• 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.

E6700 To E6850?

R

RG2228GK

n00b
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
6
Hey all, quick question:

Would it be worth moving from a C2D E6700 to a C2D E6850 for my gaming rig?

Though I've been building rigs for many years, one thing I don't do is OC, so I like to have the fastest stock hardware possible. I just don't know how much of a performance difference I'd really see between the E6700 and the E6850 (not interested in quads for gaming).

I just also happened to notice the price of the E6850 is about $100 less than the the E6700 (which the price hasn't dropped on since I bought it, which I find odd) and I'm thinking that, if it's worth the $260 for the "step up" to the E6850, that I'd throw the E6700 into my wife's rig.

Thanks for the input, and if it helps, I'm running the following: Intel 975XBX2, 2GB Corsair Dominator, 8800GTX, Corsair 620HX, 22" LG widescreen and currently an E6700 (2.67GHz).

Cheers!
 
For $200 get e8400 that is if your board can support it. Way better money spent than getting e6850.
 
Not worth it. It's only a 333Mhz increase in clock speed. You won't notice any performance increase. The increased FSB of the E6850 doesn't help either.

So stick with the E6700. Though check to see if your motherboard supports the 45nm E8400. The performance increase is about 10% there.
 
troisanh said:
For $200 get e8400 that is if your board can support it. Way better money spent than getting e6850.
Click to expand...

Money better spent? They're both 3.0GHz, only difference is the 6MB cache on the Wolfdale and it's 45nm vs 65nm. Does it make that much of a difference compared to the 4MB cache in terms of performance? I haven't kept up that hardcore with CPU hardware recently.

Not sure why my mobo wouldn't support it (unless someone can briefly explain why?), but either way, I just need to know how much of a performance difference there'd be between the E6700 2.67GHz and the E6850 3.0GHz (or the Wolfdale, if that's an option) and if it's actually even really worth making the move.
 
Danny Bui said:
Not worth it. It's only a 333Mhz increase in clock speed. You won't notice any performance increase. The increased FSB of the E6850 doesn't help either.

So stick with the E6700. Though check to see if your motherboard supports the 45nm E8400. The performance increase is about 10% there.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok... so it's 45nm support that I need to figure out. I'd have to look into that (am working right now) but if anyone happens to know if the Intel D975XBX2 supports it off-hand, please let me know.

So, I wouldn't notice any performance increase at all, eh? Well, that's disappointing.

I'd think it would , since so many people OC the C2D's anywhere from 3.0 and up, which they state increases performance somewhat for them. But, if you're sure on that, I suppose I'm stuck for now. Not that it's bad at all, but I wanted a little more power.

I guess the 10% increase answers my question about the 6MB cache on the Wolfdale making any difference compared to the 4MB cache on the Conroe. Not sure that a 10% difference is really worth it either, though.

Thanks.
 
RG2228GK said:
I'd think it would , since so many people OC the C2D's anywhere from 3.0 and up, which they state increases performance somewhat for them. But, if you're sure on that, I suppose I'm stuck for now. Not that it's bad at all, but I wanted a little more power.
.
Click to expand...

That's because the 3.0Ghz and higher OC is usually 1Ghz or more than the stock speeds of many C2D CPUs like the E2180, E4500, etc. That's why they'll see a performance increase. However in your case, an extra 333Mhz in clock and FSB speed will not provide a significant performance increase.

Also, from the Intel website, it doesn't look like your mobo supports the new 45nm CPU anyway:
http://processormatch.intel.com/COMPDB/SearchResult.aspx?Boardname=d975xbx2

So since you're not overclocking, you're pretty much stuck now CPU wise.
 
Thanks for that link. Nope, it would appear my mobo doesn't support it, since I don't see the E8400 listed.

I understand what you're saying, that people with lower Ghz CPU's are OC'ing to 1Ghz+ over their stock. I cant say I've seen anyone OC from 2.67Ghz to 3.0Ghz or even 3.5Ghz and claim to have noticed any huge difference. So, it would serve to suffice that you're correct, and moving from 2.67 to 3.0 isn't going to make much, if any, difference.

As I said, my performance is great with my current rig, but I've been thinking about a little more power. Not that it's necessarily "needed", and since games are becoming more GPU dependent anyway, I'm fine-off.

So unless I either OC or go with one of the Extreme CPU's, I cant really move to anything else. That's alright, though. These Intel boards have been incredible, so I'd rather not change to something else, and since I get great performance anyway I'll just stick with my current set-up and perhaps upgrade my 8800GTX when ever Nvidia decides to release the truly next-gen GPU.

Thanks for the info and feedback, guys.

Cheers.
 
You won't benefit from the upgrade, but you will feel your system isn't "out of date" (which it isn't). IMO the E6700, e6850, e8400 are all the same to me from 3ghz on. Sure, it's a bit faster for pi or whatnot, but you'll only want to chase the higher GHZ if you're folding.

That money should go for better cooling (to oc more) or for some other peripheral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top