Conroe E6700 vs E6800?

[newls1]

I know the extreme E6800 has unlocked multi's, and the E6700 doesnt, but they both have 4MB cache, and a 1066FSB, and by the way I keep seeing these sucker Overclock, I feel sure enough that if I go with the E6700 I can atleast get to E6800 speeds, is there really a need to buy the E6800? Please dont respond and Say "E-penis this, and that". Does Intel maybe use a "BETTER" silicone or "whatever" on the extreme CPU's to make them maybe more "Cherry" picked? If I dont need to spend 1000.00 on a cpu this time around I'll be way happier. Thank you for any replies

 

[lithium726]

No. There is no reason to get the 6800 over the 6700.... or the 6700 over the 6600.

 

[newls1]

See, thats what I thought! Thanks. I've been w/ AMD for years now, used an FX53 spent 900.oo on it, moved on to an FX55 spent 1000.oo on it, then moved to an FX57, and spent 1000.oo on it. I dont think I will ever spend 1000.oo on a CPU again. Hell, right now, im using an A64 3000+ OC'ed to FX55+ speeds (2.6GHz) and only spent 120.00 on it 7 months ago . Im not getting scamed this time...

 

[lithium726]

Yup, getting the cheap one and clocking it up is definatly the way to go, especially with the way all these conroes are clocking... even the Allendales (6400 and 6300) with 2mb are clocking higher than FX-62's

 

[newls1]

Yup, getting the cheap one and clocking it up is definatly the way to go, especially with the way all these conroes are clocking... even the Allendales (6400 and 6300) with 2mb are clocking higher than FX-62's

Damn, you reply fast! thank you for your time.....

 

[arman01]

yeah i think i 6600 would be best for you. I myself am getting either a 6300 or 6400. Btw these are also codenamed "conroe" right? what is allendale?

 

[lithium726]

yeah i think i 6600 would be best for you. I myself am getting either a 6300 or 6400. Btw these are also codenamed "conroe" right? what is allendale?

the 6300 and 6400 are allendale. Conroe are only the ones with 4mb.

 

[Jason711]

See, thats what I thought! Thanks. I've been w/ AMD for years now, used an FX53 spent 900.oo on it, moved on to an FX55 spent 1000.oo on it, then moved to an FX57, and spent 1000.oo on it. I dont think I will ever spend 1000.oo on a CPU again. Hell, right now, im using an A64 3000+ OC'ed to FX55+ speeds (2.6GHz) and only spent 120.00 on it 7 months ago . Im not getting scamed this time...

wow, that is a really expensive lesson. good thing you learned it.

 

[arman01]

the 6300 and 6400 are allendale. Conroe are only the ones with 4mb.

well im gonna call it conroe

umm what motherboards are you guys getting....The Asus P5B's and the DFI INFINITY 975X/G both look good

 

[StealthyFish]

wow, that is a really expensive lesson. good thing you learned it.

quite a bit of money. I say if you're going 2MB cache Core 2 Duo, go E4200 and OC to E6300/6400. If you're going 4Mb cache Core 2 duo, go E6600 and OC where you want, lol.

 

[lithium726]

the 4200 is single core though, isnt it?

single core is teh l4m3

edit: nevermind.. its not single, but I still wouldnt want it. 800FSB is so 3 years ago

 

[brucedeluxe169]

the 4200 is single core though, isnt it?

single core is teh l4m3

edit: nevermind.. its not single, but I still wouldnt want it. 800FSB is so 3 years ago

but that low FSB will have a higher multi.....

*would love if they made a 800mhz FSB 4mb model*

 

[Donnie27]

but that low FSB will have a higher multi.....

*would love if they made a 800mhz FSB 4mb model*

Exactly, the 1.6GHz model has an 8X Multiplier.

 

[Donnie27]

No. There is no reason to get the 6800 over the 6700.... or the 6700 over the 6600.

