• 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.

e6600 not so fast?

T

toolskizm

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
81
Hi guys, just built a new PC. I was moving from an AMD 3200+ Venice with 1gb of ram to an Intel e6600 with 2gb of 800 ram. I have a 74gb raptor in the system. For some reason I don't see much of a speed increase...One thing I thought was very noticeable was the speed of Winrar, it seems pretty slow with regards to the upgrade. I mean I thought I would see a huge difference. Although the processes aren't using the processor 100% Is there a reason why it would still be slow?
 
What programs are you running? You might have speedstop on which throttles ur cpu down when theres little/no load. Download Cpu-Z and make sure your cpu is running at the right multiplier.
 
When Speedstep is enabled it only lowers your CPU speed at idle. At full load your CPU will run at full speed.

I also upgraded from a well overclocked Venice chip and for a lot of everyday uses there is no big difference.

When running 3DMark2001 the first test peaks at 999 fps at one point which is a lot more than 500 fps but anything more than about 60 or 100 fps looks pretty much the same to me.

Boot up time is no quicker and might even be a little slower.

In most games your graphics card is mostly responsible for performance so if you didn't upgrade that then performance differences might also be minimal.

I ran Adobe Premiere Elements which takes advantage of both cores and WOW, big difference.

The speed increase all depends on what software you're running. Unfortunately most software only takes advantage of a single core and your hard drive and DVD rom drive will run at the same speed whether on a C2D or on a Venice system.
 
Ok, so I downloaded CPU-Z and I found that the multiplier was set to x6 and the ram was 2:3 400mhz at 5,5,5,18. In the BIOS i have it set to x9 multiplier and 4,4,4,12 settings. I don't know, maybe I have something set up wrong in the BIOS?
 
As said, try putting some load on it with CPU-Z open and you should see the multi bump back up. Speedstep lowers the multi to save energy when you do not need the extra speed.

With what you came from, most performance differences will only be seen in high CPU utilization apps such as Video Encoding, High End Gaming (but GPU is probably more important first), and multitasking.

I noticed most of the difference in my upgrade from a P4 3.4 - C2D e6600 in Video Encoding and Photo Editing as those are two areas I work alot with. Fireworks and Sony Vegas FLY now compared to before :cool:

Winrar seems to be a lot more dependent on disk as well. I run a raptor and a normal drive and the better processor helped a lot, but so does the disk. To my normal SATA drive it takes a lot more time than unzipping/unraring to my raptor.
 
mmhm. Well I downloaded CPU-Z 1.38 and it shows the multiplier and everything right...well not everything. My RAM is still at 400mhz, 2:3 5,5,5,18. Maybe I somehow have that set wrong in the BIOS? I dont know if I'm happy or not, that I had it set right in the BIOS, lol. I thought this pc was gonna dominate my old AMD... ah well guess I'll just have to deal with it. I have a eVGA 8800GTS vid card btw..with references to gaming. And btw, gaming looks great and runs awesome on this pc, but i dont do much gaming on here, lol. Like you guys mentioned, I guess I will likely see a difference in Adobe apps. Unfortunate I won't see it in Winrar because I use that program the most. I just figured I'd see a huge difference being when I looked on tomshardware the benchmarks of winrar on the e6600 compared to the venice are wayyyy different.
 
well I just did the winrar benchmark on my 3 pcs. I got a 406 on the old desktop, a 454 on the laptop (with a few programs running in the background) and a 1,089 on the new desktop. So from a benchmark standpoint the new pc DOES dominate the old, lol. Just kind of sucks I don't really see this in real usage.
 
your not suppose to. i found a big difference in just my 6300 to install xp helluva lot faster then my 5000+ from amd.
 
are you saying winrar is slower than on the amd? you mentioned that cpu usage isn't maxed out. I'm not sure how winrar works, but there's a chance it's not multithreaded, so won't be able to take advantage of both cores. This would probably especially be true for solid archives. Also, there may be a good chance that both your old processor and the c2d are fast enough to not be the bottleneck when winrar, and even the mighty raptor might be the limiting reagent.
 
