• 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.

E6300 Vs E6600

M

maverick786us

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
2,416
After reading numerous posts in this section stating that there is not much difference between these 2 processors in terms of perfomance, therefore there is no point in spending extra 163$ for E6600 (E6300 189$, E6600 352$).

But what about the extra 2MB cache available in E6600? If we leave overclocking aside, how much is 4MB of cache is helpful over 2MB in enhancing the overall perfomance? How much is it helpful in removing load on to the CPU?
 
Totally depends on the app, the cache performance difference is about 0-10% with maybe an average increase of "5%" on the e6600. Put another way the extra cache is worth maybe up to 300MHZ. Personally I don't think the extra cache is worth considering in the grand scheme of things.

The e6400 is the better choice opposed to the e6300 as the e6400 has a 8X multiplier opposed to 7. This means it is easier to get the 6400 above 3 gig as the FSB of the board will be lower (also ram does not need to go so high).

If your only aiming for 3 gig the e6300 is a safe bet on a decent board/ram, not saying it can't go above, its simply harder.



I
 
you basically get an average increase 2.5% with the extra cache (do a search on anandtech.com for the exact article). Anyways I'd be going with the e6400 as it does overclock nicely with the stock cooler and has the higher multi which is handy :)

Take this example in getting both processors to 3ghz

e6300 7x multi: 7x428.6 = 3000.2

e6400 8x multi: 8x375 = 3000.00

With DDR800 and a 1:1 ram ratio you will be able to get the e6400 to 3.2 before you start overclocking the ram whereas the e6300 will only get to 2.8 before the ram starts to overclock. So that's a free 400mhz :)
 
With the right mobo, I have yet to see an E6300 that did not make it to 3.1/2. Pretyy nice for a 160 dollar chip.
 
maverick786us said:
Next Time try using Liquid Nitrogen Cooling and see how much it overclock. What i've read is E6600-6700 overclocked to 5.4Ghz with liquid nitrogen cooling. That means E6300-6400 should touch around 4GHz
Click to expand...
Conroe:
X6800: coolaler - 5525.89 MHz
E6700: bunnywk - 5142.43 MHz
E6600: Misteroadster - 5103.3Mhz
E6400: Boblemagnifique - 4224.1Mhz
E6300: Misteroadster - 3893.1Mhz

http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59753
 
For an average user, overclock results on liquid nitrogen are pretty much irrelevant. It's easy to see by looking at the Conroe overclocking database that these chips are maxing out between 3.2 to 3.6 ghz on air typically. I see your point that the e6600 generally uses better silicon, but in practice, this doesn't usually make a functional difference.

As far as cache goes, I know that SuperPI really loves that extra 2 megs of cache, but in real apps it usually doesn't really make a hell of a difference. The extra cache is typically worth somewhere between 100-200mhz of clock speed.

Is the e6600 worth the extra money if you're going to be overclocking? It really depends on how much money you have to spend, but I would say no. You can easily reach 3.3 ghz on a typical e6300 with typical DDR2-800 and a decent motherboard (such as Gigabyte DS3, ASUS P5B-Deluxe, or any of the new nVidia boards). You may get a little higher with an e6600, but in my wallet the difference isn't worth $150.

The money you save by going for the e6300 can easily be applied to a substantial graphics improvement!
 
In my opinion, the only reason to go with the E6600 is for use on motherboards that have a hard time breaking 400MHz FSB. My P5W DH being on such board. It will do 410MHz, and not much beyond that.
 
I think 3.0Ghz is more of the average overclock for the e6300. I don't believe any of those liquid nitrogen cooling overclocks could be considered stable. Those numbers are more or less benchmark stable, but not everyday usage and game stable.
 
neither, get the 6400 best of both worlds.

higher multiplier - (similar to e6600) - so you won't get FSB/motherboard limited

cheaper - (similar to e6300) - also many people claim the 2Mb chips are easier to overclock. Fewer transistors (1/2 cache) that have to be capable of that high overclock.

many 6400's hit 3.2Ghz which is a great OC. your ddr2 800 ram will be perfectly in spec. You're right below the next strap which kicks in at 401 and slows things down a little bit, etc.
 
chrisf6969 said:
neither, get the 6400 best of both worlds.


many 6400's hit 3.2Ghz which is a great OC. your ddr2 800 ram will be perfectly in spec. You're right below the next strap which kicks in at 401 and slows things down a little bit, etc.
Click to expand...



