Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is E6600 worth extra money?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 29, 2006 1:29:16 PM

I am buying a Core 2 Duo processor, and I'm debating wether to muster all the money I possibly can, to get the E6600 over the E6300 which I have previously budgeted for.

Is it worth the extra £100 it costs in the UK?

I don't imagine it would offer much more OC' than the E6300 could, its just the full 4MB cache.
November 29, 2006 1:31:23 PM

Im actually quite interested in this as well, like you Im more interested in the extra 2meg of cache than the slightly higher clock speeds. I plan on upgrading in feb/march time and was wondering if it would be worth me getting the E6600, as you say at the moment it costs quite a lot more.
November 29, 2006 1:41:30 PM

Quote:
I am buying a Core 2 Duo processor, and I'm debating wether to muster all the money I possibly can, to get the E6600 over the E6300 which I have previously budgeted for.

Is it worth the extra £100 it costs in the UK?

I don't imagine it would offer much more OC' than the E6300 could, its just the full 4MB cache.

OC-ing results show that nothing differing in clock rate only is worth the extra money; manufacturing processes are becoming so perfect that almost every core can go near it's ceiling frequency flawlessly so why spend more?!
Related resources
November 29, 2006 1:45:21 PM

Would the extra 2MB cache make much performance gains?
November 29, 2006 1:56:17 PM

You can see the benchmarks to get a clearer view but if I remmember well it gives no more than 2-3% of performance,a difference easily burnt up by 100MHz more than the E6600 clock rate. Quad cores wil be the next performance standard, I'd save the extra money for that day :wink:
November 29, 2006 2:12:46 PM

I expect to see the most difference between 2 and 4MB caches if you're doing things like video rendering/editing/3d editing/etc. Even then, I though I remember seeing roughly up to a 10% difference between the 2 chips when ran at equal speeds.

But even in that case, it seems like speed plays a much larger factor.

If for video games, etc - I wouldn't bother even considering the extra cache as a factor.

I'm somewhat in the same boat atm. The thing for me to wonder about is that there are NO guarantees you'll be able to OC the chip up to those speeds (although should be likely with a good board - just no guarantee). And the 6600 can be OC'd too...

Now for my wish list - release ANY type of quad core duo for under $600. (I'd buy a "Quad 6300" over any of the dual cores - but I'd make full use of ever core...)
November 29, 2006 2:20:36 PM

Good OC-ing rate is pretty high and since I've been petty lucky until now (except for the stupid mombo), I'd always go this way and the price/performance curve increases exponentially.
November 29, 2006 2:26:16 PM

I've read the performance difference is around 5-8% depending on application with identical clockspeeds.
November 29, 2006 2:28:33 PM

Quote:
I am buying a Core 2 Duo processor, and I'm debating wether to muster all the money I possibly can, to get the E6600 over the E6300 which I have previously budgeted for.

Is it worth the extra £100 it costs in the UK?

I don't imagine it would offer much more OC' than the E6300 could, its just the full 4MB cache.


As said- the answer to that lies in two questions.

1) What is the main PC use? If the answer is gaming, I would almost certainly go for the E6400 (on the grounds that it only costs £20 more than the E6300.. check ebuyer). The cpu is in no way as important as the gpu (spend what you save on this). Conversely- if its processor intensive apps, the E600 may be the better buy.

2) What is your releastic experience in overclocking? To a first time overclocker, getting the speed upto the E6600 may be a stretch. And dont forget that some of the money you save will need to go on improved cooling (whereas the E6600 should run with stock cooling without issue). And its unfair to compare an overclocked E6300 to a stock E6600.. an overclocked E6600 should get upto a stock E6700 ;) 
a c 448 à CPUs
November 29, 2006 2:53:10 PM

The main difference between the E6300 and the E6600 is the clock mulitplier. When using DDR2 800 RAM, the E6300 can be overclocked to 2.8GHz (7 x 400MHz), while the E6600 can be overclocked to 3.6GHz (9 x 400MHz) using a very good cooling solution.

