Conroe question..

[Vercetti786]

I was thinking about picking up a E6600 for my gaming needs and basic things like encoding a DVD movie sometimes.

I'd been told thats the best value for money with the Conroe range.

The thing is I'm wondering if I'll need that extra 2MB of cache and what kinda of performance hit I'd take with a E6300 or E6400 in games.

I'm pairing it up with an X1900XT and I'll be running at either 1600x1200(preferably) or 1280x960.

Where does the 2MB cache make a difference and should somebody who predominantly games go with a E6300/E6400 instead?

Overclocking isn't really an issue with me but I wonder about future proofing with the E6300 and E6400, I'm sure some of you guys have been in a similar situation.

 

[Mudokon]

if you dont want to OC, get the e6600, but if a great price and performance is what you want, get the e6400, you get less MB Cache, but the difference in performance is 10%, downgrading from 6600 to 6400.

I just dont think 10 percent justifies another 100 dollars.

up to you. I can play FEAR and BF2 and HL2, on max, and encode a full AVI to DVD in 30min, what used to take 1 1/2 hours.

oh and Oblivion on max too

 

[Vercetti786]

I really don't think it justifies it either but I'm not sold on overclocking it thought I may do it.

My real worry is how the E6400 would do in future games like Crysis and UT2K7 compared to the E6600.

If the E6600 is significantly more future proof then I'd go with that instead.

 

[skinnyj]

bump for info .

im in this same situation and have been told to go with the e6400, i guess my question is i dont mind overclocking and would like to but ive never built an intel rig before but like 10 or so amd's so is there much of a difference?

 

[MrWizzard]

Anand wrote an article that will answer this...

here

LINK

 

[skinnyj]

hey great link thanks.

So really there shouldnt be much emphasis on ghz? i mean my amd xp-m runs at 2.2 same as say like a e6400 but yet the e6400 is way quicker.....just do to architecture or?