• 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.

E6400 vs E6600

B

Benton The Race

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
287
Hey guys, I just canceled my peroder for the E6600 and now I have the money to get the E6600 or the E6400. I am going to be overclocking and do some light gaming. This will be a every task PC from photoshop to CS. I just want a fast computer but don't care if i have teh uberz0rz benchmarkz. Would I notice a diffrence between the E6400 and the E6600?
 
Well from what I heard the cache isn't going to make a real world diffrence, so fuck it.

Just order from zipzoomfly.com, they have them in stock.

Going to arrive tomorrow or saturday, finally i get conroe, after 3 months of waiting


WOOT
 
Although as of right now I have no real life proof of results, but in my opinion, what is $100 for having something that has twice as much cache and faster clock speed?

I guess if you are really into overclocking and just want to overclock, then the E6300 or E6400 may be for you. But if you want a system and not dink around with it every 5 minutes, then it may be worth $100 to upgrade to the E6600. To me it is a no-brainer, but obviously there wouldn't be many different models if everyone had the same opinion. :)
 
E6400 all the way, the extra cache will add heat and no real performance increase and you can clock the 6400 way higher than stock 6600, save a $100, overclock and be happy :cool:
 
Not only is it not that big a difference, you should be able to put it to 2400Mhz without issues. I am currently at 2560 on mine so I am exceeding 6600 levels so far. I am 32M SuperPi stable.
 
MrBigglesworth said:
Not only is it not that big a difference, you should be able to put it to 2400Mhz without issues. I am currently at 2560 on mine so I am exceeding 6600 levels so far. I am 32M SuperPi stable.
Click to expand...

Until you also overclock the E6600 by the same amount hehehe!
 
Benton The Race said:
Hey guys, I just canceled my peroder for the E6600 and now I have the money to get the E6600 or the E6400. I am going to be overclocking and do some light gaming. This will be a every task PC from photoshop to CS. I just want a fast computer but don't care if i have teh uberz0rz benchmarkz. Would I notice a diffrence between the E6400 and the E6600?
Click to expand...

Nice Going BTR but I'd vote E6600.
 
Glad you picked the E6400. I did the same thing (chose the 6400 over the 6600) and I couldn't be happier. The majority of people getting good o/cs on the 6600 are using $225+ mobos and that's just too rich for me. E6400 + Gigabyte DS3 is a hell of a match for the price, especially if you are overclocking. Mine does 3000 mhz easy, without breaking a sweat, on stock vcore. You really won't see much of a diffrence at all from the cache.
 
I was dead-set on a 6600 for months. Monday last week I changed my mind and grabbed a 6400 when 6600 availability looked bad and I'd heard a few stories about not-so-great OCs. I have no regrets - I'm running at 3.2GHz at stock voltage with no trouble and I saved $100 over the 6600.
 
To me it's like a vid card that has 12 vs 16 pipes or something...sure the 12 is about as good and a little cheaper, but you can't add the pipes to the card...so get the cheapest 16 pipe card, ie, the e6600. That's what I"m doing, and if you look at it it's not that much money to get 4MB cache, and I'd say we don't know YET how much that cache will really make a difference since there isn't any code or apps that are written to take advantage of it.

In todays apps, there isn't much difference, but what about in 12 months? I'd like this system to last me at least 2 years like my current rig has, so I don't want to skimp on something like cache.
 
oozish said:
To me it's like a vid card that has 12 vs 16 pipes or something...sure the 12 is about as good and a little cheaper, but you can't add the pipes to the card...so get the cheapest 16 pipe card, ie, the e6600. That's what I"m doing, and if you look at it it's not that much money to get 4MB cache, and I'd say we don't know YET how much that cache will really make a difference since there isn't any code or apps that are written to take advantage of it.

In todays apps, there isn't much difference, but what about in 12 months? I'd like this system to last me at least 2 years like my current rig has, so I don't want to skimp on something like cache.
Click to expand...