I tell you what, I am most impressed with my E6400. Being a newb to C2D, I was hoping to get 2.8 out of it, and then being able to get 3200 with the help of a couple guys here, shit, I was ecstatic. I have not tried for more and quite frankly, I don't even need to.

Great cpu's....
 
so are you suggesting that there would be no difference if i overclocked a 6600 and a 6400 on good air cooling (SI-128)
my proposed rig is:

E6600 with an SI-128 with a 110cfm fan on top (silverstone FM121)
MSI P6N Diamond (when it comes out)
2x1GB G.Skill PC26400 HZ series
EVGA 8800 GTS
Corsair HX620

so if i swapped out the E6600 with an E6400 would i notice any differance between the two after overclocking them both
 
Supposedly everyone says 5-10% difference between the two.

I'm pretty new to overclocking so I went with the E6600 as it started me out higher and I wouldn't have to do as much OC'ing.
 
Randominal said:
so if i swapped out the E6600 with an E6400 would i notice any differance between the two after overclocking them both
Click to expand...


For gaming, no, you would not notice. For some specific stuff that may be cache sensitive, there might be a few percent difference. For gaming, I would get the 6400 and buy a GTX insted of the 6600 and a GTS.

edit: using the same clock speeds of course.
 
Randominal said:
what do you mean by this - same cpu clock speeds?
Click to expand...

Well, just what it says. If you take an E6400 and overclock it to 3200, and take the E6600 and overclock it to 3200, then for most purposes, the cpu's are equally matched. The additional cache on the 6600 will help a -little- in specific things, but nothing earth shattering, and without benching it, you would never see nor feel the difference between the two processors.
 
the e6600 has a small advantage clock for clock usually 1-5% b/c of the cache. It just depends on whether or not the app fits in a 2Mb or 4Mb cache.

CLOCK for CLOCK:
If app /data < 2Mb then they perform about the same
If app / data > 2mb, but < 4Mb, the e6600 will shine b/c it still fits in its larger cache
If app / data > 4mb (gaming), the e6600 usually only performs SLIGHTLY better than the 6400

But in a little while they'll be releasing a 6420 with 4Mb of L2 (same as e6600) that will probably be the perfect OC'ing chip.

Price / performance, all around, good multiplier for maxing out the chip & ddr2 800 ram around the same time 400+FSB.
 
kk thanks for clearing that up but would you be likely to get a higher clock after overclocking an E6600 compared to overclocking an E6400
 
Dan_D said:
Same here. The worst overclocking experiences I've had with the E6300's have all been with chips that were proven capable of 3.5GHz or beyond and they were all limited by motherboards that didn't overclock very well such as the ECS PX1 Extreme. If I had that chip on the Biostar T-Force P965 500MHz+ FSB was easily reached. If I put that same chip on the aforementioned ECS PX1 I only got to a sub 300MHz FSB.
Click to expand...

But considering overclocking motherboards is still luck of the draw AND you need pretty good (expensive) ram to get those clocks too, would you recommend a 6400 over the 6300, just b/c its so likely that you'll hit a FSB limitation before the chips limitation even on a decent brand/model motherboad.
 
Here's a link to Anandtech's cache comparison test of 2MB vs 4MB.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

There are some apps that really benefit but a lot of apps, especially gaming, show very little real world difference.

This next chart here shows that they reached similar maximum overclocks with the E6300 / E6400 / E6600 / E6700 chips of about 3600 MHz.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2822&p=4

When you're at this level with a C2D there are a lot of little things that decide just how stable you really are. Being able to run a game or a few rounds of SuperPI on one core is not the same as being Orthos stable on both cores for 4+ hours.

The [H]ard OC database confirms this. There's not a lot of difference in real world MHz between the processors.

If you plan to get an E6300 or E6400 and are happy with one graphics card then match it with a board that has the Intel 965 chipset. Gigabyte, Asus and Biostar 965 boards all overclock exceptionally well with minimal effort.

You can spend big $$$$$ on some fancy high performance memory but you really don't have to. My favorite memory is this PC5300 DDR2-667 Micron generic memory:
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=CT2KIT12864AA667

2 X 1GB for $184 US. What they don't mention in the ad is that these modules use the famous D9GMH Micron chips. Micron rates all D9GMH chips at DDR2-667 speed with guaranteed timings of CL5 when supplied 1.8 volts.

