Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

conroe series -- best bang for the buck?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 15, 2006 8:48:46 AM

I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.
July 15, 2006 8:55:55 AM

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.
The 6600 seems like the best bang...or potential bang(O/C) per buck. The 6600 seems to be able to stick with the 6700 as far as potential overclock goes, and the difference between the 6600/6700 is a much bigger jump than the difference between the 6300/6400.
July 15, 2006 9:13:49 AM

Yeah E6600 is the best one for the price.
Related resources
a c 478 à CPUs
July 15, 2006 12:29:17 PM

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.


As others have stated, the E6600.

Also, the prices you are quoting are in lots of 1,000. Expect to pay another 15% (give or take) for street price.
July 15, 2006 12:37:27 PM

Yes, 6600 is the cheapest one to support 4MB of cache, which gives a boost of up to 10% in certain applications, clock for clock.
E6700 offers 10% higher clock, but 67% higher cost, so..
July 15, 2006 12:59:53 PM

There havnt been too many 6400 or 6300 reviews yet, but of the ones Ive seen the 6300 was a better overclocker than the 6600 was supprisingly. Might just be a fluke in the chips they got, but its another thing to think about. Sure you get a smaller cache, but it might be able to be pushed higher. I personally think I might go with the 6400, the price jump between the 6400 and 6600 is a little more than I am willing to pay. The cache, clock for clock, makes somewhere in the range of 0-10% difference for various benchmarks (see Anandtech) and overall I think it was 3.x% difference, mainly sitting in things like video and audio coding. When games or other apps were concerned the difference was very small, and for that reason I have no problem dropping the cache for the almost $100 difference.
July 15, 2006 1:27:49 PM

I've seen reviews of the 6300 clocked up to 6800 speeds, but they did state that lack of motherboard choices was limiting their overclocking, so as these mature, it should improve.
July 15, 2006 4:04:10 PM

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.



6600 is the best bang. It does unspeakable things to 955/965EE and FX62 is outmatched.
July 15, 2006 4:15:26 PM

the E6600 is a beast of a chip and should be easily overclockable, but the E-6400 is the best bang for the buck.

I'm getting the E6600 because i don't plan to upgrade again for another 3-4 years.

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.
July 15, 2006 4:32:15 PM

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.



6600 is the best bang. It does unspeakable things to 955/965EE and FX62 is outmatched.



Am I going insane??? Or did BM actually give credit to an E6600?
July 15, 2006 5:02:29 PM

i hope u do know that everybody and theyre pet dog, cat, cannary, ex, friend are gonna get conroe when it comes out?, dont expect getting one that easy..it may take a while because the stores are gonna be out of stock fast..unless u go to a store in montana lol!
July 15, 2006 5:05:34 PM

Quote:
6600 is the best bang. It does unspeakable things to 955/965EE and FX62 is outmatched.




Am I going insane??? Or did BM actually give credit to an E6600?
Like I said, the therapy of owning BaronBS works. We must own him some harder if we want to see better results.
July 15, 2006 5:32:17 PM

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.


Can't really lose in this choice....

E6600, slightly better than an FX62 for $314
E6400, roughly FX60 performance for $224

I'll likely take the E6600 just for the extra 2 megs of cache as the size of data sets keeps creeping upward over time. - The extra $204 to get to the E6700 is hard to justify for me, that $204 gets better mobo, ram, etc into the system.

Wow - both the E6400 and E66000 are just stunning value - Unless you are locked into the 939/AM2 platform for legacy reasons it's pretty much impossible to justify a complete system AMD based purchase.
July 15, 2006 5:34:48 PM

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.



6600 is the best bang. It does unspeakable things to 955/965EE and FX62 is outmatched.



Am I going insane??? Or did BM actually give credit to an E6600?

No, you are not going insane --- even BM must recognize the quality of a CPU when he see's it. His arguments, as scattered as they may be, tend to revolve around the "the extra speed does not matter" theme --- i.e. "it's overkill to want so much speed" --- which in, and of itself, is sorta insane. But it is not your sanity that is in question ;) 



You guys are pathetic. I have never doubted Core 2. I doubt how many PressHotts will sell. There are like 45 of em on Newegg.
July 15, 2006 5:45:47 PM

E6600; it's the slowest of the 4MB cores but still performs amazingly.
July 16, 2006 12:42:19 AM

The E6300, no discussion about that. The E6300 is almost half the price of the E6600.

But what is really important is what you are going to use it for.
July 16, 2006 12:54:21 AM

Quote:
I can't decide which core 2 duo I'm going to get when they're released...

$999 – X6800, $530 – E6700, $316 – E6600, $224 – E6400, $183 – E6300

Which one gives the most bang for the buck? I'm thinking either E6400 or E6600.



6600 is the best bang. It does unspeakable things to 955/965EE and FX62 is outmatched.



Am I going insane??? Or did BM actually give credit to an E6600?

No, you are not going insane --- even BM must recognize the quality of a CPU when he see's it. His arguments, as scattered as they may be, tend to revolve around the "the extra speed does not matter" theme --- i.e. "it's overkill to want so much speed" --- which in, and of itself, is sorta insane. But it is not your sanity that is in question ;) 



You guys are pathetic. I have never doubted Core 2. I doubt how many PressHotts will sell. There are like 45 of em on Newegg.

:roll: Oh, your wearing flip flops... I get it... is that your best impersonation of John Kerry. bada bing crash! :lol: 
July 16, 2006 1:09:24 AM

BM's House of Waffles... :lol: 

It's nice to see him being more in touch with reality, for the time being.
!