• 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

P

p-n-p

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
164
:eek: yea, I know , this subject has been beat to a pulp,but Ive got a Striker Extreme en-route, and would like to get an up to date perspective on witch to buy . Other than saving a hundred bux, does 2mb overclock smoother than 4mb. or does 4mb offer performance with games or not?
 
The E6600 has more L2, and starts off 400MHz faster. Percentage wise the E6400 will overclock higher than the E6600. Even so, I'd recommend the E6600 because it isn't that expensive, you get more L2, and it's multiplier makes it a little easier to reach 3GHz+. With an E6400, you have to run a higher FSB to make it to 3GHz and beyond.

On my P5W DH, my E6300 could only reach 2.8GHz. The E6300 has a multiplier of 7, and since my board couldn't do more than 425MHz FSB, that limited me to 2.8GHz.

I dropped in the E6600 and with it's multiplier of 9, I was able to get it to 3.51GHz. Technically, if I could reach 425MHz FSB with that board and chip, I would have been sitting at 3.8GHz. So in essense the multiplier difference creates much different results. I didn't have the cooling for that, but basically, the E6600 just seems like the sweet spot to me for price and performance.
 
does the "L2" cache gain you anything in games? IE: more frames per second?
 
The extra cache offers from "around" 0-10% improvement depending on the app, with a average improvement of around 3-5% from everything I have seen.

So I don't see the $100 cost increase as worth it "personally", unless maybe you want to O/C past 3.5.

As for "most" games I doubt you would see anything more than a few frames faster at that same clock speeds.

The answer can probably be found with the size of your wallet or how economical you are (cheap).
 
Multiplier is not very relevant if you have good ram on motherboard. Asus P5B-E Plus can hit 500+ FSB.
 
If you can afford Striker Extreme you can definitely afford 6600 :)

2-10% difference is what you will get at the same clockspeed

Although both 6400 and 6600 will get you to 3.6-3.7Ghz range on good air
 
kiwi.fruit said:
If you can afford Striker Extreme you can definitely afford 6600 :)

2-10% difference is what you will get at the same clockspeed

Although both 6400 and 6600 will get you to 3.6-3.7Ghz range on good air
Click to expand...

My point is that you will be able to get an E6600 to higher clock speeds easier on most motherboards than you would an E6400. The multiplier is the reason. The E6600 won't need an especially high FSB to reach 3.5GHz and beyond. The E6400 will. It's a matter of math. The E6400 can achieve high clock speeds like the E6600, there is no question of that.

Despite claims to the contrary, it isn't the easiest thing to get just any board to do 500MHz+ FSB speeds. You have to have the right combination of hardware and know what you are doing to make it happen. 400MHz FSB on the other hand is much easier to reach, and for users of i975x chipsets, 500MHz+ FSB's are rarely if ever seen.
 
kiwi.fruit said:
If you can afford Striker Extreme you can definitely afford 6600 :)

2-10% difference is what you will get at the same clockspeed

Although both 6400 and 6600 will get you to 3.6-3.7Ghz range on good air
Click to expand...

if you're extremely lucky!

I hate when people rant, "Oh 3.6Ghz is easy", "500+ FSB is easy", etc..
then all these people run out and buy their hardware, and get mad when they only hit 3.0-3.4Ghz and fill this forum with "Whats wrong with my hardware/set-up?" threads.

The truth is Core2 hits maybe around 3.2-3.3Ghz on average + or - 300Mhz. So people shouldn't be surprised if they get limited to 3Ghz!
 
According to that oc database, everyone who's not limited by mb/ram with e6400 hits at least 3.4GHz if they try and quite many hit 3.5+GHz.
 
I can tell you what hardware to buy and you will get 3.6Ghz :) No wonder people with the right hardware get better oc.

It is not just cpu you know, you need a good MB, RAM, PSU as well. It goes well with one type of RAM but terrible with another. Get RAM with Micron D9 chips and you have a much better chance

I have tested already more than 10 core 2 duos myself, and only early ES cpu could not hit 3.2Ghz on air. The worst retail had fsb wall at 425 and it was 6400, so 3.4Ghz was max on air. All other hit 3.6Ghz either stable or at least for benching, some hit even 4Ghz

I am not overclocking the first day, so I know what I am talking about. You need a good board, p5b deluxe is one to mention.

My current 6600 does 3.7ghz stable 1.45V and here is a cpuz @ 4266Mhz on cool air
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=134778

Here is my other chip - E6700 that did 4.7Ghz under DI :)
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=122959

Another 6400 that did 1M @ 4ghz on air


If you want more just ask :)

By the way, cooling helps to break fsb wall
 
Right now Im running my E6600 @ 3.6GHz 400x8 (1600FSB) on a Zalman 9700 and its sweet. I havent tried going higher... im happy with it here.
 
yeah, your 680i board wont see a differance. note what anand said:
anand said:
One of our X6800 processors reached 2100 FSB, confirming NVIDIA's claims of overclocking an X6800 in their labs to 2070 FSB. Not only did we reach 2100 FSB (525) at a 7X multiplier (3.675GHz), we managed to reach that speed at default voltage. The system has run at those settings for several days without incident and has handled every test and benchmark we have thrown at the system. However, it should also be pointed out that a second X6800 CPU would not overclock 1 MHz higher than 1900 FSB (450) on this same motherboard, even though that X6800 reached a similar 4GHz maximum overclock and similar "default voltage" overclocks.
...
Interestingly, all of the 2MB cache Core 2 processors we tested reached at least 2000 FSB, with the two tested E6300 reaching 2100 FSB (522x7 and 6x525). We were prepared to call the amount of cache the defining difference in FSB performance until the late X6800 reached 2100 in our labs and NVIDIA confirmed their own 2070 results with an X6800 Extreme. We are much more confident that 2MB Cache chips can top 2000 FSB and we are very anxious to find something that will help you identify 4MB cache chips that will reach the "magic" 2000, 2070, and 2100 FSB overclocks.
Click to expand...

it would appear the extra 2mb does actually limit overclocking. Not to mention, if you're willing to turn your HT down by one, one site (im sorry i cant remember which) reported speeds of 560MHz bus.
 
