Would an E6600 represent a worthwhile investment over an E4300/6400?

[The Sauce]

I am about to finish off my purchases for the new build. Money is not necessarily an important consideration for me. I would gladly spend an extra $150 if the performance upgrade was significant. It seems that $150 is about the price difference between the two chips (E6600 about $315 @ the egg).

I plan on overclocking - whatever chip I buy. So I guess the real question is will a fully overclocked E4300 or 6400 be roughly the same performance as an overclocked E6600?

I already bought the Firestix DDR2-6400 with the Micron memory. Planning on getting the DS3 mobo and an 8800 GPU.

 

[Extelleron]

Well, the E6600 has an extra 2MB of L2 cache so that's going to mean the E6600 will be faster at the same clock speed. It seems that most of the E4300's only reach around 3GHz, meanwhile I believe most E6600's go above that. I'd recommend you purchase an E6400, Fry's has a good deal, only $159.99 (OEM). The E6400 seems to reach well above 3GHz.

 

[Yellowbeard]

I would think that if you get even a decent 6600 you should get 3.6ghz+. If you intend to game on this machine, I'd get the 6600, especially since you said the extra $150 does not matter.

 

[The Sauce]

Yes, gaming is the main concern. Are the 6400's overclocking as well as the 6600's are? Also I am somewhat ignorant about the whole FSB issue. Will a 6600 be more limiting with regard to the FSB and my ability to overclock?

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Yes, gaming is the main concern. Are the 6400's overclocking as well as the 6600's are? Also I am somewhat ignorant about the whole FSB issue. Will a 6600 be more limiting with regard to the FSB and my ability to overclock?

The 6400s are consistantly hitting a higher FSB than than the 6600s. The 6600s do not clock quite as high on the FSB due to the extra cache. But, all other things equal, the 6600 will typically hit a higher overall CPU speed. That combined with the extra onboard cache will beat most 6400s, all other things being equal.

 

[The Sauce]

That's quality information right there. Thanks YB. My impression has been that the CPU speed always trumps FSB speed anyway. So that with the higher L2 seems to make the 6600 a worthwhile investment upgrade.

I would guess that the higher multi on the 6600 would make it easier to O/C as well.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Yes, gaming is the main concern. Are the 6400's overclocking as well as the 6600's are? Also I am somewhat ignorant about the whole FSB issue. Will a 6600 be more limiting with regard to the FSB and my ability to overclock?

The 6400s are consistantly hitting a higher FSB than than the 6600s. The 6600s do not clock quite as high on the FSB due to the extra cache. But, all other things equal, the 6600 will typically hit a higher overall CPU speed. That combined with the extra onboard cache will beat most 6400s, all other things being equal.

The E6600 will probably be faster, but will it be 2x faster? He'll be spending $300 for an E6600 when he can get an E6400 for $160. Obviously it depends on what chip you get, but I would think that fully overclocked, the E6600 might be something like 10% faster. That extra $140 can go alot farther in other areas of the system.

 

[The Sauce]

Aah, also an excellent point. That $140 could even go towards a future CPU upgrade. I always do like a deal, regardless of my spending ability. I suppose I could always wait a bit for Penryn and get a 6400 with 4mb L2 cache. That's due out in about a month, no?

Then the only difference between the chips would be native clock speed which could easily be undone with a bit of overclocking.

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
I am about to finish off my purchases for the new build. Money is not necessarily an important consideration for me. I would gladly spend an extra $150 if the performance upgrade was significant.

The E6600 will probably be faster, but will it be 2x faster? He'll be spending $300 for an E6600 when he can get an E6400 for $160. Obviously it depends on what chip you get, but I would think that fully overclocked, the E6600 might be something like 10% faster. That extra $140 can go alot farther in other areas of the system.