Winrar is only single threaded so you're only using half of the C2D's power.

toolskizm: If it makes you feel any better I'm only scoring 772 on the winrar benchmark with my E6400 running at 3360 MHz. Looks like that benchmark is really influenced by the extra cache on your E6600.
 
drop the ram ratio to 1:1, set timings correctly, and overclock it to 3++GHz.

You'll feel a little more snappiness.
 
toolskizm said:
mmhm. Well I downloaded CPU-Z 1.38 and it shows the multiplier and everything right...well not everything. My RAM is still at 400mhz, 2:3 5,5,5,18. Maybe I somehow have that set wrong in
Click to expand...

noobie myself, but iinm 400 is correct as its ddr as in double data rate, so its 400 x 2 = 800.
 
Here's what memory running at DDR2-1000 looks like:

ddr21000yq4.png


DDR2-800 runs at 400 MHz. If you find a way to run your memory at 800 MHz then let us all know your secrets! :D
 
unclewebb said:
Winrar is only single threaded so you're only using half of the C2D's power.

toolskizm: If it makes you feel any better I'm only scoring 772 on the winrar benchmark with my E6400 running at 3360 MHz. Looks like that benchmark is really influenced by the extra cache on your E6600.
Click to expand...

WinRar has been multi threaded since version 3.60.
 
Stellar said:
WinRar has been multi threaded since version 3.60.
Click to expand...

WOW beat me too it. But WinRAR is influenced by HDD speed and CPU cache according to a few Testers/Webmasters. :D The older un-optimized single threaded version always ran better on AMD based systems. The newer does better on C2D.
 
toolskizm said:
Hi guys, just built a new PC. I was moving from an AMD 3200+ Venice with 1gb of ram to an Intel e6600 with 2gb of 800 ram. I have a 74gb raptor in the system. For some reason I don't see much of a speed increase...One thing I thought was very noticeable was the speed of Winrar, it seems pretty slow with regards to the upgrade. I mean I thought I would see a huge difference. Although the processes aren't using the processor 100% Is there a reason why it would still be slow?
Click to expand...

I hope you did a Clean Install?

My clean install took what seemed like 10mins. In fact, I thought the install had failed, it went so fast LOL! I actually double installed WinXP in less time than a single installed on my 3500+ that was quick too BTW.
 
Donnie27 said:
WOW beat me too it. But WinRAR is influenced by HDD speed and CPU cache according to a few Testers/Webmasters. :D The older un-optimized single threaded version always ran better on AMD based systems. The newer does better on C2D.
Click to expand...

Interesting to know! Is this true for both normal archives as well as solid?? Or just normal? I'd be a little surprised in how a solid archive could be multithreaded
 
Thanks for the update.

Winrar v3.62 makes me feel much better about my E6400 C2D.

Here it is showing its stuff at 3520 MHz ( 440 X 8 )

winraros8.png
 
well i would think you would see the difference from getting that extra gig of ram alone but if you say you dont see much of a difference with the extra gig and the new C2D, and cpu-z is usually viable and isnt the raptor the fastest drive on the market because ive even read on newegg reviews that people who got scsi cards in their pcs even the 15,000 rpm ones still said that the raptor is faster all i can think of too say is looks like this isnt the first time intel has disapointed someone im not saying the C2D doesnt show a step up from K8 im just saying cores have different yields so weather or not you will actually see a jump in performance YMMV
 
ziddey said:
Interesting to know! Is this true for both normal archives as well as solid?? Or just normal? I'd be a little surprised in how a solid archive could be multithreaded
Click to expand...

Normal and I was thinking of giving the 3.70 beta a shot:)
 
unclewebb said:
Thanks for the update.

Winrar v3.62 makes me feel much better about my E6400 C2D.