So at stock speeds these core 2 chips are pretty badass from my understanding.
i hear a lot of people talking about getting them in the 3GHZ+ range. What type of performace difference is there in the real world with such an overclock.

I have a Opty 170 now, and it does well at about 2.8GHZ

Sorry about the threadjack but pretty interested
 
I'm currently in the same boat as the OP. Would I benefit from the 4mb cache is I were to use my new build for CAD (SolidWorks, ProE, CATIA; mainly 3d CAD packages), Office, Photoshop, and for watching TV/HTPC purposes? or should I just get a lot of ram and a 6400? Also, I rarely game... if I do, it's old school RTS's like StarCraft or Red Alert 2
 
I have tried E6600 and E6300... The difference between 4meg cache and 2meg cache is quite small...

You'll still get same 100fps in games and same encoding times... If you're going to overclock get the E6400 if not E6600 is much better... 400+ FSB is easy if you have a good core...
 
Does the "cache" have timings like our ram? I mean its just basicly some ram on the chip, so one way or a nother its got to have some type of management/timing. Maybee thats the difference? 4mb may have looser timings?
 
The bottomline's that it totally doesn't matter. If you want bragging rights and have the $$, pick up a 6600. If you don't care about running benchmarks 90% of the time, grab a 6400. Hell, what if you get a 6600 that hits 200mhz less than a 6400?

I had an X2 3800 @ 2.5 and a an Opteron 165 @ 2.7. No clue which was which in anything other than Sandra, CPU-Z, etc. Can anyone honestly say they've been able to "feel" the difference w/ a 2 vs 4 chip in games, apps, or something other than a number crunching stat map?
 
Can anyone honestly say they've been able to "feel" the difference w/ a 2 vs 4 chip in games, apps, or something other than a number crunching stat map?[/QUOTE]
Precicly my question :D Some people say the 2mb cache is more sweet for oc'ing. The only thing I can figure is maybee the 4mb cache is to big of pluming for conroe even all intentions of having it were good! But, like most products being released this last Q of '06, are "FOR THE FUTURRRRRRRRRE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!"
 
If I can't use it now, then I don't care. I'll have a new chip/gpu next year. Future proof this. :mad: K, I'm going to bed now... :D
 
2mb vs 4mb oc'ing debate:

you have twice as many cache transistors which all have to run at the Mhz (3++Ghz) you're shooting for. Think about it, Intel probably disabled the weak parts of the cache already for the 2mb chips so they probably overclock better b/c of the smaller cache. Just like some chips overclock better when you disable the cache.
 
p-n-p said:
Does the "cache" have timings like our ram? I mean its just basicly some ram on the chip, so one way or a nother its got to have some type of management/timing. Maybee thats the difference? 4mb may have looser timings?
Click to expand...

no. Its on die, meaning 1 clock reaction. i spose yes it does have to carge the rows and what not (Cas, Ras etc) to acess the memory, but not like DDR. the on-die ram of most procs runs @ 1-1-1-1. if thats what you mean.

chrisf6969 said:
2mb vs 4mb oc'ing debate:

you have twice as many cache transistors which all have to run at the Mhz (3++Ghz) you're shooting for. Think about it, Intel probably disabled the weak parts of the cache already for the 2mb chips so they probably overclock better b/c of the smaller cache. Just like some chips overclock better when you disable the cache.
Click to expand...

First off, intel cant stand people overclocking. In their opinion, if you want 3.0GHz, you go buy the effing X6800. second, its the same area thats disabled everytime. they dont test every transisor to see which areas they should disable, and which they shouldnt. that would bee too nice of them.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
First off, intel cant stand people overclocking. In their opinion, if you want 3.0GHz, you go buy the effing X6800. second, its the same area thats disabled everytime. they dont test every transisor to see which areas they should disable, and which they shouldnt. that would bee too nice of them.
Click to expand...

Are you sure. If they disable the same area every time, what if there's some bad cache in the non-disabled area. I thought they could disable whichever row was causing a problem.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
no. Its on die, meaning 1 clock reaction. i spose yes it does have to carge the rows and what not (Cas, Ras etc) to acess the memory, but not like DDR. the on-die ram of most procs runs @ 1-1-1-1. if thats what you mean.

First off, intel cant stand people overclocking. In their opinion, if you want 3.0GHz, you go buy the effing X6800. second, its the same area thats disabled everytime. they dont test every transisor to see which areas they should disable, and which they shouldnt. that would bee too nice of them.
Click to expand...

An Intel guy on one of the forums said Disabling Bad cache was very similar to a HDD skipping over bad sectors.

Buy a car, mod it, burn up the motor and then take it back to the Dealer? ;)
 
MrWizard6600 said:
they dont test every transisor to see which areas they should disable, and which they shouldnt. that would bee too nice of them.
Click to expand...
If they didn't do tests that checked everything, they would be shipping an awful lot of bad processors.
 
Similar to what Anandtech did, there's a French site that shows an e6300 versus an e6600 downclocked to the same speed. The results do tend to favor the e6600, if only ever so slightly.

As most people will tell you, depending on what you're doing, you're looking at about a 5-10% gain from the L2 cache. It's slight, but it's there and if that's worth it to you, then the E6600 is a good buy, otherwise, grab an E6400 and overclock like mad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top