• 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.

Core 2 6400 or 6600?

B

BurntToast

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
3,677
My system is in GREAT need of an upgrade. Id like to buy a medium range chip and OC the hell out of it. Which one of these chips will do the most bang for the buck (Core 2 Due 6400/6600)? Is the extra 2MB cache useful for anything or no? Most the work I do is gaming. After that its small graphic jobs in illustrator and photoshop.
 
I just recently bought a E6300 and have been happy with my overclocking results (400 x 7). I have an unwritten rule that I won't pay more than $200 for any computer part, so the e6300 at $185 fit into that nicely. I will however spend more on monitors.

A 6400 just may give you a clock of 400 x 8. WHich results in 3.2GHz. Not a bad overclock. I am slowed down by my 667 memory currently, so the next thing for me to buy is faster ram.

Lyquist
 
What kind of cooling would you need for a 6300/6400 to reach 3.2Ghz? My buddy has a 6600 doing 3.2 with the stock HSF.
 
I'm running my E6300 with the retail heatsink and fan and it is stable at 2.8GHz. Load temps are 50C or 60C depending upon which temp monitor I use. (see my other thread)

Lyquist
 
Seriously, I could easily have bought either/or...however I chose the e6400 as at 400x8 it puts your memory exactly at spec (800mhz) if that's what you're shooting for. Hitting 3.2 on any of these processors isn't too risky with a bump in NB voltage and vcore...so get a good HSF, a good case, and I'd opt for the 6400 for an easy 2.8 (400x7) or 3.2 (450/400 x 7/8).

Save some money now, you'll probably want the kentsfield later...but don't skimp on the motherboard that's your most important upgrade limiter or contributer.
 
Buy a 6400, put on a $50 HSF and you are just $50 away from the price of a 6600 and still 2mb less cache.

I think i may end up getting a 6600.
 
BurntToast said:
Buy a 6400, put on a $50 HSF and you are just $50 away from the price of a 6600 and still 2mb less cache.

I think i may end up getting a 6600.
Click to expand...

but wouldn't you put a $50 HSF on the 6600? So its still $100 more.
 
still a big 6300 fan. i got a bad one that "only" does 3.01ghz and i'm more than happy.

and the cool thing about a 6300 is that because you are multiplier limited, you quickly learn the max fsb of the rest of your components. i know my motherboard and ram will run 430mhz fsb/860mhz ram all day and night. so the weakest link is my chip itself.

buy the cheapest 6300 or 6400 you can buy and a great graffix card and good ram. because even at stock speeds, thats your limit.

the 2mb vs 4mb thing is overblown snobbery. there is a difference, but its highly app dependent, and not really worth the price. unless money is no option.

my 0.02
 
All benchies suggest that the cache difference between the 6400 and 6600 is remarkably negligible. The 6400 will clock up to 3.2Ghz at the literal drop of a hat and THEN one gets a feeling you're only starting to push it after that.

Grab the 6400 and blow the extra cash on a video card. That's a performance difference you'll see in spades!
 
Get the 6600 if you'd like, but for me, I think I would have seen all the 3.2 o/c's from 6300 & 6400's and felt like I just spent more for the same thing.

There is no big performance difference; you WON'T feel it in any app, and the 4mb's of cache may actually serve to prevent you from getting better overclocks (imho).

do what you need to do for your peace of mind...as I said, my decision wasn't about the MONEY it was about making the best choice on equipment for what I wanted to achieve.
 
The 6600 is more future proof with the extra 2MB cache (it also hits 3Ghz pretty easily on stock). Vista and it's applications will probably start to take advantage of it.

As of now though
Price/(current performance+overclockability) definently goes do the 6400, since the extra 2MB cache one the 6600 is only a 4-11% increase of speed, and the 6400 is a better overclocker
 
Its a toss up. The 6600 should hit a higher clock if you have all the right components. But the 6400 is more likely to be able to boot at 400FSB, which gets you past the FSB hole that many people experience between about 333-400.
 
just at a glance at the conroe oc database, about 1/4 of the 6300's reach 3200, around half of the 6400s, around 3/4 6600. makes better than even chance to hit 3200 with 6600.
zero 6300's reach 3600. 3 6400's reach 3600, 13 6600's reach 3600. also, there are many more posts for 6300's and 6400's than 6600's. so if you are interested in clock speed, which is what c2d is all about............
 
In 3 out of 3 builds:

E6400 + 2 Gigs G.Skil hz + Thermalright Ultra-120 = 3.4 Ghz and it can easily go higher...
38c idle / 53c load. @ 1.4v

I've had problems with the DS3. IMO - stay away. 4 out of 4 boards from Newegg had MAJOR problems. The DQ6 does well but... the P5B Deluxe appears to be a more "solid" and "stable" overclocker at lower voltages....
 
What are the other compnents in the system going to be? Sometimes its better to get the cheaper cpu and spend the left over money on something like gfx or ram.
 
blade52x said:
The 6600 is more future proof with the extra 2MB cache (it also hits 3Ghz pretty easily on stock). Vista and it's applications will probably start to take advantage of it.

As of now though
Price/(current performance+overclockability) definently goes do the 6400, since the extra 2MB cache one the 6600 is only a 4-11% increase of speed, and the 6400 is a better overclocker
Click to expand...
future proof, we'll see most people on here will upgrade to quad core before they will really need to take advantage of that.
 
More people are hitting higher OC's with the 6600 on the leaderboard but they are using more voltage for most of those. Plus the top of the 6600 leaderboard is mostly B1's. You would have to wonder if some of those 6400's could get higher with more voltage.
 
mordeki said:
More people are hitting higher OC's with the 6600 on the leaderboard but they are using more voltage for most of those. Plus the top of the 6600 leaderboard is mostly B1's. You would have to wonder if some of those 6400's could get higher with more voltage.
Click to expand...

The higher voltage is most likely due to the extra cache. Needs a bit more juice to be stable at higher speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top