Why such a large price difference in these two processors?

[zylander]

Im in the process of building a computer for someone else and Im looking at Intel CPUs. I was going to go with the E6600, but then saw the E6550 for over $100 less. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two is 70mhz of processor speed. Is there something I am missing?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: zylander
Im in the process of building a computer for someone else and Im looking at Intel CPUs. I was going to go with the E6600, but then saw the E6550 for over $100 less. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two is 70mhz of processor speed. Is there something I am missing?

the E6600 is already shoved out of production and replaced by the E6750.

The E6550 is also going to be replaced by wolfdale version soon. But the price on outdated hardware is a coin toss. Either your going to pay a ton for it, or going to get it at dirt cheap.

 

[zylander]

Just what I needed to know, thanks.

 

[Ika]

Furthermore, the E6550 is a 1333 FSB product, while the E6600 is a 1066 FSB product. They have a different combination of actual FSB and multiplier (the E6600 has a much better combination for overclocking than the E6550 does).

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: zylander
Im in the process of building a computer for someone else and Im looking at Intel CPUs. I was going to go with the E6600, but then saw the E6550 for over $100 less. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two is 70mhz of processor speed. Is there something I am missing?

Yes...and it's a major difference if you're an overclocker.

The E6600 has a 9x multiplier, while the E6550 is a 7x multi chip. This means it will require you to push the FSB higher on the 6550 for the same total core speed OC target relative to the E6600. And that also means you need a mobo capable of 425+ FSB or higher if you're targeting a 3.0ghz OC. The E6600 by comparison would only need a FSB push to 333 to achieve the same 3.0ghz which would allow you to get away with using lower rated (and perhaps cheaper) RAM.

My advice is to avoid 7x multi chips if you overclock b/c it unnecessarily caps your upside and puts unnecessary stress on your mobo & RAM. Total core speed matters more with intel-based systems rather than the combination of FSB x multiplier used to get there.

 

[AmberClad]

Why go with either the E6600 or the E6550 at this point? The E6600 is selling for anywhere from $230 to $300+ at this point. At that price, getting the Q6600 for $200-$240, or waiting for either the Wolfdales to go back in stock or the Penryn quads to be released seems like a far better option.

 

[hennethannun]

Amberclad is right. no point running out for a conroe chip now with wolfdale on the market and penryn due out in March/April (at least the reasonably priced ones).

 

[COPOHawk]

I agree with these guys...either the E8400 or the Q6600.

I debated with myself for the last two months and decided with the Q6600. It got it for $199 at Microcenter last week. I like the future proofing and the price point of the quad...and didn't want to pay the price premium for the 45 nm quad.

The multi-tasking ability of the stock Q6600 is pretty impressive. I have built about 7 Core 2 systems for myself and friends over the last year and have overclocked the E6400, E6600, and a few of the B3 Q6600s. And recently...I have ordered 3 Dell boxes with the Q6600 for customer workstations...both with XP Pro and Vista Business.

The multitasking ability of the Dell systems (Q6600) compared to the 6750 or 6550 is pretty obvious and keeps customers happy...add in the 80gb raptor hd option for $70 and the systems fly.

HTH.