But you're using your shiny new cpu now, not 12 months from now... I say the current benchmarks tell the current story which is there is not a huge difference between 2mb cache and 4mb cache. At least not big enough of a difference to pay a 30% price premium.
 
oozish said:
To me it's like a vid card that has 12 vs 16 pipes or something...sure the 12 is about as good and a little cheaper, but you can't add the pipes to the card...so get the cheapest 16 pipe card, ie, the e6600.
Click to expand...
That is not a good analogy, at the same clock speed, a 16 pipe card will have a very noticeable performance increase over a 12 pipe card, whereas 2MB cache and 4MB cach processors at the same clock speed show very little performance difference.
 
I got the E6400 because I just couldn't justify the extra $100+ for the E6600 right now. Even just running the E6400 at stock is pretty much on par with a FX-62, so for $240-$250 it's quite a steal. If you're someone that doesn't plan on upgrading in 2-3 years then the E6600 would make more sense.
 
Love my E6600 even though I "only" clocked it up to 2.7 :) To me, the 4mb of cache was the selling point. Given, it was $100 more expensive... for some of us, its worth it!
 
dark_reign said:
I got the E6400 because I just couldn't justify the extra $100+ for the E6600 right now. Even just running the E6400 at stock is pretty much on par with a FX-62, so for $240-$250 it's quite a steal. If you're someone that doesn't plan on upgrading in 2-3 years then the E6600 would make more sense.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding you got that right. That's why I'm doing E6600:)
 
AuxNuke said:
Love my E6600 even though I "only" clocked it up to 2.7 :) To me, the 4mb of cache was the selling point. Given, it was $100 more expensive... for some of us, its worth it!
Click to expand...


I aggree it gives little bit better edge with 4MB l2 cache, also E6300 and E6400 are not even based on Conroe core. But they are nice lil cheap cpu's.
 
MCRAYGSX said:
I aggree it gives little bit better edge with 4MB l2 cache, also E6300 and E6400 are not even based on Conroe core.
Click to expand...
Even if the 2 cpus weren't, they are still a great deal. Performs like a conroe, looks like a conroe, feels like a conroe, tastes like a conroe, and sounds like a conroe, then chances are, it is a conroe. My dog has 4 legs. Just because I cut off 2 legs doesn't make him a person.
 
Oh c'mon guys, it's only around 70 to 80 bucks more. :p And like always, if you frequently use a program that can actually take advantage of the extra cache then it may be worth it.
 
MCRAYGSX said:
I aggree it gives little bit better edge with 4MB l2 cache, also E6300 and E6400 are not even based on Conroe core. But they are nice lil cheap cpu's.
Click to expand...

They are based on the same core. They have 1066 buss. Unlike the E4200 that will be 2 meg cache but 800 mhz.

Whats important is, its easier to push the E6400 to a higher OC than an E6600. So while your E6600 with 4 meg cache is stuck at 2.8 ghz maybe. E6400's with 2 meg caches sitting at 3.2 will beat them hands down in every bench more than likely.

And I don't wanna hear the, "I'm not OC'ing wha wha." Then buy your E6600, its clocked faster and has more cache so ofcourse its faster out of the box, dur.
 
if your like me , and just doing a pit stop until the quad cores make it mainstream ..then I'd go with the 6300/6400 ...but if your in it for the long haul ..then go with the 6600

 
Daleon said:
They are based on the same core. They have 1066 buss. Unlike the E4200 that will be 2 meg cache but 800 mhz.

Whats important is, its easier to push the E6400 to a higher OC than an E6600. So while your E6600 with 4 meg cache is stuck at 2.8 ghz maybe. E6400's with 2 meg caches sitting at 3.2 will beat them hands down in every bench more than likely.

And I don't wanna hear the, "I'm not OC'ing wha wha." Then buy your E6600, its clocked faster and has more cache so ofcourse its faster out of the box, dur.
Click to expand...

My E6600 didn't stop at 2.8GHz and I even turned off the Fan to help it get hot. I could easily tell the difference between stock and 3GHz but was almost impossible to do the same when I reached 3.3GHz. By then the computer was running so fast I couldn't tell. Sure benchmarks told me it was faster.
 