I'm not so sure about that. Some of the Xtremesystems guys say 6700 overclocks better than 6600's. If your motherboard really only does something like 340MHz FSB, 10 is much nicer that 9. That's a little less that 350MHz processor speed and these things do scale well.

 

[Kaldskryke]

I know the extreme E6800 has unlocked multi's, and the E6700 doesnt

Given a motherboard with a max FSB of 400MHz, that would cap a E6700 at 4GHz, right? I want to make sure I'm reading this right. Would it be impossible to get the incredible overclocks that have shown up at forums like xtremesystems without going for the X6800?

 

[lithium726]

I'm not so sure about that. Some of the Xtremesystems guys say 6700 overclocks better than 6600's. If your motherboard really only does something like 340MHz FSB, 10 is much nicer that 9. That's a little less that 350MHz processor speed and these things do scale well.

meh. couple hundred mhz at most. is 200mhz or so really worth $200?

Would it be impossible to get the incredible overclocks that have shown up at forums like xtremesystems without going for the X6800?

Would also be impossible with an amazing cooling solution, the people taht are pushing over 4ghz are using LN2 or Phase the vast majority of the time - there is a reason these max out at 2.93Ghz stock.

 

[Atilac]

meh. couple hundred mhz at most. is 200mhz or so really worth $200?

Would also be impossible with an amazing cooling solution, the people taht are pushing over 4ghz are using LN2 or Phase the vast majority of the time - there is a reason these max out at 2.93Ghz stock.

I have a feeling you can get either the E6600 or E6700 to 3.2 Ghz on air, but hey that might just be me.

 

[coldpower27]

It's hard to say I would recommend going with either the E6600 or E6700 vs the X6800, with it's 1000US price premium.

the X6800 has unlocked multipliers up to at least x12, dunno how much higher are offered so don't need as high an FSB to reach insane overclocks.

 

[Drexion]

Would also be impossible with an amazing cooling solution, the people taht are pushing over 4ghz are using LN2 or Phase the vast majority of the time - there is a reason these max out at 2.93Ghz stock.

People have 4-4.1Ghz 6600s/6700s on air cooling, at about 12.5s superpi.

 

[StealthyFish]

... which is why we also look at motherboards and the FSB they support. The Higher the better. The gigabyte board supports 600FSB. sounds good for any low multi processor right?

 

[lithium726]

It wont be able to run 600Mhz.

I can select tons of high FSBs on my 478 board, but rare was the board that could get close to 300mhz...

 

[Donnie27]

meh. couple hundred mhz at most. is 200mhz or so really worth $200?

Would also be impossible with an amazing cooling solution, the people taht are pushing over 4ghz are using LN2 or Phase the vast majority of the time - there is a reason these max out at 2.93Ghz stock.

That's 266MHz and +1 multiplier from 9 to 10. As you overclock that scales as well! Example: 333.4 X 9 = 3000.6 vs. 333.4 X 10 = 3334 so now that's a 334MHz difference. If you're trying to reach 4GHz 400MHz FSB is the limit some are bitching about. Then that's 400 X 10 vs 400 X 9, so that's 400MHz faster and reachable with water on one of those systems. NO that speed difference would not be a day and night difference but on some High-end apps, it could be noticed.

Now please note that I'm getting a 6600 and NOT a 6700 because I agree with you for MY personal uses. I just don't want to try to bust some overclocker's bubble.

 

[FlimFlam]

See, thats what I thought! Thanks. I've been w/ AMD for years now, used an FX53 spent 900.oo on it, moved on to an FX55 spent 1000.oo on it, then moved to an FX57, and spent 1000.oo on it. I dont think I will ever spend 1000.oo on a CPU again. Hell, right now, im using an A64 3000+ OC'ed to FX55+ speeds (2.6GHz) and only spent 120.00 on it 7 months ago . Im not getting scamed this time...

Totally. I was so happy when the s939 x2 4800+ came out, i dropped 1K on it. I also bought the fx55 at a high price, but I usually go for the sweetspot when I can. that is why I loved s939 Optys so much.

Methinks the 6600 is the sweetspot of this gen.