E6300, E6400, E6600 & E6700--Comparison & Buying

[jxzus]

When struggling a choice of a Conroe processor between E6300 and E6400 (and also the higher end E6600 and E6700), I am confused with price difference against their performance. Two AnandTech's reviews commend highly the lower end E6300 and E6400's greater OC capability than E6600 and E6700's. I am quoting some of the results from Fink's review of 8/24/06 as follows.

"ASUS P5B: New BIOS Adds Unlocking & Improved Overclocking" by Wesley Fink, 8/24/06.
Test done on ASUS P5B m/b with newer BIOS".

E6300-- 3.68GHz (maximum after OC); Current market price: $185.00;[/i] (the $$ number is added by me)
E6400-- 3.56GHz (maximum after OC); $229.00;
E6600-- 3.62GHz; $333.00;
E6700-- 3.6GHz; $529.00.

Just camp on this. If CPU speed is primarily what we get out of it, and if the lowest end E6300 upon overclocking has the BEST and FASTEST (pretty funny and ironical, right?) performance of all the above four, why should I just simply buy this E6300, the cheapest yet best performed? why should not everyone else simply kick out all other higher end processors whose OCed speed is lower than E6300? Have I missed something in assessing CPU performance when I am getting this funny conclusion?

Besides, I want to pick a process between E6300 and E6400. Anand's review of July26, '06 suggests or implies, (my own interpretation), that E6400 shows slightly better performance than E6300. I also found that E6400 has the highest customer's rating for customer's satisfaction from Newegg.com. Should I go with E6400 and pay $50.00 more?

I'll appreciate any thoughtful advice.

 

[tran1981]

I'm in the same situation and I need advice too.

 

[Conky]

Overclocks are never guaranteed. Get the fastest cpu you can afford.

 

[Kango2020]

It looks like W.Fink did a good job with his article. However, there is very little data to make a real buying decision shown here. For instance, only one MB and one BIOS version and only one of each processor type. Not what I'd call a distribution of any system component. And to get and use those numbers for 24/7 usage, you'd probably have to run WC, at the least.

I wish it was as easy as this list indicates, but it isn't. If it were, we would only buy one MB and only buy one of the Conroe class processors. And, very simply put, you can't make a buying decision based on someone elses OC results. Life just isn't that simple.

But you want a recommendation, I like the two processors and MBs I built.

D975XBX running a E6600 (@3400MHz) - most stable system I've ever built!
GA-P965-DS3 running a E6400 (@3200MHz) - most fun OC experience I've every had

I have had great fun overclocking these and I get a very high, and reasonable 24/7 clock rate (shown in parenthesis). Of course, they clock higher if I was willing to run WC or better.

 

[Conky]

P.S. I am quite happy with my E6400. :thumbsup:

I think it's the sweetspot right now for the Core 2 Duo's.

 

[Some1ne]

The E6300 and E6400 chips are both similarly specced, and given ideal conditions can overclock to similar levels, on average. However, the E6300 has a maximum multiplier of 7x, and the lowest available memory ratio on the Core 2 chips (so far) is 1:1. What this means is that to get an E6300 running at 3.6 GHz, you are basically required to have RAM that can be stable at > DDR2-1000. The premium that you may have to pay to get the better RAM can easily negate any savings on cost gained from buying an E6300 instead of an E6400. The E6400 has a max multiplier of 8x, meaning that you can hit 3.6 GHz on RAM modules that are stable at DDR2-900, which is still a somewhat tall order, though more likely to be attainable on mid-level DDR2-800 modules than DDR2-1000+ would be (plus then there's also headroom to take the clock speed even higher, if the CPU can take it).

With the E6600 (there's really no reason to consider the E6700 or X6800 if you intend to overclock), your maximum overclock will probably be a bit lower (3.4 to 3.5 GHz seems to be fairly common, with some lucky people hitting 3.6 GHz or slightly higher). However, at the same time, you get twice the cache. Because of this, a 3.4 to 3.5 GHz E6600 will perform better than a 3.6 to 3.8 GHz E6400 under many circumstances (1M superpi is an extremely good example of this). You also get a 9x multiplier, so if your chip will do 3.6 GHz, you can have that speed with only DDR2-800 on your RAM, allowing you to get away with cheaper modules. Opinions vary regarding whether or not the extra cache is worth it. Personally, I think that if you can find an E6600 for around $330 or less, you might as well get it over an E6400/E6300 model.

 

[jxzus]

thank you, Somelne. That's a great comment. it relates OC ability to the actual RAM price--this just complements something that's not clear in some expert's review. It really helps.

 

[jxzus]

Thanks alot, Kano2020. I am glad that you poin out the great difference btw. a few time benchmark testing and a real world 24/7 user situation. I hold the same thougt in this regard too. thank you for your recommendation also.

