Going with E6400 Conroe

[dakotagts]

Just read the new article on the complete rundown of the E6300 and E6400 with full comps to the other chips out and I love what I saw. The OC was minimal and it still ran close to the same numbers as the Extreme, now imagine what the extreme Conroe will do!!! but I dont have a grand to drop on that.

This locks in my want for the 6400. It is priced at $214, so $350 with a mobo most likely when I pick one up in middle august. Now to find the Mobo.

My question is what is this other chip people are talking about that is suppose to have some mobo's that are compadible now for it and the conroe. King(something)? Can you give me more details if you know what I am talking about.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: dakotagts
My question is what is this other chip people are talking about that is suppose to have some mobo's that are compadible now for it and the conroe. King(something)? Can you give me more details if you know what I am talking about.

No... :roll:
Big-O-List, but no "King" anything.

 

[dakotagts]

i read it in onther thread about a new processor, not a motherboard I guess it was an intel chip. does that help

 

[yacoub]

yeah i think the e6400 is the way to go too. mid-august timeframe for me as well

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: dakotagts
i read it in onther thread about a new processor, not a motherboard I guess it was an intel chip. does that help

Google (that means "search for"), the words "Conroe" and "king". Then you will see what the mysterious "King(something)" reference is. :laugh:

 

[us3rnotfound]

Anandtech just released a new article on the E6400. It looks like a great deal if you overclock it.

 

[Dulanic]

I have my system pieced together except for the MB + CPU.... 2GB OCZ DDR 800, ATI X1900XT, Enemax Liberty 500W PSU, new case....

MB will prob be the Gigabyte DS3 and CPU likely to be the 6400. Now I just need to figure out what to do for the heatsink for the CPU, it has been a long time since I've hunted for that, any recommendations? Don't want to spend a ton, something semi cheap that will work well, and not be insanely loud.

 

[yacoub]

It also looks like a great deal if you DON'T overclock it.

 

[KingofFah]

Kentsfield?
Quad-core intel processor (2 core 2 duo's i believe on one package)

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: us3rnotfound
Anandtech just released a new article on the E6400. It looks like a great deal if you overclock it.

I wonder if those CPUs are being held back by motherboards, because the E6300 seems a little dissapointing. While it would obviously be better overall than my 2.6GHz Opty 165, I'd like to at least get faster Hz for Hz after overclocking...

I guess we'd need better motherboars or the E4200 with its lower FSB, otherwise the E6600 is still looking pretty tempting to me.

 

[dakotagts]

KENTSFIELD, King(something) yeah i missed that one alittle... LoL Yeah thats what I was talking about, isnt there something about a mobo that will run the conroe now and then hold the Kentsfield when they come out?

 

[imported_wicka]

Originally posted by: dakotagts
KENTSFIELD, King(something) yeah i missed that one alittle... LoL Yeah thats what I was talking about, isnt there something about a mobo that will run the conroe now and then hold the Kentsfield when they come out?

Yeah, Conroe and Kentsfield are both LGA775. Supposedly it will be compatible with current boards. Of course it's all subject to change, but I doubt it will.

 

[dakotagts]

so I dont have to worry about the board, as far as upgrade to kentsfeild. So what are some of the boards people are using? I would like a basic SLi board myself. Nothing flashy, and good with OC'ing. Thats the only worry i have.

 

[deeznuts]

me personally i am going to wait a little for the E4300, and see what that thing has in store. It has a 9x multi, so FSB limitations will be less pronounced.

If I can wait that long, I know it's supposed to come out real late, but yields might be good by then.

 

[Zebo]

Keep in mind gentlemen the 4MB vs. 2MB "good for up to 10% of a performance boost depending on the application" was done at 1.86Ghz and grows larger as you increase clock speeds assuming same bus. So yea while those 2MB chips like any low end chip are always the best value they will really start looking bad against an overclocked 6600. I don't really like anands review because they show overclocked buses and mem against stock somewhat negating the cache advantage.

 

[River Side]

as time passes and as I read these benchmarks things are clear..

for absolute best performance right now.. Core 2 Duo is UNBEATABLE..

for a reaslistically fast system however, AMD X2's are the new Pentium D's..

