Flip-flopping... E6400 or E6600... back and forth!

[GoldenTiger]

I can't decide between these two... E6400 has 2MB cache and 8x multi, E6600 has 4MB cache and 9x multi, which will be important for the future a couple years down the road. It is looking like this will be my last CPU upgrade for awhile, so I want to make sure it counts ! For a $97 difference, do you guys think it is worth it to go from the $253 E6400 to the $350 E6600? With my Asus P5W-DH, the multi is important as most seem to be getting about 410-430 with them on the FSB... so in addition to the cache difference, there would be a good 400+mhz gap between the two assuming they both overclock well. What do you guys think?

 

[[BB] Rick James]

I can't decide between these two... E6400 has 2MB cache and 8x multi, E6600 has 4MB cache and 9x multi, which will be important for the future a couple years down the road. It is looking like this will be my last CPU upgrade for awhile, so I want to make sure it counts ! For a $97 difference, do you guys think it is worth it to go from the $253 E6400 to the $350 E6600? With my Asus P5W-DH, the multi is important as most seem to be getting about 410-430 with them on the FSB... so in addition to the cache difference, there would be a good 400+mhz gap between the two assuming they both overclock well. What do you guys think?

I do think it's worth it yes. I'd say go with the E6600.

 

[Rare1]

I went with the 6400, it has great performance and I can save $100 towards kentsfield.

 

[GoldenTiger]

I went with the 6400, it has great performance and I can save $100 towards kentsfield.

As said in the original post, a CPU upgrade will likely NOT be in the cards... based on that, would you think that the extra $100 is worth it to prolong the CPU's useful life?

 

[Rare1]

As said in the original post, a CPU upgrade will likely NOT be in the cards... based on that, would you think that the extra $100 is worth it to prolong the CPU's useful life?

Ehh, I am not sure if you would notice the difference in everyday use. Personally I would grab the 6400.

I am running mine at 2.8 right now and it is plenty fast.

 

[Lich]

I'm in the same situation as you, I probably won't upgrade anything but the gfx card until the time absolutely comes. I went with the 6600 for the longevity of it.

 

[talk2farley]

Really, for less than a hundred bucks, the E6600 is a SIGNIFIGANT improvement. You get twice the cache and a higher multiplier, which gives you a higher OC ceiling. I can't think of any reason NOT to go for it. It's 6600 to 6700 (or worse X6800) that gets ridiculous and questionable.

Good luck

 

[brucedeluxe169]

get the 6600 and call yourself a god

 

[chemist_slime]

I'd stick with the 6400. With a 500FSB you'll hit 4.0 ghz- presumably and save yourself 100 bucks.

 

[schonsnow]

screw that 6400 dood. why not.....its only 100 and you get double the cache, and probably 500 mghz out of it. and "you wont notice a difference in day 2 day operation" yes NOW DAYS. Wait until DX10 comes out. You'll hate youreslf for buying that stupid 6400. by then that 4mb of cache will come in handy with Vista.

 

[chemist_slime]

screw that 6400 dood. why not.....its only 100 and you get double the cache, and probably 500 mghz out of it. and "you wont notice a difference in day 2 day operation" yes NOW DAYS. Wait until DX10 comes out. You'll hate youreslf for buying that stupid 6400. by then that 4mb of cache will come in handy with Vista.

4mb cache only makes UP TO 10% difference, with the majority of them between 2 and 5? what are you doing that is soooo important that you're going to care about 10%?? Save yourself that 100 and buy a bigger HDD, or a better video card, or just pocket it and save it for something you'll really care about or need.

 

[Cynicist]

^ agreed

You'll hate youreslf for buying that stupid 6400. by then that 4mb of cache will come in handy with Vista.

No, you'll <3 urself because now you have an extra $100 to spend on a nice DX10 compatible graphics card which will make a large difference compared to that extra 2mb cache.

 

[civictyper16]

AWW my brain hurts still cant decide which to pick either. Is the 4 mb of cache really gonna make a big difference gaming wise.

 

[Parabellum]

From Anandtech :



Source :
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

I personnally would go with the E6600 because of the added cache. In today's scenarios, it helps a bit while being more future proof. My reasonning is that when overclocking a E6600 you get the same performance of a X6800 and even more. When getting something better than the actual best is quite satisfying in my book. Also, if you don't want to overclock then the E6600 is simply faster.

Para

 

[civictyper16]

U guys have made so many good points about both cpu's i finally made my decision and gonna get the e6600 its only 100 dollars more then the e6400 and its gonna be more future proof.Yes kentsfield is gonna come out but i herd its gonna be an extreme version so no point of buying the e6400 to save money unless u have that sort of cash. So e6600 more cache, overclocks to x6800 and Future proof. NUFF said

 

[[BB] Rick James]

From Anandtech :



Source :
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

I personnally would go with the E6600 because of the added cache. In today's scenarios, it helps a bit while being more future proof. My reasonning is that when overclocking a E6600 you get the same performance of a X6800 and even more. When getting something better than the actual best is quite satisfying in my book. Also, if you don't want to overclock then the E6600 is simply faster.

Para

Good find.

 

[Parabellum]

you're welcome

Para

 

[NulloModo]

You know, I hate technology. It seems every time I am ready to upgrade the next major thing is about to happen. I want an E6600 but at the same time I want a Kentsfield, then I think, why stop there, why not get 2 clovertowns for 8 cores of encoding enjoyment, then my wallet grows teeth and bites my balls and says "you know you shouldn't spend that much money on a computer"

 

[Redshirt #24]

In this game, the only winners are the guys that make the hardware. We just tend to forget that.

 

[GoldenTiger]

In this game, the only winners are the guys that make the hardware. We just tend to forget that.

Bing badda boom!


I decided on the E6600... I'm changing my TankGuys pre-order to that, for good. I need this to last as long as possible, and the rest of my system is already up to snuff .

 

[aldamon]

I need this to last as long as possible, and the rest of my system is already up to snuff .

Then I think you made a good decision. I change CPUs about twice a year so the E6300 made more sense for me.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Then I think you made a good decision. I change CPUs about twice a year so the E6300 made more sense for me.

I used to do about once or twice a year, so yes, in that kind of case it makes great sense. However, I need to buckle down on the constant upgrading as I'm heading into college soon. So, other than the video cards, this needs to basically be it for awhile .

The rest of my current parts for this rig are as follows:

250GB IDE HDD (refurb WD from woot)

300GB Maxtor 7L300S0 16MB cache SATA drive with NCQ

DVD burner

Antec TruePower-II 550W SLI PSU


and now, the fun stuff ...


Intel Core 2 Duo "Conroe" E6600

2x1GB DDR2-800 OCZ Platinum XTC-PC26400 RAM (2GB total)

7900GT XFX Extreme Edition (520/1500 stock, oc'd to 565/1720 for everyday use 24/7)

Asus P5W-DH Deluxe motherboard (it's been confirmed to be compatible with Kentsfield should I want to upgrade to quad-core down the road)


All stuffed inside...

a first-mod-ever modded X-Qpack mATX case to use this all in . Done with solely a cordless drill, a nibbler, scewdriver, a file, and some pliers... much harder than if I had a Dremmel or whatnot I think. Just finishing up the new windows for it and it is done .