I just ordered expensive parts for my new machine, e.g. 7950X2, 2x1G DDR2-800 Corsair XMS, 2x 150GB Raptor Enterprise and so on (will all arrive tomorrow) - and I could have gone for the 6600 without financial problems. But I didn't. I bought a 6400. Because I want to overclock. And once you overclock the performance gain from that outweighs any difference the larger L2 cache could ever make. Sure, at the same clock rate, the 6600 will be slightly faster, but when overclocking, there's no telling if a 6600 will go higher than a 6400. And then it makes more sense to me to try it with a cheaper CPU :)
 
2 differences: (clock & cache)

#1 CLOCKS - it seems like people are having more consistent good overclocking results with 6400 & 6300. Where the 6600's are really all over the place, some good, some only 2.7Ghz (like mine @ 2.75 - but I think its a NB/FSB wall) WIN: 6400

#2 CACHE - there seems to be VERY little performance difference between the 2mb & 4mb, and that is the ONLY thing that seperates these 2 models besides stock clock speeds. SLIGHT WIN: 6600
 
CompuGeek said:
Even if the 2 cpus weren't, they are still a great deal. Performs like a conroe, looks like a conroe, feels like a conroe, tastes like a conroe, and sounds like a conroe, then chances are, it is a conroe. My dog has 4 legs. Just because I cut off 2 legs doesn't make him a person.
Click to expand...

Pwnt.

MCRAYGSX said:
I aggree it gives little bit better edge with 4MB l2 cache, also E6300 and E6400 are not even based on Conroe core. But they are nice lil cheap cpu's.
Click to expand...

And the only difference is the cache. That's it. The guts are all the same. Conroe is just a code name. Don't go around saying things that aren't true whatsoever.

Getting a good, consistent o/c out of the 6600 is a lot harder to do, and in most cases requires a more expensive board. If you like to o/c, get the 6400. Period. If you aren't planning on clocking at all, then by all means shell out the extra cash.

2 MB of cache isn't going to matter for almost everyone on these boards. Very few apps have data sets that fit in the entire L2, and that's where it's going to matter the most. A lot of people are gamers, and the OP spoke of gaming. 2 more MB of L2 = nothing in games today, and probably nothing in games of the future.
 
4MB cache makes anywhere from 5-10% difference in games/apps from benches I have seen. The E6600 comes with a better binning and 1x higher multiplier, which enables much higher clocks with a capable board. Sure you can overclock an E6400, but the E6600 can clock higher :D!
 
GoldenTiger said:
4MB cache makes anywhere from 5-10% difference in games/apps from benches I have seen. The E6600 comes with a better binning and 1x higher multiplier, which enables much higher clocks with a capable board. Sure you can overclock an E6400, but the E6600 can clock higher :D!
Click to expand...

Show me some benches. That's everyone's response to more cache. It was the same on A64's and now it's the same on Core2. 5-10 percent. Show me.

And if you want to o/c an E6600 to it's max, you need a $230+ board in most cases. Results with cheaper boards are inconsistent, at best, and around 3 gig typically. Go scope the Intel section of XS if you don't believe me.
 
korrupted-drk- said:
Show me some benches. That's everyone's response to more cache. It was the same on A64's and now it's the same on Core2. 5-10 percent. Show me.

And if you want to o/c an E6600 to it's max, you need a $230+ board in most cases. Results with cheaper boards are inconsistent, at best, and around 3 gig typically. Go scope the Intel section of XS if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=1

Comparison of the 2MB & 4MB cache, I don't really see even 5-10% gain for the higher cache.

Most people I think are comparing the stock 6300 or 6400 to 6600 and not realizing the higher numbers aren't coming from the increased cache, it is coming from the higher clock. If you clock a 6300 or 6400 to stock 6600, you will have just about a dead heat.

I agree with korrupted-drk-, go to XS and look, the results are so mixed for the 6600s and most that are doing well are on $240+ boards and slightly modded. I have yet to see a 6300 or 6400 with a decent mobo and ram that doesn't clock as high as the 6600 if not higher.
 
The results are adding up to it being a fact that it takes a good mobo to OC the 4mb parts, yet the 2Mb parts are OC'ing well on any 965/975 mobo.