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Keep in mind gentlemen the 4MB vs. 2MB "good for up to 10% of a performance boost depending on the application" was done at 1.86Ghz and grows larger as you increase clock speeds assuming same bus. So yea while those 2MB chips like any low end chip are always the best value they will really start looking bad against an overclocked 6600. I don't really like anands review because they show overclocked buses and mem against stock somewhat negating the cache advantage.

I would've liked to see some numbers on overclocked E6600s and such as well, but to a lot of people eyeing the cheaper options (including myself) the main point is to see whether they can be easily kicked-up to compete with stock E6600 (etc.) performance. Which it seems they can. And perhaps more significantly, they can be made to just pummel stock Athlon 64 X2s.

The article has its flaws, sure, but as far as I'm concerned it was exactly the thing I'd been waiting to see. There's been a great deal of talk about the higher-end chips, but much less about the cheaper ones (no fault to the reviewers; what they can't get, they can't benchmark). And for a lot of people, the higher-end stuff is too expensive even at the impressively low expected prices. Some people are willing to spend about $600 for an E6600 and crazy-overclocking motherboard; some aren't.

Now if I could just find a few more independent tests in the same vein...

 

[dakotagts]

I have to agree with you Aluvus, I did notice they ran everything stock against 2 value line Core 2's and made them look bad. However, if I can get a FX-62 or even a stock Core 2 Extreme speeds in benchmarks, then I am happy. I dont need the cutting edge top end due to my budget limitations. If I spend it all on a Killer processor what do I have left to add video sound and the very VALUEABLE memory!!!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: Zebo
Keep in mind gentlemen the 4MB vs. 2MB "good for up to 10% of a performance boost depending on the application" was done at 1.86Ghz and grows larger as you increase clock speeds assuming same bus. So yea while those 2MB chips like any low end chip are always the best value they will really start looking bad against an overclocked 6600. I don't really like anands review because they show overclocked buses and mem against stock somewhat negating the cache advantage.

I would've liked to see some numbers on overclocked E6600s and such as well, but to a lot of people eyeing the cheaper options (including myself) the main point is to see whether they can be easily kicked-up to compete with stock E6600 (etc.) performance. Which it seems they can. And perhaps more significantly, they can be made to just pummel stock Athlon 64 X2s.

The article has its flaws, sure, but as far as I'm concerned it was exactly the thing I'd been waiting to see. There's been a great deal of talk about the higher-end chips, but much less about the cheaper ones (no fault to the reviewers; what they can't get, they can't benchmark). And for a lot of people, the higher-end stuff is too expensive even at the impressively low expected prices. Some people are willing to spend about $600 for an E6600 and crazy-overclocking motherboard; some aren't.

Now if I could just find a few more independent tests in the same vein...

Absolutly agree. Just saying the review gave the impression of Cache not mattering much when you look at the 2MB chip @ 2.88Ghz OC vs stock 4MB chip @ 2.93Ghz. When in reality the would differ by well over 10% if you jacked up Bus by 100.

As far as X2..it's hard to beat a 3800 @ 3Ghz @ 300Mhz DDR for $150...also not shown.

 

[Zebo]

AMD X2's are the new Pentium D's..

You wish. X2's still don't throttle and still don't burn a hole though your case and still don't dim the lights when powering up. I believe Anand called them disasters while always praising X2s just like he has the Conroe.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Zebo

AMD X2's are the new Pentium D's..

You wish. X2's still don't throttle and still don't burn a hole though your case and sill don't dim the lights when powering up.

Yawn

Look at the latest power measurements.

FX-62 eats more power than a Pentium-D 965XE.

 

[Zebo]

Did he say latest?

 

[Cynicist]

I wonder if those CPUs are being held back by motherboards, because the E6300 seems a little dissapointing. While it would obviously be better overall than my 2.6GHz Opty 165, I'd like to at least get faster Hz for Hz after overclocking...

They specifically stated that they were not going for the highest overclocks, but the most stable overclocks with intel's stock hsf. If you used a better cooling solution and were less conservative you could get the E6300 to around 3.0-3.4.ghz. I've seen people at xtremesystems get them to 3.8ghz, and those early samples arent as good as the chips coming out now.

 

[fatpat268]

I'll probably get the e6400 as well, as it seems to be the best bang for the buck when you OC.

But, I'm waiting for more motherboards to show up for these conroe processors, and hopeflly these good OCing boards will drop in price a little.