Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Relative overclock potential :- E6400 vs E6600

Last response: in CPUs
October 15, 2006 11:59:20 AM

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:p 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

Has anyone been able to do this analysis?

October 15, 2006 1:16:20 PM

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.
October 15, 2006 1:26:49 PM

imo, the E6600 is the sweet spot for overclocking performance...
but either does well...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 15, 2006 2:49:08 PM

Thanks for the posts everyone......

Does anyone have the numbers:-

eg 6400 max performance increase by overclocking = x percent
6600 ........................ = y percent?

October 15, 2006 3:52:35 PM

I would also like to see those numbers. I would like to see a E6300 put in the mix, as I have seen it OCing around as high as the E6400.
October 15, 2006 3:58:56 PM

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

NBCC = multiplier default / Multiplier set x FSB

All I can offer is what I have so far on my E6600

Maybe someone can post a similar screenshot with an E6400.
You’ll be able to see some comparisons searching thg and other forums.
October 16, 2006 3:59:51 PM

Would the Zalman CNPS9500 LED CPU Cooler be good for overclocking an E6400? If not, recommendations?

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.
October 16, 2006 4:46:40 PM

6300 and 6400 are allendale cores. 6600 and up are conroe. They each have their own production codes and recieve slightly different processing.

You'll have the best overclocks off the 6600's, as most of them are x6800's that are locked down.
October 16, 2006 8:58:44 PM

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.
October 16, 2006 9:02:59 PM

Thats been considered a long time ago. It even has its own thread.
October 16, 2006 9:36:16 PM

Besides the cache difference, it's basically same design. Both will overclock great.

If budget allows, go for the E6600, if not, get the E6400 and a good CPU cooler, and just overclock.

Are you recommending the E6600 because of the higher multiplier or because of the larger L2 cache? :?: