Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3060 vs E6600

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 5, 2006 9:14:14 PM

<deleted>

More about : 3060 e6600

November 5, 2006 9:20:38 PM

Excellent FACTUAL data from a reliable poster.

Thank you and well done.

I read your blog, I just try not to spoil it with my banal rethoric posts
November 5, 2006 9:23:13 PM

Mr. Turpit, all your posts deserve a shrine. Spoil all you want.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 5, 2006 9:31:35 PM

May I suggest graphs starting from 0? :D 
November 5, 2006 9:42:09 PM

A great thread. Thanks for putting it up. :!:

Regarding the Temp Graphs: You should choose different colors for the bars or put descriptors underneath them. :idea:
November 5, 2006 10:28:00 PM

But wouldn't the graph be unreasonably high?
November 5, 2006 10:28:52 PM

Quote:
A great thread. Thanks for putting it up. :!:

Regarding the Temp Graphs: You should choose different colors for the bars or put descriptors underneath them. :idea:


Know a online program that will do that?
November 5, 2006 11:01:42 PM

Very good read. :p  It would be nice if you can post some benchmarks of real-life applications.
Anyway I don't get, what is the difference between the 3060 & E6600.
You can draw the charts with MS Excel
November 5, 2006 11:05:02 PM

Other than a slight voltage drop for the 3060, they're exactly the same. Even the same CPUID. The 3060 is just a E6600 binned for server use.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2006 11:18:19 PM

Sweet thanks Ninja, nicely done and comprehensive. In fact that post was so good that we forgive the delay between the reception of the chip and the posting of the data
:lol: 

Thanks man, you bring a lot of value to these forums!
November 5, 2006 11:22:51 PM

Quote:
Other than a slight voltage drop for the 3060, they're exactly the same. Even the same CPUID. The 3060 is just a E6600 binned for server use.
Thanks. Than there is no need for benchmarking. I wonder how OC-able are the 3060 CPUs compared to E6600.
November 6, 2006 12:09:46 AM

You should see a reasonably significant advantage regarding maximum overclocks for the 3060 compared to the E6600, the Xeon QC process is quite grueling. That said, I tend to find myself constrained more by the maximum FSB of the motherboard then by the processor itself, considering the meagre 9x multiplier.
Ninja, what board are you running this on? I'm wondering if it would unlock up with the latest ASUS BIOSes.
November 6, 2006 12:21:34 AM

I tested using a Intel Bad Axe 975, and the 965 Asus P5B SE SLI and the P5W32 Deluxe. So far, I know it only works with the 975 and 965 chipsets. It could possibly work with 955, or 945, but I wouldn't waste my time trying.
November 6, 2006 12:28:44 AM

i read your blog entry too, and you recommend the 3060 but what about the 3040? do you think it would have a similar edge over the E6300 or should i just spend the extra $20 on an E6400? ill be OC-ing for the first time with this processor.
November 6, 2006 12:36:22 AM

I'm not sure about the Allendales, but since you read the conclusion in my blog, and you said you plan to OC, I must ask, do you need the 2 - 5C drop in temperature? Is it worth the $20 extra to you? Are you going to need every volt you can squeeze out of the processor? If you answer yes to these questions then I recommend the 3xxx Xeons to you. If of course you have a 965 or 975 chipset board.
November 6, 2006 1:08:37 AM

So how does it do as far as gaming goes? Still good with games?
November 6, 2006 1:36:01 AM

Glad to see this finally :) . Seems that the 3060 has more OC potential, maybe a Xeon Extreme Edition would be sweet lol.
November 6, 2006 1:51:34 AM

Yeah, I've always liked the DP xeons but now this is really awesome. Kind of like the Opertron 165 idea. Server quality on a desktop, me likee. Anyways, my mom needs a new comp and I was considering using one of these. What do you guys think?
November 6, 2006 2:02:36 AM

If you can answer yes to any of the questions that I asked in the earlier post then yes. If not stick with the E6xxx series as you'll see little gains in performance till you OC.
@F1n3st
The chances of us getting a X3080 are slim to none. Keep wishing though. You know who'll be the first to test it when it comes out. :wink:
November 6, 2006 2:08:03 AM



Looking good!!! This seems like it would be a coveted part for overclockers, as long as the pricing remains within 10 to $20...

Is the temp drop with the Xeon due entirely to more efficient and higher binning? Same cooler comes with each?
November 6, 2006 9:37:18 AM

With the exception of the box and the engraving on the IHS, I couldn't tell the Xeon apart from the Core 2. Exact same heat sink also. I know nothing of the process used to make these higher efficiency chips though. :( 

@Wusy
Quote:
What you did there is exactly how Intel bins them through voltage reduction, except they do it with expensive machine on a bare die. :Wink

Make your own Xeons? A DIY for overclockers perhaps? :p 
November 6, 2006 11:36:50 AM

Quote:
As with all Xeons, it is basically a standard desktop version CPU with added symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) capabilities.


From this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/26/intel_woodcrest_...

Which makes me wonder if the xeon really does run cooler and require a bit less voltage. I believe it does, but I could also believe that Ninja just got a better e3060 then he got a e6600...

Anyone have any proof i.e. linkies? I really don't keep up with the server market so any info is appreciated.
November 6, 2006 11:52:40 AM

The funny thing is, that since this is a Conroe core, Intel turned the MP capabilities off for the 3xxx series. Only the 5xxx and 7xxx have the MP turned on. As gor you hypothesis, I really don't care how its proved (edit: okay, I do care) but I'd like to know exactly why the Xeon performed better than the E6600. If time permits, I'll test the 3060 against a second E6600.
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2006 12:20:51 PM

May I suggest a better scale for the graphs - you have the high end of 2600 for the E6800 CPU at the top line which is at 2150 (or so). Anyway - since the scales are not correct it is hard for the graphic to point out what it needs to.

