E6400 vs E6600

[vanilla_guerilla]

i'm not claiming to know how intel production works, but if a conroe is tested and it runs at 266mhz, isnt that all it is required to do? i am just guessing here, but i dont think they are testing for good or bad overclocking. also, the 4xxx allendale chips will be manufactured without several conroe features, like vt, enhanced speed step, etc. i am pretty sure these chips will not be conroe cast-offs. but i'm just talking out my ass.

 

[GoldenTiger]

i'm not claiming to know how intel production works, but if a conroe is tested and it runs at 266mhz, isnt that all it is required to do? i am just guessing here, but i dont think they are testing for good or bad overclocking. also, the 4xxx allendale chips will be manufactured without several conroe features, like vt, enhanced speed step, etc. i am pretty sure these chips will not be conroe cast-offs. but i'm just talking out my ass.

Yep, you are correct on that... I would have to agree with your guess that they won't be Conroe "cast-offs" .

 

[Donnie27]

i'm not claiming to know how intel production works, but if a conroe is tested and it runs at 266mhz, isnt that all it is required to do? i am just guessing here, but i dont think they are testing for good or bad overclocking. also, the 4xxx allendale chips will be manufactured without several conroe features, like vt, enhanced speed step, etc. i am pretty sure these chips will not be conroe cast-offs. but i'm just talking out my ass.

IMHO and nothing more, 4xxx will be exactly that, cast-offs. Every chipmarker have lesser models that would have been scrap otherwise. They are not testing for overclocking but the most certainly are testing (Binning) for working features. Each time a feature fails, the part is moved to the next "Parts Bin". The more tests it passes, the more expensive it gets because each test adds to the processor's cost.

 

[The DarkBlade]

or spend hundreds on raptor drives that dont increase performance at all, maybe they used to load huge tasks a bit faster but now with sata2 16mb ncq/tcq 7.2k drives, they are pretty much equal.

Normally I just *lurk* anymore.

But sometimes I read something and it's just wrong....like this.

Raptor drives *are* faster. Yes, I know that the drive says 3Gb/s or whatever, but by far the limitation on your hard drive is mechanical.

It's not a *bit* faster, it's significantly faster. Go look at the latest and greatest 7.2 drives and then the 10k drives on something like Storage Review and you'll see it's often a 20-30% difference.

That means I stare at the Counterstrike loading screen just that much less. Honestly, Raptor drives have been one of the purchases I've made that has always shown a noticable improvement, as it has for everyone I've suggested it to.

 

[junkerjuks]

6300 and 6400's are manufactured with 2mb l2 cache. they are physically smaller than 6600/6700/6800. so this wacky jive about "failed caches" is just a pipe dream. "ok these over here are the broken ones. i got a good idea! lets call them allendale! and see how much we can get for them" jesus. some people will go for just about anything.


Allendale is a codename for stripped down versions of the Conroe processors with only 2MB of L2 cache. The E6300 (1.86GHz) and E6400 (2.13GHz), both with a 1066MT/s FSB, were released on July 27, 2006. Traditionally, CPUs of the same family with less cache simply have the unavailable cache disabled, but this is not the case with Allendale. Allendale actually has a smaller die, which results in less heat production and a higher overclock. Some Allendale CPUs have been shown to overclock better than Conroe CPUs because of the smaller die size and lower temperatures. At launch time, Intel's prices for the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 processors were $183 USD and $224 USD each in quantities of 1000.

Sorry mate, but you are wrong. Here is how it works:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allendale
For a very long time, it was considered that stripped down versions of the Conroe processors were code-named Allendale. In actuality, Allendale is a code-name for a different processor. Many suggest that E6300 and E6400 are actually code-named Allendale, however, the E6300 (1.86 GHz) and E6400 (2.13 GHz) processors are not code-named Allendale because they physically have 4 MB cache, same as their big brothers E6600 and E6700 - it is just that half of their physical memory is disabled. Traditionally, CPUs of the same family with less cache simply have the unavailable cache disabled (this allows parts that fail quality control to be sold at a lower rating). The fact that E6300 and E6400 are not code-named Allendale and actually code-named Conroe has been confirmed by Intel themselves.

Quoted from The Tech Report:

You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2 MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2 MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.[4]

The real Allendale processors, including the E4300, will be released during Q1 2007.

For more info please visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

- and stop spreading misinformation. The web has enough of that allready (-:

 

[Arcygenical]

Normally I just *lurk* anymore.

