• 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.

E4400 vs E6400 vs E6550 vs E6600

W

wdEvA

n00b
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
48
As above, lets say i OC all of them to 2.8Ghz.

how big is the performance between them?

Currently using E4400 at 2.8Ghz, worth the upgrade to another 1 of the other cpus?
 
Are you looking for some kind of unit-less performance quantity? The "difference" between them depends on what you're looking for and what you're running.

With that said, I highly doubt upgrading from your current situation to any of those will net significant gains in any situation. Obviously significant is relative, but I highly doubt a few FPS here and a few seconds off superpi count as anything really.

Also I wouldn't put the E6600 in there anymore, the E6750 if anything, but the E6600 is EOLed and generally costs more and runs warmer than its counterparts in the E6x50 line.
 
Im running an E4300 at 3.11. Why not push your current proc a bit more? This did 3.0 on air.
 
i put those older cpu in as if i were to change i'll be considering the 2nd-hand market.

sorry for not adding in my usage,
My usage would be:

Gaming
Audio CD Ripping
Watching HD Contents
Photoshop
 
The E6550 and E6600 OC'd would perform about the same despite the higher FSB of the E6550. Both CPUs have the same amount of L2 cache, 4MB. The E6400 and E4300 OC'd to 2.8Ghz will also perform about the same since they also have the same amount of L2 cache, 2MB.

So now the question is which one of the two CPU categories perform better? The 6550 or E4300? This article should also be of some help to you:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=2
 
Nice post above.

Here's another link that shows differences between 4MB and 2MB:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

In some instances (encoding) it can be ~10%. In other words the e6600 at 3.0 is fast as e6400 at 3.3 in encoding.

I'd go for the 4MB chips. Which one? I'll let someone else answer that since I don't know
 
If the four CPUs mentioned in the title were the only choices, I'd get the E6550 since it's cheaper than the E6600 yet performs pretty close to it at stock speeds. However, since it is kind of harder to OC the E6550 due to it's 7x multiplier, I recommend getting the E6750 instead. It's 8x multiplier will make easier to OC especially if you're using DDR2 800 RAM. Example shown below:

E6550:
Multi x FSB, RAM Speed = Clock Speed
7 × 333 = 2.3Ghz, DDR2-667 << STOCK speeds
7 × 400 = 2.8Ghz, DDR2-800 << Easy OC
7 × 465 = 3.2Ghz, DDR2-930 << Good OC
7 × 500 = 3.5Ghz, DDR2-1000 << Great OC

E6750:
Multi x FSB, RAM Speed = Clock Speed
8 × 333 = 2.6Ghz, DDR2-667 << STOCK speeds
8 × 400 = 3.2Ghz, DDR2-800 << Easy OC
8 × 450 = 3.6Ghz, DDR2-900 << Good OC
8 × 500 = 4.0Ghz, DDR2-1000 << Great OC
 
Given you use the same clock speed, the same FSB, and the same multiplier on all the CPUs, the only difference will be the size of the L2 cache. The 4MB cache chips will be faster at encoding than the 2MB chips, but not by much. They will perform exactly the same otherwise.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong: AFAIK the core architecture in Conroe and Allendale steppings is exactly the same.
 
save your money & wait a little longer to upgrade to a quad.

The difference between any of those would be minor.
 
I agree, don't bother upgrading your CPU right now. If you want more performance, OC it more, lol. Hopefully you bought a P35 board or something that will support the Penryn family CPUs. When the yorkfields hit $183 pricepoint, pick one up.
 
I'm currently using an asu p5b, wont have the extra money to get a better board though..
guess i'll get a new HSF (Currently using the stock HSF) and try oc-ing my cpu to 3.0ghz while wait for quad-core to drop?

thanks for the links =)
 
Considering the main difference between most of those CPUs performance wise at the same clock speeds would have to do with the amount of cache, that's the only thing you would have to look at. Look to see if your current demanding software would benefit much from 4 meg of cache instead of 2.

I haven't done much in the way of research for the software I use, but I believe the only thing I run on a regular basis in which I would be better off with the 4 meg cache over my E6400 would be F@H. This is only because some of the work units for the Linux SMP client run much quicker on 4 meg cache CPUs than they do on 2 meg cache. However, I'm not going to lose any sleep over 2 meg less cache with an E6400 that does 3.4Ghz.

 
wdEvA said:
I'm currently using an asu p5b, wont have the extra money to get a better board though..
guess i'll get a new HSF (Currently using the stock HSF) and try oc-ing my cpu to 3.0ghz while wait for quad-core to drop?

thanks for the links =)
Click to expand...

Why stop at 3.0?
 
haha, will try to go further, depending if my kingston 667 and my p5b likes it..haha
 
wdEvA said:
haha, will try to go further, depending if my kingston 667 and my p5b likes it..haha
Click to expand...

You can always run a high 300 FSB with a mem multi of 2.0 if the RAM is flaky above 667.

I ran my 800Mhz RAM at 760MHz before I tried it at 950MHz. Not much difference in performance really, so not much loss if you can get your CPU up there.
 
i guess the most i'll go wil be 3.2ghz for the moment, but still haven gotten a chance to try yet,

just got the thermalright ultra-120 with a normal 120mm fan..
but temps arnt any good, guess i'll have to reapply the thermal paste 1st..

btw nice clock u have @ 3.4ghz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top