Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the price difference between the E6600 and the E6700 wort

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 27, 2006 3:01:03 PM

Is the price difference between the Intel Core2Duo E6600 and the E6700 worth it?
I will be using my computer mainly for Media Centre purposes aswell as the usual word processing, dvd burning, divx encoding etc.
Also what if i wish to use my pc as dual OS so that i can run OSX on it?
October 27, 2006 3:26:50 PM

no it isn't
by overclocking just a bit, you get the same performance
even if you're not into overclocking, the performance increase isn't worth the price increase
October 27, 2006 3:36:17 PM

nope not really, check out toms price performance chart, e6600 is the sweet spot. go for it.
Related resources
October 27, 2006 3:41:32 PM

Quote:
nope not really, check out toms price performance chart, e6600 is the sweet spot. go for it.



Wooooord.
October 27, 2006 4:12:51 PM

No. The 6600 is a great processor for the money.
October 27, 2006 4:14:00 PM

Quote:

Also what if i wish to use my pc as dual OS so that i can run OSX on it?


you mean mac os x? how are you going to do that?
October 27, 2006 4:31:52 PM

Why can't Mac OS run on a PC... Apple uses the exact same hardware that PC's use these days...
October 27, 2006 4:35:35 PM

requires SSE2 && SSE3
October 27, 2006 6:36:17 PM

is it worth it in the sense that the 2.6 will last more (time)/ (futuristically speaking) then the 2.4 so that i might delay my next upgrade?
October 27, 2006 6:44:06 PM

It might last a bit longer, but usually what gets outdated isin't speed, its architecture. Either way, I see a Conroe lasting at least 2 years, which isin't too bad considering...
October 27, 2006 7:18:39 PM

Nay, cause the E6700 costs almost double.
So buy the E6600 and with the money saved, buy something faster next year ;) 
The real dilemma, i believe, is between E6600 and E6400, as the latter has perhaps the very best price/performance ratio.
October 27, 2006 7:22:50 PM

Quote:
is it worth it in the sense that the 2.6 will last more (time)/ (futuristically speaking) then the 2.4 so that i might delay my next upgrade?


A 200 MHz difference, in three or four years, will buy you an extra month before you have to upgrade anyway.
October 27, 2006 7:28:58 PM

Quote:
Nay, cause the E6700 costs almost double.
So buy the E6600 and with the money saved, buy something faster next year ;) 
The real dilemma, i believe, is between E6600 and E6400, as the latter has perhaps the very best price/performance ratio.


I love my E6400 - and it was $140 Canadian (~ $120 US) cheaper than the E6600. That just about paid for my motherboard, right there.

If you're into overclocking, the E6400 is worth considering. There are lots of us who have gotten 3.20 - 3.50 GHz from the E6400.
October 27, 2006 7:41:49 PM

Quote:
Nay, cause the E6700 costs almost double.
So buy the E6600 and with the money saved, buy something faster next year ;) 
The real dilemma, i believe, is between E6600 and E6400, as the latter has perhaps the very best price/performance ratio.


I love my E6400 - and it was $140 Canadian (~ $120 US) cheaper than the E6600. That just about paid for my motherboard, right there.

If you're into overclocking, the E6400 is worth considering. There are lots of us who have gotten 3.20 - 3.50 GHz from the E6400.

What he said.
October 27, 2006 7:45:13 PM

Quote:
Is the price difference between the Intel Core2Duo E6600 and the E6700 worth it?


No.

Quote:
Also what if i wish to use my pc as dual OS so that i can run OSX on it?
Keep wishing, as it's not possible to install OSX on a non-Apple machine.
October 27, 2006 7:45:58 PM

Eh, I got the money, and its always better to have the 4mb cache than not, even if it only brings 5-10% performance increase.

E6700 however is way too much of a jump for way too little gain. Thats way past the point of diminishing returns for me.
October 27, 2006 7:58:39 PM

Quote:
Eh, I got the money, and its always better to have the 4mb cache than not, even if it only brings 5-10% performance increase.


