In various places I have read that both the 6400 and the 6600 will overclock well - great.
However, the real question (from the perspective of a potential purchaser) is which of the two will wind up the most?
- If both equally, then he price erformance equation is unaltered from the non overclocked position
- If 6400 overclocks better than 6600 then it becomes a more attractive buy... and vica versa
3.40 GHz here with aftermarket cooling, which you'll need if you want to go past 3.0 GHz.
The E6400 was $140 CDN less than the E6600 where I shop. To me, the extra cache and relatively small difference in raw overclock potential of the E6600 was not worth the money. The difference is practically what I paid for my motherboard.
The numbers out there are about even as to overclocking.
In comparison the e6300 and e 6400 clock a little higher when comparing to the original fsb of each individual CPU.
The E6600 clocks a little higher frequency wise but you’ll hit a fsb strap earlier with the 6600.
If you lower the multiplier down you in actually end up overclocking the NBCC
I managed a 60% overclock with that combination and can probably push it a little more. I'm giving my E6400 1.3625v presently and since many seem to tolerate 1.4 - 1.5v there's probably 50 plus MHz left in it.
I'll wait until I get water cooling before trying for more speed. At 3.40 GHz, my CPU idles at 45C with a fan speed of 2200 RPM. That's pretty good for air. The Zalman isn't really noisy at full speed, but it's still louder than I care for.
i dont know if you have seen the new xeon processors. the 3040, and 3050 are the server equiv. to the e6300/6400. However as an added bonus they both have 4mb cashe and are technically a conroe core.
They are only around 20 more than there core2 counterparts and for double the cashe they are worth considering. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...