Of course since the first graph shows such a small delta between the first two processors (the delta is 5 instead of 4 which you state), I can understand the need to show the difference and to adjust the scale for this.

Ok - I am being critical of minute details. Very good data all around - well done.


Cheers.
November 6, 2006 12:41:44 PM

Thats the kind of critiques that I wanted. Thanks
November 6, 2006 12:59:34 PM

Bunch of useless....... just kidding. Nicely played out. It is interesting to see how closely they performed and yet they supposidely have very different applications. Hmm..... Silly Intel.

Of course this does bring back the memories of the opteron 165 and 145, same concept I am guessing.
November 6, 2006 1:05:08 PM

Great thread Ninja! I'm not a heavy OC'er so I think I'll stick with the E6xxx series for my next build coming this spring, but I still don't get the whole Allendale/Conroe thing. According to this intel sheet, E63xx/E64xx are Conroe based processors...

http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/28/13/281337_281337...
November 6, 2006 1:15:42 PM

If you ask Intel, on the record there is no such thing as an Allendale. To them they're all Conroes. The difference between Conroe and "Allendale" cores is that the "Allendale's" only have a 2MB L2 cache, the cache usually being defective so that the guys at Intel disable the other 2MB of the L2.
November 6, 2006 1:22:06 PM

Sigh, so many codenames to remember these days... makes me feel like a military nerd wannabe...
November 6, 2006 1:26:51 PM

And I still can't find a decent Intel road map.
November 6, 2006 1:33:23 PM

Year 1: Dual-core and Quad-core
Year 2-3: ?????????
Year 4: 80-Core
Year 5: Profit!
November 6, 2006 1:36:31 PM

... and the search goes on....
November 6, 2006 2:36:49 PM

My searching yields only the Pentium II to Pentium III transition. :|
November 6, 2006 2:49:47 PM

Same here. I know Jack and some of the other old hands have the maps bookmarked, but I don't....
November 6, 2006 2:52:50 PM

Here we go, this is the final temp test before I compare the 3060 to an Opteron. Any thoughts on which Opteron it should be?
November 6, 2006 3:18:32 PM

I'd say use a 1216 Santa Ana, similar frequency.
November 6, 2006 3:22:01 PM

Does Newegg sell them? And is it 939 or AM2?
Not to familiar with Opterons.
November 6, 2006 3:37:24 PM

I'll think about buying the Santa Anna
November 6, 2006 4:45:56 PM

I know most people ask which is better and then others ask well what are you going to be doing. My question is, which processor do you like better Ninja, which would you choose if you only had one choice for regular use. Ad in OC'ing and all else accountable to what you would do! Just a curious thought that I had. I like to see what other people would rather have. I am considering picking up a 3060 myself now after seeing this, because I like to OC and it seems that it would be better for that and since I use Air cooling when I OC I think the lower voltages would help out alot. Correct?

Best,

3Ball
November 6, 2006 4:49:05 PM

Quote:
I know most people ask which is better and then others ask well what are you going to be doing. My question is, which processor do you like better Ninja, which would you choose if you only had one choice for regular use. Ad in OC'ing and all else accountable to what you would do! Just a curious thought that I had. I like to see what other people would rather have. I am considering picking up a 3060 myself now after seeing this, because I like to OC and it seems that it would be better for that and since I use Air cooling when I OC I think the lower voltages would help out alot. Correct?

Best,

3Ball


I love the 3060. I prefer it to the E6600. And yes you are completely correct about the voltages comment. :mrgreen:
November 6, 2006 4:55:00 PM

I would say if most people had a choice the 3060 would be the better proc, whether it justify's the 20 bucks is another question...
November 6, 2006 5:09:32 PM

Ninja, a hundred dollar bill to us is a 1 dollar bill to you. You have no say in this matter :x

But yeah, I'll probably end up getting it now, just for the sake of having a xeon over a C2D...
November 6, 2006 5:38:42 PM

Quote:
Ninja, a hundred dollar bill to us is a 1 dollar bill to you. You have no say in this matter :x

But yeah, I'll probably end up getting it now, just for the sake of having a xeon over a C2D...


I'm all for the bragging rights..
"My PC is Xeon powered. Oh yeah, what now? LOL...
I'd say the $10 is worth it, but I still don't know if I'll get one. Hey Ninja, can't wait to see how it does against the Opteron. Get on with it! :D 
November 6, 2006 6:07:17 PM

Quote:
A great thread. Thanks for putting it up. :!:

Regarding the Temp Graphs: You should choose different colors for the bars or put descriptors underneath them. :idea:


Know a online program that will do that?

Heck, you could use paint to color them different. :lol: 
November 6, 2006 6:24:29 PM

Intel better start paying me for this.
@Slobogob
Doh! *slaps head*
November 23, 2006 4:32:02 AM

I want to see real mhz per volt overclock.
How about setting both (E6600 and 3060) at 1.4vCORE and seeing how high they can go?
November 23, 2006 6:10:33 AM

Nice job Ninja
And thank you for the info.
Your comparison is actually what I was looking for in my quest
I was considering the 3060 for a project after Christmas.
Looks like Xmas may come early :) 
8)
November 23, 2006 1:12:50 PM

Quote:
I want to see real mhz per volt overclock.
How about setting both (E6600 and 3060) at 1.4vCORE and seeing how high they can go?

For ye, who art a discriminating overclocker, your wish will be done.

Quote:
Nice job Ninja
And thanks you for the info.
Your comparison is actually what I was looking for in my quest
I was considering the 3060 for a project after Christmas.
Looks like Xmas may come early

For ye who art a reader, thank you. Just check Newegg again , a good friend of mine told me that the prices might have gone up.
!