Overclock E6300/E6400 now or wait for 4MB cache versions?

[gunner1]

Hi guys,

My current rig (bone stock AMD 64 2.0ghz) is getting a little long in the tooth and I'm considering a rebuild in the next few weeks.

I have a couple of questions. Originally I was looking into getting a stock E6600 and started running across threads indicating that the E4300/E6300/E6400 CPUs are extremely overclockable.

My lost real OC experience was taking an Intel 300A and overclocking it to 450mhz. The problem was, even then, with the 300A being a "sure thing" for overclocking many of the CPUs would not hit 450mhz and many of those that did weren't exactly stable (I leave my rig on 100% of the time and the wife uses it for some of her work stuff).

So I guess the first question is, how overclockable are the current crop of Core Duo CPUs (without getting a "good" one) and what is considered "stable"?

Second question, what are the performance gains between 2MB of cache and 4MB of cache at similar clock speeds? In other words, should I wait another month or two for the 4MB cache versions of these CPUs?

The rig will be our day to day workstation but I also like to get my game on once in a while, I have been wanting to pick up BF2142 but the current setup just won't run it at an accepteable (to me) speed.

Thanks for everyone's time.

 

[vortican]

I can only tell you what my experience has been like over the last 2 weeks, since I did my rebuild. Like you, I had not overclocked in a long time and my rig was in even worse shape than yours (used to be an stock Athlon 2700+).

So I guess the first question is, how overclockable are the current crop of Core Duo CPUs (without getting a "good" one) and what is considered "stable"?

I can only tell you about my CPU, but from what I've read, it's pretty standard. I have an E6300 using the stock cooler. I am running now at 3.15Ghz and have no stability problems. I'm game-testing right now after running Orthos, Prime95, SuperPI and 3DMark06 for 8 hours. Idle temps are between 40C-45C at 1.312V and 55C-58C at load. 2nd core is a few degrees lower. I believe this is a fairly normal result but I believe this CPU can do more with improved cooling. I'm running on a P5N-E SLI, and this board has a significant amount of vdroop. This CPU also seems to like running on lower voltages. I'd have to say that so far this CPU is extremely stable; only problems I had were too low voltage on NB which caused USB ports to fail. Raising NB voltage solved that problem, and Nvidia's "Find Optimal Clock" button was a little too aggressive in overclocking the video card, which caused 1 reboot (I have a 7900GS). I backed down the core to 600Mhz and memory to 1.7Ghz and that hasn't happened since. As far as the CPU goes, I'm expecting (hoping!) to hit 3.4-3.5 when the Arctic Freezer 7 Pro arrives (damn UPS, sitting in Wyoming and has been for 2 days!). This would probably be slightly above average, so maybe I got lucky.

Second question, what are the performance gains between 2MB of cache and 4MB of cache at similar clock speeds? In other words, should I wait another month or two for the 4MB cache versions of these CPUs?

I don't know how you'd tell since the 4MB cache doesn't exist at the E6300 level. If you can afford to wait, I certainly would just to see what happens with prices and performance of those new chips (and of course, OC results). However, I'm extremely happy with this E6300 and glad I didn't go with a 4300 or a 6400. I don't see any point at all with an E6600. They cost a lot more and probably wouldn't OC as well.

The rig will be our day to day workstation but I also like to get my game on once in a while, I have been wanting to pick up BF2142 but the current setup just won't run it at an accepteable (to me) speed.

Sounds just like mine; runs 24x7 and been gaming again since there was no way I could with the old rig. As far as price/performance ratio, there is no better than these Intel chips right now. This is my first Intel build EVER, but once I read about the OCs, there was no way I could stick with AMD. Not that I have a problem with AMD, but I gotta go with the best value and right now, there's no question it's in the Core2Duo.

v

 

[GoldenTiger]

I don't know how you'd tell since the 4MB cache doesn't exist at the E6300 level. If you can afford to wait, I certainly would just to see what happens with prices and performance of those new chips (and of course, OC results). However, I'm extremely happy with this E6300 and glad I didn't go with a 4300 or a 6400. I don't see any point at all with an E6600. They cost a lot more and probably wouldn't OC as well.

Underclock the E6600 to tell... in CPU intensive applications/games it makes a fair-sized difference (about 15% according to Anandtech) at the exact same clock speeds. You also get a higher 9x multiplier, and they overclock very well (around 3.3ghz on average, some get to 3.4 or 3.5). It's also better since you won't need a stellar overclocker of a motherboard to get good results thanks to the higher multi. I got my E6600 at the Core 2 Duo's launch time and have loved it!

 

[gunner1]

Thanks to both of you guys for taking the time to respond.

As far as getting an E6600 for overclocking it seems like a bit of a waste, as it costs $150 or so more than the E6300 when the price difference could be put into better RAM that is more overclockable.

Based on E6600 results of 10-15% more performance at same clock speeds to overclocked E6300/E6400 maybe I should hold off for another month or so and go with E6320/E6420. 10-15% is nothing to sneeze at for gaming performance.

I will probably be pairing this up with an 8800GTS and running a desktop display at 1600X1012 so hopefully I will be seeing good framerates for a couple of years, even on DX10 games.