But sometimes I read something and it's just wrong....like this.

Raptor drives *are* faster. Yes, I know that the drive says 3Gb/s or whatever, but by far the limitation on your hard drive is mechanical.

It's not a *bit* faster, it's significantly faster. Go look at the latest and greatest 7.2 drives and then the 10k drives on something like Storage Review and you'll see it's often a 20-30% difference.

That means I stare at the Counterstrike loading screen just that much less. Honestly, Raptor drives have been one of the purchases I've made that has always shown a noticable improvement, as it has for everyone I've suggested it to.

Iunno... I just but a 74gb raptor drive, and the only thing that's faster is my Windows Loading time...

Oblivion loads might have decreased by a few seconds, but it was a really bad investment IMO.

 

[R_sinist]

Iunno... I just but a 74gb raptor drive, and the only thing that's faster is my Windows Loading time...

Oblivion loads might have decreased by a few seconds, but it was a really bad investment IMO.

I agree with Junkerjunk. I can notice the speed diffrence of my 74gb raptor. I am usualy the first one to load Couterstrike, and im still on a 3000+ venice.

6400 on the way. Ordered it yesterday. Better Value then 6600 IMO.

 

[pervisanathema]

...

 

[Arcygenical]

I agree with Junkerjunk. I can notice the speed diffrence of my 74gb raptor. I am usualy the first one to load Couterstrike, and im still on a 3000+ venice.

6400 on the way. Ordered it yesterday. Better Value then 6600 IMO.

Ugh... I ordered then 16mb ADFD version, but got the older 2 platter design.

I sent it back with a few angry emails, and I'm expecting a new ADFD in about 2 days...

I was using a Seagate 7200.10 320gb drive, which is fast in it's own right, so the older raptors really didn't do that much...

The ADFD should help me at least 15% more than the older one.

 

[Endurancevm]

Then you can you explain why my E6600 will do 3.1GHz on stock voltages?

Eh, my friend is running his E6300 @ 3.2ghz undervolted(1.28v instead of 1.312)...so yeah. Anyways, the current limitations on the E6600 and E6400 is the FSB on the mobos not being able to travel past 500mhz. Plus, if the E6400 can reach 4ghz (500x8), thats plenty fast and $100 less than a E6600 which wouldnt go much higher than the E6400.

 

[stain.]

Eh, my friend is running his E6300 @ 3.2ghz undervolted(1.28v instead of 1.312)...so yeah. Anyways, the current limitations on the E6600 and E6400 is the FSB on the mobos not being able to travel past 500mhz. Plus, if the E6400 can reach 4ghz (500x8), thats plenty fast and $100 less than a E6600 which wouldnt go much higher than the E6400.

My e6600 was stuck at 3.51 due to a RAM oc issue. When I get my new ram in tomorow, I'll proceed to *hopefully* clock it up to 3.7 on air.

as far as which chip is better, I'm happy with my e6600, and a friend of mine is happy with his e6300. If you get a processor, and are happy with it, isn't that good enough? Besides, I'm plenty satisfied with my 3.4ghz processor.

 

[darkone_05]

Right now I am looking into building a new machine. I have capped myself at 1200. I am wondering if I should drop back to the e6400 and put the extra 100 into the graphics card? I am currently thinking e6600($317) and a 7950gt KO($260).

Here is a link to the newegg wishlist.

 

[jgreen]

I'm currently building a new C2D system as well, and the 6400 vs. 6600 was my last purchase decision to make. I ended up going the 6400 route.

Looking at your wish list, I would be inclined to choose the 6400, but I would use the $ saved to buy a better power supply than the one that comes with the case you have chosen. That's just my $.02 though.

 

[vanilla_guerilla]

Eh, my friend is running his E6300 @ 3.2ghz undervolted(1.28v instead of 1.312)...so yeah. Anyways, the current limitations on the E6600 and E6400 is the FSB on the mobos not being able to travel past 500mhz. Plus, if the E6400 can reach 4ghz (500x8), thats plenty fast and $100 less than a E6600 which wouldnt go much higher than the E6400.

considering most people only own their cpus for a year or less, what is the point of undervolting? oh yeah, you can run your fan "quieter". but what about the guys who undervolt with watercooling, or who undervolt with cases that have like 4 or 5 fans and vid card fans, and nb fans, etc etc?

 

[vanilla_guerilla]

is there a point?