For some reason, the 2MB Conroes do better on memory benchmarks than the 4MB versions. Is the extra cache responsible for this oddity?
October 27, 2006 8:17:53 PM

No the come from the same batch or least they did in the past. That is why they have the same OC potential. Take them both to 3Ghz which both do with ease and they are exactly the same and will perform on par with E6800.
October 27, 2006 8:39:30 PM

Quote:
No the come from the same batch or least they did in the past. That is why they have the same OC potential. Take them both to 3Ghz which both do with ease and they are exactly the same and will perform on par with E6800.


I think you'll find that the E6400 will perform slightly slower at the same clockspeed as the models above it, thanks to the 2MB L2 cache (instead of the 4mb that E6600 and upwards have).
October 29, 2006 1:42:49 AM

hmm theres no reason NOT to oc a conroe (if just a little, like a 50 increase to the fsb)

so, if you are looking to get the max out of your chip ocing, i would say that the e6400 offers the best price/performance ratio when oced.

the e6700 really isnt worth it. the performance will not save you an extra year from upgrading.

if you are looking into a higher budget build go e6600, lower end go e6400
October 29, 2006 1:44:11 AM

no the e6600 is the best price to performance chip out right now and in the core 2 duo class..

Like many others said you can easily obtain the e6700 speeds and it is not worth paying that much of a difference. The e6600 even has the 4mb cache.
October 30, 2006 7:41:44 PM

Why is an e6400 better than an e6300 if planning to OC? Should they not achieve similar speeds?
October 30, 2006 8:08:14 PM

E6600 rocks more than 6700.

Anyway, I think you need to mod a Tiger install iso with something which to the best of myrecollecton is called OSx86

Just get a Mac Pro.
October 30, 2006 8:34:35 PM

Just ignore Mrsbytch shes an AMD tool. =)The rest of us opened our eyes at conroe. Shes just lagging in the early 2ks still
October 30, 2006 8:36:00 PM

Go with the E6400 and OC that baby. Best bank for your buck. Check out the price/performance charts.
October 30, 2006 8:36:35 PM

Quote:
Go with the E6400 and OC that baby. Best bank for your buck. Check out the price/performance charts.



Wooooooooooooooooooord.
October 30, 2006 9:04:07 PM

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

I THINK.....HE GOT.....THE POINT

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
October 31, 2006 12:43:06 PM

Quote:
Who has gotten 3.5ghz from a E6400??.
Ok first of all even if it was possible you would need fast ram and a water cooling system both of which are expensive. Then your right back to what the faster chip costs.
The average person with a hsf is not going to get anywhere near that. Probably 2.8-maybe 3.0.


I did, easily!

It required extra voltage and raised my temperatures a few degrees. I like to keep my Zalman quiet by reducing the fan speed so I backed off to 3.41 GHz. The extra 90 MHz just isn't worth the noise. Besides, at 3.41 GHz, the Core 2 Duo is stupid fast. I have never seen anything like it!

So, no water cooling needed - just a decent air cooler. I do have DDR2 800 MHz memory which runs 1:1 with the FSB (426 FSB = 852 mem). The bandwidth benchmarks are unbelievable! They're about 50% higher than my overclocked Athlon64 achieved, and it was no slouch!

I'm a firm believer that the E6400 is one of the finest overclocking chips, ever. Even if you manage "only" 3.0 GHz, that's a 40% overclock and still impressive given that the stock cooler will probably be able to keep up.
October 31, 2006 1:17:41 PM

Quote:
Why can't Mac OS run on a PC... Apple uses the exact same hardware that PC's use these days...


bacuse apple have put stuff in osx to make it not run on non-apple PCs.
October 31, 2006 1:34:31 PM

Apple put a chip on the motherboard of all its new intel based computers. When loading OSX, if it doesn't recognize that chip, it won't run. Period. As for cpu choice, if you know how to overclock, don't get more then the 6400. It overclocks to 2.8 with ease, and much higher usually, but even at 2.8 it beats pretty much all amd stuff. The only exception is if you are running 1920x1200 or higher. Otherwise, your just wasting that extra speed on nothing. And I'm specifically talking about games here, not encoding...
November 1, 2006 12:50:51 PM

I am very disappointed in my E6600 and P5W DH combo. I mean, dont get me wrong, I got a great OC on this baby and running stable at 3.3Ghz, but I could have done way better with a OC'ed E6400. That's the best bang for your buck out there. Dont waste your money.
November 1, 2006 12:54:44 PM

exactly
!