 

[xoduzz786]

Originally posted by: Some1ne
The E6300 and E6400 chips are both similarly specced, and given ideal conditions can overclock to similar levels, on average. However, the E6300 has a maximum multiplier of 7x, and the lowest available memory ratio on the Core 2 chips (so far) is 1:1. What this means is that to get an E6300 running at 3.6 GHz, you are basically required to have RAM that can be stable at > DDR2-1000. The premium that you may have to pay to get the better RAM can easily negate any savings on cost gained from buying an E6300 instead of an E6400. The E6400 has a max multiplier of 8x, meaning that you can hit 3.6 GHz on RAM modules that are stable at DDR2-900, which is still a somewhat tall order, though more likely to be attainable on mid-level DDR2-800 modules than DDR2-1000+ would be (plus then there's also headroom to take the clock speed even higher, if the CPU can take it).

With the E6600 (there's really no reason to consider the E6700 or X6800 if you intend to overclock), your maximum overclock will probably be a bit lower (3.4 to 3.5 GHz seems to be fairly common, with some lucky people hitting 3.6 GHz or slightly higher). However, at the same time, you get twice the cache. Because of this, a 3.4 to 3.5 GHz E6600 will perform better than a 3.6 to 3.8 GHz E6400 under many circumstances (1M superpi is an extremely good example of this). You also get a 9x multiplier, so if your chip will do 3.6 GHz, you can have that speed with only DDR2-800 on your RAM, allowing you to get away with cheaper modules. Opinions vary regarding whether or not the extra cache is worth it. Personally, I think that if you can find an E6600 for around $330 or less, you might as well get it over an E6400/E6300 model.

couldnt have said it better myself. If you plan on getting an E6400 and want an extremely high overclock (~3.5ghz) ur gona have to get ram that'll be stable at DDR2 1000. The price premium you pay for that ram might be even higher than what you would save if you bought an E6600 with cheaper DDR2

 

[jxzus]

Originally posted by: Kango2020
It looks like W.Fink did a good job with his article. However, there is very little data to make a real buying decision shown here. For instance, only one MB and one BIOS version and only one of each processor type. Not what I'd call a distribution of any system component. And to get and use those numbers for 24/7 usage, you'd probably have to run WC, at the least.

I wish it was as easy as this list indicates, but it isn't. If it were, we would only buy one MB and only buy one of the Conroe class processors. And, very simply put, you can't make a buying decision based on someone elses OC results. Life just isn't that simple.

But you want a recommendation, I like the two processors and MBs I built.

D975XBX running a E6600 (@3400MHz) - most stable system I've ever built!
GA-P965-DS3 running a E6400 (@3200MHz) - most fun OC experience I've every had

I have had great fun overclocking these and I get a very high, and reasonable 24/7 clock rate (shown in parenthesis). Of course, they clock higher if I was willing to run WC or better.

 

[bostonhack]

Thank you Some1ne, this and your other thread on the 6600 overclocking helped me put together an order this morning. Although Maximum PC just released an article comparing low latency memory vs high bandwidth showing the benefits of high bandwidth over low latency - I couldn't pass up the $100 rebate on the pc2 6400 crucial memory below for a price of $189. btw - this is going on a P5W DH mbo.

ATI 100-435843 Radeon X1950XTX 512MB GDDR4 PCI Express x16 CrossFire Video Card - Retail - $459.99

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6600 - Retail - $329.00

Crucial Technology Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model BL2KIT12864AA804 - Retail - $188.99 (after rebate)

 

[DerComissar]

Putting my two bits in for the E6400. My memory kit is only PC 5300 but I have no problem running at 3400 (425X8) 24/7, Orthos stable. Both the E6300 and E6400 are great overclockers and I think the 6600's and above are not worth the price premium.
Big performance increase from my previous Opteron 148@2800 setup

 

[Skott]

Alot of people were expecting the E6600 to be the sweet spot. Right now though I think its the E6400 that has clear title. That could change though with better mobos for the E6600. Time will tell.

 

[AntiStatic]

i'm very happy with my 6300@3.2

 

[Roy2001]

Originally posted by: Some1ne
The E6300 and E6400 chips are both similarly specced, .....

......With the E6600 (there's really no reason to consider the E6700 or X6800 if you intend to overclock), your maximum overclock will probably be a bit lower ...... Opinions vary regarding whether or not the extra cache is worth it. Personally, I think that if you can find an E6600 for around $330 or less, you might as well get it over an E6400/E6300 model.

9x multiplier won't help, according to user's reports. You need even to set it to 8x or 7x to OC better. So IMO, if your conclusion is mostly based on cache size and multiplier #, then it need some proof.

 

[theteamaqua]

i disagree, heres the best i have seen on air

E6300 : 3.5xxGHz (maybe seen 2 times)
E6400 : 4GHz (only seen once), most people with good chip are doing 3.6 to 3.8GHz
E6600 : 4.05GHz (seen couple times) seeing people do 3.8GHz to 3.9GHz
E6700 : 4.1GHz


it really depends on ur batch, ur RAM, ur MB, the above were done with the best possible platform (ie 750w PSU, RAM capable of DDR2 1000, and good mobo )

 

[Dirkjl]

I have a question about this too.
Because i'm going to upgrade my system. Now it runs on DDR2 533 PC4200.


I'm probably going for the E6400
Im not into OCing but just want to have a stable system can I go on with a nice new MB and my old DDR2 or do u guys recommand some new memoru modules like PC5300 or higher