Here it is showing its stuff at 3520 MHz ( 440 X 8 )

winraros8.png
Click to expand...

I didn't try it overclocked but on did it at 1,127 at a stock 2400MHz.
 
wow, thanks alot for the input guys, really appreciate it. By the way, it was a fresh install...in fact it was a totally brand new pc...except for the raptor, but of course I formatted before installing XP. I'm not gonna go as far to say it's not faster than my old AMD, but idk, I guess I was expecting alot more from some of the reviews I read. I mean people were saying stuff like running 10 programs at once and playing games and not slowing the system down...I'm just not so sure that's all that true with my system. Idk, I'll do more tests with it this weekend though.
here is the build by the way...or the parts for it.

http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=4954766

and a Antech 900 I bought somewhere else.
 
No one has asked something kinda important....what is the guy using his fancy new processor for.

If all you're doing is surfing the web and using Winrar on stuff..... :confused:
 
OVERCLOCK IT!!

just go for an easy 9x333 = 3Ghz clock.

everyone is raving about it b/c they're all at 3.0-3.6Ghz easily on air.
And at those speeds it smashed the shit out of any AMD chip.
If you just have it at stock, its only slightly faster than an FX-62
and won't "feel" much faster than any decent A64/X2.
Benchmarks will show you the difference, but you can't "feel" a
noticeable difference until you start overclocking it.

So, if you just overclock it a little you will start to notice the true power!
 
Donnie27 said:
I didn't try it overclocked but on did it at 1,127 at a stock 2400MHz.
Click to expand...

Wow, i dunno if they kill the X2 that bad, running my x2 4200+ at 2.64ghz gets 1024kb/s. I wonder how fast it would be at 3.5ghz, now only if my 939 system could run that fast!
 
Not so fast?


E6600-P5B-DL-400x9_3600_PI19-02-200.jpg


Thats my PI running 3,6 GHz

1160952453.gif


This is someomes experimental PI running on one core with special cooling.

This E6600 is made to OC not running on stock!
 
SentToSchool said:
Overclock that sucker and you'll be amazed.
Click to expand...
Yep, Fully agree the E6600 is made for OC.

In testing situations over 5,0 GHz.

Normal working:
- 3,5 GHz
- CPU 1,4125v In Bios setting
- max. temp CPU load: 43 Celsius
- Idle: 23 Celsius in Probe II
Fully stable after 16 min ORTHOS

PI 1M: 15 sec
 
I didn't notice too much of a difference moving from a e6600/e6700 c2d oced at 3.6ghz from a amd x2 4400+ OCed at 2.67ghz at first.


But after using my c2d rig for a while and reverted back to the "old" amd rig I noticed a big difference in loading time and installation times...( i think)
 
I have to say, I re-encoded a video last night with convertxtodvd aand I could definately tell the difference there. With the AMD, it was encode and leave the pc alone for hours. The Intel, it took 1 hour for a 2hour video, and I could chat, surf the net, etc no problem.
 
RogueTrip said:
Wow, i dunno if they kill the X2 that bad, running my x2 4200+ at 2.64ghz gets 1024kb/s. I wonder how fast it would be at 3.5ghz, now only if my 939 system could run that fast!
Click to expand...

Yes, but I never ran the test at 3GHz:) Plus my GSkill is crap and running at 667 and not 800 and its what holding my overclocks down. My cheap Adata bootup RAM will overclock higher LOL! Please note, AMD use to Kill Intel with WinRAR.
 
I always felt that Intel's where and are very good at the brute calculation, encoding side.

I just moved from an little single core AMD 3800+ Venicecore running stable at 2,7 GHz...I still think it's a very fast computer but Intel realy made a leap.

I hope AMD strikes back cause i realy enjoyed the AMD CPU but facts are facts and a PI test on 1M doesn't lie. I know people with OC'ed dual Xeons which do 34 sec.

I do 15 sec at the moment, so this is my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top