The extra 2MB of cache doesn't seem to yield too much performance gains. When Anantech.com down clocked the E6600 to the speed of the E6300 (i.e. both at 1.86GHz), performance gain ranged from 0% to 10% with about 4% being the average. Games in general was about 3% or 4%. Video encoding saw the biggest boost; 10%. Since I encode my DVDs to DivX file I chose to spend the extra $$$ on the E6600.
November 29, 2006 2:57:33 PM

Yes. The E6600 is the cheapest 4meg cache. You can always overclock, but you can't go back in time and make your proc have more cache.
November 29, 2006 4:21:04 PM

The PC will have some varied use, the usual internet browsing, but its also acting as a PVR - I have a TV Tuner card which I frequently use to record programs with - so dual core will mean I can use the PC while that chimes away in the background, I do the occasional video editting with the files recorded above, I sometimes burn them to DVD. As for Gaming, I'm getting interested in a few games but I'd hardly call them state of the art of in need of an expensive GPU, The Sims 2 and Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 are probably the closest I would ever come to extensive 3D graphics.

I am a first time overclocker, my board has some overclocking features which should help me (Asus Feature List). I have an Arctic Freezer 7 Pro which should help with cooling.

Considering I would probably have to drop 512MB of memory to afford this, (going down to 512MB) - is it worth the added upgrade?
November 29, 2006 4:31:07 PM

Quote:
The PC will have some varied use, the usual internet browsing, but its also acting as a PVR - I have a TV Tuner card which I frequently use to record programs with - so dual core will mean I can use the PC while that chimes away in the background, I do the occasional video editting with the files recorded above, I sometimes burn them to DVD. As for Gaming, I'm getting interested in a few games but I'd hardly call them state of the art of in need of an expensive GPU, The Sims 2 and Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 are probably the closest I would ever come to extensive 3D graphics.

I am a first time overclocker, my board has some overclocking features which should help me (Asus Feature List). I have an Arctic Freezer 7 Pro which should help with cooling.

Considering I would probably have to drop 512MB of memory to afford this, (going down to 512MB) - is it worth the added upgrade?


Get the E6300, you can stick a memory divider on it and reach higher overclocks.

The E6300's are going for less than £120 atm. It's not really worth getting the E6600 if you would rather spend it else where.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2006 4:33:19 PM

Everybody's been shooting numbers for 2 Meg vs 4 meg. Well I got the graph ! 8)

Anand

So yeah like they said, I am going for the E6600 because it's generally the type of processor I go for, it's the highest performing point before there is a major inflection in the price/perf curv.

There is always something like the E6600 VS E6700 where you get a 300+$ difference for less then 10%(even les then 5%).

In you case stick with the 6300!!! 512 is NOT enough especially for vista. C2D should ideally be paired with 2 gigs IMO, so for the use you have 6300 all the way, you don't need that much CPu anyway and 1Gig is essential
November 29, 2006 5:10:35 PM

Quote:
If you're the type to upgrade often, then the extra cache is not worth it as you're not getting enough of a present day increase in performance to justify the added cost. However, if this processor will be the basis for your system for the next several years, we'd strongly recommend picking a 4MB flavor of Core 2.
November 29, 2006 5:13:47 PM

Quote:
In you case stick with the 6300!!! 512 is NOT enough especially for vista. C2D should ideally be paired with 2 gigs IMO, so for the use you have 6300 all the way, you don't need that much CPu anyway and 1Gig is essential


I just realised he's dropping from 1gig to 512!
No point in using a E6600 with 512mb ram.
Your only choice is the e6300/6400 :>
a c 448 à CPUs
November 29, 2006 5:51:05 PM

Quote:


Considering I would probably have to drop 512MB of memory to afford this, (going down to 512MB) - is it worth the added upgrade?


If I were to install only 512MB into a PC, then I would drop in a single stick of 512MB RAM while saving up money for another stick of 512MB of RAM. You'll take a performance hit about 5%-8% using single channel, but that will disappear as soon as another stick of RAM is installed for dual channel.