I JUST don't understand why it takes a 975x mobo to get a good OC out of a 6600, but a crappy mobo will OC a 6300/6400 well.

It doesn't make sense to me, b/c the 2Mb parts have lower multipliers and are requiring higher FSB's just to be equal!

The ONLY thing I can think of is if the 4Mb cache is putting more strain on the motherboard between, more juice/wattage, and possibly constantly prefetching more information to fill the cache thats twice as big.
 
korrupted-drk- said:
Show me some benches. That's everyone's response to more cache. It was the same on A64's and now it's the same on Core2. 5-10 percent. Show me.

And if you want to o/c an E6600 to it's max, you need a $230+ board in most cases. Results with cheaper boards are inconsistent, at best, and around 3 gig typically. Go scope the Intel section of XS if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...


Unlike some newer posters, I am a long-time poster (lost my old account, was here since early 2001 and on other forums way before then), and know how to back up my facts:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15

More than 10% difference (10% is the difference in clockspeed essentially) by far... only thing different is the cache in that case, it's the only other variable. In Rise of Legends especially, it's an ENORMOUS difference.

Also:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-10/intel-core-2-duo-test.html

This is a direct comparison of the Conroe's at the SAME CLOCK SPEEDS (underclocked E6600 via multiplier) with 2MB vs. 4MB cache. It illustrates the 5-10% I quoted VERY well.


Yes, you generally do need a higher-end board to overclock E6600 or better well, but if you're buying a $350+ CPU, why would you pair it with an $80-150 motherboard? That's sort of like buying a Ferrari and getting the cheapest tires the shop offers as replacements for the stock ones.
 
Let's put it this way my buddy has an E6400 OC'd to 2.5ghz (hit a wall on his P5B) and I have an E6600 @ 3.0ghz. I do pi to 1M in 16s he does it in 26s.
 
fusionrs said:
Let's put it this way my buddy has an E6400 OC'd to 2.5ghz (hit a wall on his P5B) and I have an E6600 @ 3.0ghz. I do pi to 1M in 16s he does it in 26s.
Click to expand...


SuperPi is a very cache-intensive program, such as any CPU-bound gaming is generally. You will see an enormous difference like this in any program like it, including compression, encoding, and photo editing.
 
GoldenTiger said:
SuperPi is a very cache-intensive program, such as any CPU-bound gaming is generally. You will see an enormous difference like this in any program like it, including compression, encoding, and photo editing.
Click to expand...

So basically most of the stuff that I want a faster processor for so it will be accomplished faster.
 
Icemastr said:
So basically most of the stuff that I want a faster processor for so it will be accomplished faster.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but I meant in terms of 2MB cache vs. 4MB cache, not processor speed.
 
But the whole discussion is theoretical, because we are all going to overclock. And what good is 4 MB cache vs. 2 MB, if you are unlucky and the Conroe you got doesn't overclock as good as your neighbors Allendale? How many Mhz more does it need to be faster with half the L2 cache?
 
Jadawin said:
But the whole discussion is theoretical, because we are all going to overclock. And what good is 4 MB cache vs. 2 MB, if you are unlucky and the Conroe you got doesn't overclock as good as your neighbors Allendale? How many Mhz more does it need to be faster with half the L2 cache?
Click to expand...

Well you can't control luck, only what you do. So you go for the larger cache and hope for a good lucky chip.
 
fusionrs said:
I'm pretty sure my buddy wishes he bought an E6600 now :D
Click to expand...

Yup, too bad I'm so damned busy I can't do a lot of tests and etc..... So far the quick overclocking shows my Week 23 E6600 Retail doing 3.2GHz on a DS3. I want to leave it at 3GHz for 24/7 use.
 
fusionrs said:
I'm pretty sure my buddy wishes he bought an E6600 now :D
Click to expand...

Well, I kinda wish I had bought a 6300. They're cheaper, overclock pretty much the same as a 6600. The performance is close between the 2 chips. The cheap mobo I bought supposedly works better with 2Mb chips for some reason. And I upgrade often so I could have just waited for the 6900's to push the 6600's down a price notch later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top