OCZ, Team, etc. buy Micron D9GMH chips, set them to 2.1 or 2.2 volts and re-sell them as high performance CL4 DDR2-800 or DDR2-1000. You might as well buy the cheap modules and increase the voltage yourself. The last pair I bought hit DDR2-944 CL4 with minimal effort on a DS3 at 2.2 volts.

I prefer the E6400 over the E6300 because of the strap change when the FSB goes over 400 MHz. An E6400 will ALWAYS outperform an E6300 at 3200 MHz because the Intel chipset uses faster timings at a FSB of 400 MHz ( 400 x 8 ) compared to 457 MHz x 7 for the E6300. The difference in memory bandwidth and performance is significant. Depending on the app you will need to run your E6300 100 MHz faster or at 3300 MHz just to equal an E6400 at 3200 MHz.

If you plan to run over 3200 MHz then you can also boot up your E6400 at 3200 MHz in the bios and then use a program like ClockGen or SetFSB to overclock your processor from 3200 MHz to 3400 MHz - 3500 MHz which will keep your chipset on the faster setting. You can't do that with an E6300 because the FSB is already sky high at these speeds.

At the end of the day, all C2D processors run great as long as you combine them with a decent board and some quality memory. Saving $20 on a motherboard isn't a good idea if it drops your maximum overclock by 600 MHz. All it takes is a look through the [H]ard OC database and it's pretty easy to find what parts are working well for people.
 
Based on your 2 choices, let me ask you: Are you rich? If yes then get the E6600 If no then get the E6300.

If you only game with your computer then you won't notice the extra cache difference in real world usage. If you do photochopping or movie editing on the regular then maybe you will. If you are a 3dmark jockey and have OCD with your computer systems then get the E6600.
 
dopee123 said:
Based on your 2 choices, let me ask you: Are you rich? If yes then get the E6600 If no then get the E6300.

If you only game with your computer then you won't notice the extra cache difference in real world usage. If you do photochopping or movie editing on the regular then maybe you will. If you are a 3dmark jockey and have OCD with your computer systems then get the E6600.
Click to expand...

I am rich enough but I believe in spending money wisely. And i pretty much agree with Zinn statement, in fact I am thankful to him, for telling me the right choice that spending 150 bucks extra just to get 5-10% extra perfomance is not worth enough on E6600. The money that I can save on E6300 can be saved on a good graphic card.

But I am convinced with E6400 and I guess its worth spending just Extra 40 bucks on it after comparing its perfomance with E6300. Although i still have'nt made the final decision. But I would like to thank all of you for giving me the right direction
 
Whats your target overclock speed?

If you're not overclocking get the E6600. If you are, then the 6400 is a delicious choice.
 
unclewebb said:
This next chart here shows that they reached similar maximum overclocks with the E6300 / E6400 / E6600 / E6700 chips of about 3600 MHz.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2822&p=4

...

I prefer the E6400 over the E6300 because of the strap change when the FSB goes over 400 MHz. An E6400 will ALWAYS outperform an E6300 at 3200 MHz because the Intel chipset uses faster timings at a FSB of 400 MHz ( 400 x 8 ) compared to 457 MHz x 7 for the E6300. The difference in memory bandwidth and performance is significant. Depending on the app you will need to run your E6300 100 MHz faster or at 3300 MHz just to equal an E6400 at 3200 MHz.
Click to expand...

Well, I am not rich, but based on your second paragraph, and the fact that FSB400 on an E6600=3.6, I got the E6600. And, based on your second paragraph, an E6300/E6400 will not be as fast as an E6600 @3.6GHz, right? Not much of a difference to be sure, but a difference.

Also, my current motherboard will not overclock (or work with my CPU waterblock), so my E6600 provides better performance while I wait until I can grab an overclocker's motherboard.

An E6600 made sense to me.
 
If you can afford an E6600 then it's a great choice.

Many E6300 / E6400 chips can run incredibly fast with the right components and some tweaking but at the same MHz the 4MB cache E6600 will always be faster. There are also more boards in the market that will happily run at 350 MHz to 400 MHz than ones that will run reliably over 500 MHz. You'll need far less luck and you won't need grade A memory to get some good performance out of an E6600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top