Based on the first post, I'd say a 6600 hands down. Admittedly, the GPU will be a huge factor in the end result for gaming performance. So, for example, a 6400 + 8800 series card would be a more sensible choice than a 6600 and any 79xx card or cards. But, with the info available here, the 6600 makes more sense.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: Snatchface
I am about to finish off my purchases for the new build. Money is not necessarily an important consideration for me. I would gladly spend an extra $150 if the performance upgrade was significant.

The E6600 will probably be faster, but will it be 2x faster? He'll be spending $300 for an E6600 when he can get an E6400 for $160. Obviously it depends on what chip you get, but I would think that fully overclocked, the E6600 might be something like 10% faster. That extra $140 can go alot farther in other areas of the system.

Based on the first post, I'd say a 6600 hands down. Admittedly, the GPU will be a huge factor in the end result for gaming performance. So, for example, a 6400 + 8800 series card would be a more sensible choice than a 6600 and any 79xx card or cards. But, with the info available here, the 6600 makes more sense.

They key word there is significant. He's willing to spend the money if it would give him a big performance upgrade. I don't think that, with both chips fully oc'd, the E6600 will be significantly faster. You'll notice the difference in 3D Mark but that's about it.

 

[The Sauce]

I really appreciate the opinions fellows. In days past I might have pinched a few pennies and gone with a 4300 or 6400, but $150 isn't really very much for me these days...and I hate taking things apart and upgrading once it's built. Seems I'm leaning towards the 6600. Might just wait for a really good deal to come along.

 

[Yellowbeard]

They key word there is significant. He's willing to spend the money if it would give him a big performance upgrade. I don't think that, with both chips fully oc'd, the E6600 will be significantly faster. You'll notice the difference in 3D Mark but that's about it.

I agree that, based on your estimate, the term significant and 10% might mean more to some than others and I am not trying to discount your valid point. However, in the computer world, a 10% increase is significant. Either choice is fine.

 

[The Sauce]

Just read this review at GamePC and another issue between the two procs is raised - the core architecture issue. I didn't realize that the 6400 was Allendale while the 6600 was Conroe. They argue that the core architecture difference favors the 6600 as well.

In comparison, the less expensive low-end Core 2 Duo models (E6300 and E6400) only have 2 MB of shared L2 cache, as these models are based on the "Allendale" core architecture. While the E6300/E6400 models are excellent performers, their "Allendale" core architecture doesn't perform as well on a clock-for-clock basis against the full-fledged 4 MB cache equipped "Conroe" based processors. Especially in gaming environments, the extra cache does make a significant difference.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Just read this review at GamePC and another issue between the two procs is raised - the core architecture issue. I didn't realize that the 6400 was Allendale while the 6600 was Conroe. They argue that the core architecture difference favors the 6600 as well.

In comparison, the less expensive low-end Core 2 Duo models (E6300 and E6400) only have 2 MB of shared L2 cache, as these models are based on the "Allendale" core architecture. While the E6300/E6400 models are excellent performers, their "Allendale" core architecture doesn't perform as well on a clock-for-clock basis against the full-fledged 4 MB cache equipped "Conroe" based processors. Especially in gaming environments, the extra cache does make a significant difference.

Err, I think the evidence contradicts that. Anandtech overclocked a E6400 to 2.88GHz and found it to be around equal to the X6800 (2.93GHz, 4MB L2) in many, many scenarios and only slower in those that make good use of the extra L2 cache.

 

[Yellowbeard]

OK, is the GamePC and AT testing methodology comparable to each other? And, which set of tests more closely fulfills the OPs needs here? If the system is primarily for gaming, the 6600 is still best suited.

This could be debated endlessly and over a variety of factors. No one is "wrong" per se in this case but, the fact remains, the 6600 is the better CPU. It's just that pesky $140 price difference.

 

[classy]

It looks to me the difference is about $100. A couple bucks less than $100 difference actually. If you don't like to upgrade often I would say easily get the 6600. That extra cache really makes a difference. Being a Core 2 user I wish I would have went ahead and got the extra cache. And 10% depending on the application can be significant.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

E6600/E6700/X6800 = conroe with full cache
E6300/E6400 = conroe with 1/2 cache disabled
E4300/E4400 = allendale

It is a common misconception that E6300/E6400 are allendales, they are not.
IMO the performance difference between E6400 and E6600 is not worth the price difference, even less so if you consider overclocking.

