• 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 duo now or later

T

Th3nOOb1

n00b
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
2
First off i'm new to the board, been reading here for a while. :cool:
I read somewhere that intel will be releasing a refresh of the core 2 duo's with the faster FSB. Any ideas if that will be much of a performance boost over the already good CPU;s
And should i get one now of just wait for the refresh? thx.
 
Any decent board can already do the higher FSB with a some tweaks in bios. Buy now and enjoy it now if you have the money.
 
Core2Duo is fairly new, if you are content with what you are running and you feel that it's capable of doing the job keep it for now upgrade later, if your system is aging quite a bit I would upgrade. My parts just came in, E6600 and a few other things, If you always wait till the next big thing you will never get anything done.
 
I got the E6600 simply because it was the cheapest model that still had 4 mb of L2 cache. Upgrading from my Barton 2500+ I was blown away, especially when I OC'ed.

If you wait, you can probably get it a little cheaper on the refresh, but nothing in the architecture will change at all with the new C2D's. So, yeah, if you're still single-core and you've got the cash to upgrade to dual-core, then get it now.
 
Jalidi said:
I got the E6600 simply because it was the cheapest model that still had 4 mb of L2 cache. Upgrading from my Barton 2500+ I was blown away, especially when I OC'ed.

If you wait, you can probably get it a little cheaper on the refresh, but nothing in the architecture will change at all with the new C2D's. So, yeah, if you're still single-core and you've got the cash to upgrade to dual-core, then get it now.
Click to expand...


good to hear since im gonna be upgrading from a barton 2500+ also
 
I upgraded to Core 2 (E6700 @ 2.67Ghz) from an AMD64 3700 system and still think it's a huge improvement.

It's overclocked to 334 FSB for 3.4Ghz and I think it will be able to hold me for quite a while. In fact, the only thing I'm interested in for the future is DirectX 10, Vista and the refresh of the 8800/R600.
 
I upgraded from a A64 3700+ Sandy (OC'd 2.8Ghz) with a XFX 7900GT to a E6600 (OC'd 3.2Ghz) C2D with a eVGA 8800GTX and I am amazed at the difference. Coding videos, playing 3D games you name it there is a HUGE difference.

Coding videos is 3 times quicker, and 3D gaming is double the FPS. If you wait for the next BEST thing you'll never buy anything. But don't worry even if you were upgrading from a A64 X2 4800+ these C2D's blow that away as well. I had a X2 4800+ for a month and returned it for another 3700+ Sandy. I never thought there would be another CPU like the 3700+ Sandy as far as bang for the buck, but these C2D's are even better.
 
pretty much everyone is already at a higher FSB than Intel will be releasing later anyway.

Most people with 6300/6400 are already at 400+FSB
and many people with 6600/6700 if they can't hit 400FSB with the default multiplier are dropping it to 8x to hit a high FSB.

Like this:
conroe.gif

NOTE: actually speed is 8x400 = 3.2GHz like CPU-Z reads. Other programs read it incorrectly.

BESIDES what you want is a CPU with a low default FSB & high multiplier to make it easier to overclock. Like when they release the e4300 (800FSB chip!)

You WON'T WANT THE default 1333 FSB chips, b/c they will have lower multipliers and be harder to overclock b/c of FSB walls.
 
I just built my 6600 conroe box this week. I upgraded from a AMD 4000 and I must admit doing single aps it almost looks like my 4000 was faster. They both are 2.4. On the other hand when i multitask its a beast. Start up times are greatly reduced and combo-ed up with 2 gigs of fast memory and a 8800 gts it flat gets busy. So if you have a hot processor already you have a decision to make. I honestly thought I was going to see more of a dramatic impact. :)
 
Muad"Dib" said:
I just built my 6600 conroe box this week. I upgraded from a AMD 4000 and I must admit doing single aps it almost looks like my 4000 was faster. They both are 2.4. On the other hand when i multitask its a beast. Start up times are greatly reduced and combo-ed up with 2 gigs of fast memory and a 8800 gts it flat gets busy. So if you have a hot processor already you have a decision to make. I honestly thought I was going to see more of a dramatic impact. :)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that because IE or some Windows program loads up in the same amount of time that a A64 4000+ is compareable to a C2D CPU?

Not trying to start anything I am just curious as to what you are driving at here.
 
Muad"Dib" said:
I just built my 6600 conroe box this week. I upgraded from a AMD 4000 and I must admit doing single aps it almost looks like my 4000 was faster. They both are 2.4. On the other hand when i multitask its a beast. Start up times are greatly reduced and combo-ed up with 2 gigs of fast memory and a 8800 gts it flat gets busy. So if you have a hot processor already you have a decision to make. I honestly thought I was going to see more of a dramatic impact. :)
Click to expand...

MAYBE Faster ram (integrated memory controller), might make a few things feel ever so SLIGHTLY snappier. Though I find that even hard to believe. If the processor has to do any processing the C2D is going to be faster PERIOD.

The C2D beats any AMD chip even if the AMD had like a 20% clock advantage. And your comparing a clock for clock which the C2D completely owns when compared clock for clock.

What you need to do is overclock your e6600. You should be able to get it to X6800 (2.93Ghz) speeds with out ANY problem.

You should shoot for a nice easy 333FSB / 3Ghz overclock.
 
I Haven't overclocked it yet. And you are right. All of the articles i have read say that these chips are faster than all of the AMD chips, but articles that you read and the real world are all different. I am using a system that now has a front side bus where as AMD has the memory controller on the chip. Please remember I am talking about small noticeable differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top