly K8L. Such a system won't win 3dMark06 any time soon, but that game doesn't take any skill anyway.
All sarcasm aside, the difference between it and an E6600 is the fact that it has a 266 MHz higher clock speed. That means it does things faster. Some people will pay more money for a faster PC. Hence, merit.
Case in point: while most have moved on from their beloved 2.4Cs that everyone and his brother had back in the day, some people bought 3.4Cs. If they still have them, they still make formidable systems, even in the face of the releases of Prescott, the A64, the Pentium D, the Athlon 64 X2, Conroe, and quite possibly K8L. Such a system won't win 3dMark06 any time soon, but that game doesn't take any skill anyway.
Wow, and I guess they are faster than my 80286, 80386, and 80486 were, not to mention my 4.77MHz 8088 which ran just fine!!
Seriously, I am FULLY aware of the difference in specs between the E6600 and E6700 and between both of them and the E6400 (which I didn't ask about.)
I have only to this point tested several E6600's with several motherboards and have resisted the temptation to "waste" money on an E6700 based on the test results posted here and on other forums.
Basically, I was asking if anyone had kickass results from particular E6700's.
Thanks,
Andrew
Seriously, I am FULLY aware of the difference in specs between the E6600 and E6700 and between both of them and the E6400 (which I didn't ask about.)
I have only to this point tested several E6600's with several motherboards and have resisted the temptation to "waste" money on an E6700 based on the test results posted here and on other forums.
Basically, I was asking if anyone had kickass results from particular E6700's.
Thanks,
Andrew
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Right, and I have looked at it many times. It would appear that (on air) someone would be unlikely to yield more than a few hundred MHz difference on an E6700 vs an E6600.
However, I wanted to know any other unstated benefits such as lower heat at the same frequencies, etc.
Andrew
However, I wanted to know any other unstated benefits such as lower heat at the same frequencies, etc.
Andrew
todlerix said:theres a big ass chart of overclocks of core 2 duos
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,677
aamsel said:
Then you should have stated that you were specifically looking for OCing experience. The word "overclock" wasn't anywhere in the OP. We've had two threads today asking whether a Core 2 Duo was any better than a Pentium 4, so yes, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that someone would be asking if there was any difference between an E6600 and an E6700. That is, after all, what you asked, so that's the answer I gave you.
And from your 8088 comment, you seem to have misunderstood me. I wasn't making a case for not buying a Conroe, I was making a case for buying an E6700 and sitting on it until you simply can't use it anymore. Again, if you were simply struggling to understand the difference between an E6600 and E6700 and why one was deemed more valuable than the other, that may have been a helpful example.
Oh, and the E6400 was a typo. Which I just fixed.
i would of got a 6600 if they were in stock when my 6700 came in. I was happy when i recieved it because my new comp is a total 180 compared to my 5year old P4 sony vaio!! 1.5Ghz 512RDRAM and 9600xt barely was able to run Condition Zero
right now i have my proc at 3.35Ghz and CPUZ says my volts are 1.384v which is right around stock... I wish i would of saved money and waited for the 6600 but o well.
also my case isnt the best for airflow and my room gets hot but i get around 43-50(c) during programs and games ect. 10c higher than stock but o well 6700 just costs you more for the same product.
right now i have my proc at 3.35Ghz and CPUZ says my volts are 1.384v which is right around stock... I wish i would of saved money and waited for the 6600 but o well.
also my case isnt the best for airflow and my room gets hot but i get around 43-50(c) during programs and games ect. 10c higher than stock
but o well 6700 just costs you more for the same product.I chose the 6700 over the 6600 simply because I like the stock speed of 2.6 over 2.4.
When I had a P4, I wanted a 3.4ghz one, but ended up with a 3.0. When I jumped to an AMD64, I wanted that 3.4ghz, so I took the 3400 (I know it's only 2.4ghz, but it was comparable to a 3.4ghz P4 in games).
It occupies a nice place in line between the $200 cheaper 6600 and nearly $450 less than the 6800
When I had a P4, I wanted a 3.4ghz one, but ended up with a 3.0. When I jumped to an AMD64, I wanted that 3.4ghz, so I took the 3400 (I know it's only 2.4ghz, but it was comparable to a 3.4ghz P4 in games).
It occupies a nice place in line between the $200 cheaper 6600 and nearly $450 less than the 6800
With these chips its all about the multi. I'd take a 10 multi over a 9 any day of the week. Either way they both rock, so either save some money and go 6600, or spend some more and clock your arse off.
Take into account that the difference in price could buy you a water cooling setup......ohh the possibilities.
Take into account that the difference in price could buy you a water cooling setup......ohh the possibilities.
BillParrish
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,519
Dude, change the clock crystal in that puppy, at 5.34 MHz you almost cant see the cell values change in a big Lotus spreadsheet !
Well, I would like to get close to joining the "4GHz club" but I don't want to be stupid about it, and don't want to do water-cooling. Failing pumps, etc. don't sound like what I want to get into. Any way you slice it, spending an extra $200 for 200MHz extra or less is dumb.
Andrew
Andrew
ManicOne said:
Schmiggy_JK23
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 636
I had planned on buying the e6600 myself, it seemed the perfect fit budget and performance wise.
But when the chance came to get a review engineering sample of the e6700 I couldnt really pass it up. Needless to say my core 2 duo build is a lot cheaper now. Thus I can splurge a bit on some ocz vx2 alpha maybe.
But when the chance came to get a review engineering sample of the e6700 I couldnt really pass it up. Needless to say my core 2 duo build is a lot cheaper now. Thus I can splurge a bit on some ocz vx2 alpha maybe.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,677
aamsel said:
No worries.
Sometimes it's hard to read someone's tone when all you've got in front of you is plain text.chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
gersson said:
Well technically usually the higher models have less overhead, but will usually reach a higher overall clock, but not always. Ex:
a 6300 will usually reach 1+ Ghz overclock 50% OC, and some will do much more. But not many X6800's do a 1Ghz OC, and even fewer will do a 50% OC.
For maximum speed you'll no doubtedly will reach the FASTEST overall speed with a higher model CPU, especially with FSB's limiting many overclocks. So if all you care about is max speed, get the most expensive you can afford.
Personally, I didn't think the extra 1x multiplier & possiblity of a faster clock was worth it for me to get the 6700 over the 6600. But I did think the 4mb cache was worth it over the 6400/6300. And I think the 6300's while cheapest, have to low of a multiplier for most to reach a good OC. So for most people I would recommend a 6400 or 6600, depending on their budget.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,363
Some reasons why you might want to go with an e6700 is if you're not planning to overclock at all and just want the extra speed over an e6600 (personally i don't think there's enough performance gain to warrant the price difference).
Or I suppose if you went with the e6700 and overclocked it, with the 10x multiplier it theoretically could save you money by buying cheaper quality and lower speed ram and a cheaper motherboard that may not oc as well because you won't need to have a crazy amount of FSB to get a high clock speed. But then again you could get good ram, a lower-end cpu, and that biostar board that Kyle was playing with and it would definitely be cheaper and OC good.
Or I suppose if you went with the e6700 and overclocked it, with the 10x multiplier it theoretically could save you money by buying cheaper quality and lower speed ram and a cheaper motherboard that may not oc as well because you won't need to have a crazy amount of FSB to get a high clock speed. But then again you could get good ram, a lower-end cpu, and that biostar board that Kyle was playing with and it would definitely be cheaper and OC good.
decapitator
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 325
Save the cash hell im running my 6600@ 3.2 on stock HS\F
3.2 on stock HS\F