Your paying 50-60% more for 5-15% more performance. Worth it to many, not me.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: classy
It looks to me the difference is about $100. A couple bucks less than $100 difference actually. If you don't like to upgrade often I would say easily get the 6600. That extra cache really makes a difference. Being a Core 2 user I wish I would have went ahead and got the extra cache. And 10% depending on the application can be significant.

Where can you find an E6600 for $260? Newegg lists the E6600 as $314.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: classy
It looks to me the difference is about $100. A couple bucks less than $100 difference actually. If you don't like to upgrade often I would say easily get the 6600. That extra cache really makes a difference. Being a Core 2 user I wish I would have went ahead and got the extra cache. And 10% depending on the application can be significant.

Where can you find an E6600 for $260? Newegg lists the E6600 as $314.

Newegg also sells the the E6400 for $222 not $160. Look around you can find much better deals on the E6600

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: classy
It looks to me the difference is about $100. A couple bucks less than $100 difference actually. If you don't like to upgrade often I would say easily get the 6600. That extra cache really makes a difference. Being a Core 2 user I wish I would have went ahead and got the extra cache. And 10% depending on the application can be significant.

Where can you find an E6600 for $260? Newegg lists the E6600 as $314.

Well on Fry's/Outpost I only see the E6300 OEM and thats $180. Comparing the average selling price of the two, the difference is about $95-100. Maybe its walk-in sale maybe for $160 oem E6400, but I don't see it on the site.

 

[The Sauce]

Hmm...well based on a quick pricewatch search it seems that the difference is more like $90. Definitely making the 6600 look better. And newegg has the best price...my preferred retailer.

 

[lopri]

What's up with all the semantics? :disgust:

To OP: Think it this way. The model #'s go down E6700, E6600, , E6400, E6300.. Right? There is obviously missing E6500. It's a very logical choice from Intel since they didn't produce (yet) 4MB x8 multi CPU nor 2MB x9 multi CPU. As for performance, I'd agree with YellowBeard. If were to pick one category where the extra L2 cache benefits most, it'd be gaming. You will have easier time overclocking, too, unless you're crazy about high FSB. Remember the high FSB stresses your mobo more as well.

 

[Imyourzero]

I've seen quite a few people with E6400s running @ 2.8-3.2 either at stock voltage or slightly undervolted. Now that's pretty cool IMO...you're getting roughly 1 GHz more for free, and keeping voltages low = lower temps which means stock cooling should be more than adequate.

But, I'll admit the E6600 is tempting as even oc'ed to 3.0 it reigns over most other CPUs in the benches. But are people reaching that on stock voltage? And I'm not so sure that the E6600 will reach 3.4-3.6 as easily as some people think. Maybe on water, but I haven't seen too many running on air at those speeds.

 

[The Sauce]

Well I don't care about voltage or the extra heat. I have always pushed my procs to the melting point and have never killed one yet. I also plan on using high end air - either a Thermalright Ultra-120 or a Scythe Infinity. Also being paired with an Antec Nine Hundred case. Volts don't scare me

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: classy
It looks to me the difference is about $100. A couple bucks less than $100 difference actually. If you don't like to upgrade often I would say easily get the 6600. That extra cache really makes a difference. Being a Core 2 user I wish I would have went ahead and got the extra cache. And 10% depending on the application can be significant.

Where can you find an E6600 for $260? Newegg lists the E6600 as $314.

Well on Fry's/Outpost I only see the E6300 OEM and thats $180. Comparing the average selling price of the two, the difference is about $95-100. Maybe its walk-in sale maybe for $160 oem E6400, but I don't see it on the site.

Type in e6400, the OEM is $159.99 on Outpost.