I hate to say it, but 1GB of RAM is becoming the minimum and 2GB of RAM is recommended. Since you are also doing video editing the more RAM you install, the better performance you will have.

I know being on a budget sucks. I saved some extra cash for my rig by buying fewer drinks at bars. Probably good for my liver too.
November 29, 2006 6:35:46 PM

Anand also just discussed this in their recent shopping guide - I ripped the part about the cost to benfit of the clock speed and the extra cache for the 6600 vs. the 6400:

"In this price range, two more Intel CPUs become available for purchase. At the more sensible end of the pricing spectrum, the Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz 4MB 1066FSB) is available for $310. Besides the 12.5% increase in clock speed relative to the E6400, you also get twice as much L2 cache. The additional cache will improve overall performance by around 5%-8%, depending on application. Put another way, the E6600 costs about 42% more than the E6400 and will be roughly 20% faster, which really isn't that bad when it comes to CPU upgrades. "

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2876&p=5

I'm looking at one of the 6600s soon.
November 29, 2006 6:39:01 PM

Quote:

Considering I would probably have to drop 512MB of memory to afford this, (going down to 512MB) - is it worth the added upgrade?

Case closed dude; if your sacrificing ram for the chip, youve made the wrong call (unless you can scrape together the money in 1 or 2 months). Even then, get a 1gb stick so that you can pair it with another 1gb stick down the line.

The Allendales (E6300 & E6400) are an overclockers dream- you should have no problems overclocking them to above 3ghz. Just get 667 ram branded ram.

As has been said; for vista, think 2gb. Theres your future proofing.
November 29, 2006 6:44:26 PM

Quote:
Put another way, the E6600 costs about 42% more than the E6400 and will be roughly 20% faster, which really isn't that bad when it comes to CPU upgrades. "

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2876&p=5

Well, I'm not saying I completely disagree with that statement; but it does fail to ommit that it is entirely application dependent. For gaming, you do not get a 20% increase in fps by moving up between chips. Heck, you dont get that much from moving from an E6300 to an E6800. An thats before we talk overclocking ;) 

No, the higher end chips come into their own at monster resolutions & processor intensive apps / multi-tasking. Then you cant touch 'em :) 

DennyCraneBL: just wondering what your total budget was and what your other components were; also what tasks/apps you going to be using in the main? The cpu/mobo/gpu/ram combo is a balancing act according to usage and budget.
November 29, 2006 7:13:25 PM

Are trying to imply that an E6300 or E6400 will over clock as high E6600? If so that is a very false statement.

E6600 and E6700 are about the same. The E6800 is much better for OC'ing
November 29, 2006 8:01:01 PM

Quote:
Put another way, the E6600 costs about 42% more than the E6400 and will be roughly 20% faster, which really isn't that bad when it comes to CPU upgrades. "

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2876&p=5

Well, I'm not saying I completely disagree with that statement; but it does fail to ommit that it is entirely application dependent. For gaming, you do not get a 20% increase in fps by moving up between chips. Heck, you dont get that much from moving from an E6300 to an E6800. An thats before we talk overclocking ;) 

No, the higher end chips come into their own at monster resolutions & processor intensive apps / multi-tasking. Then you cant touch 'em :) 

DennyCraneBL: just wondering what your total budget was and what your other components were; also what tasks/apps you going to be using in the main? The cpu/mobo/gpu/ram combo is a balancing act according to usage and budget.

My total budget is about £300. £71 has gone to the motherboard, £111 has gone to this CPU, £95 has gone to case/cooling/PSU and I have £65 reserved for RAM.

I would probably have the money for another 512MB in about two months ... and my Motherboard has 4 Memory Slots so I could upgrade later without throwing anything out.
November 29, 2006 8:16:11 PM

Quote:

My total budget is about £300. £71 has gone to the motherboard, £111 has gone to this CPU, £95 has gone to case/cooling/PSU and I have £65 reserved for RAM.

I would probably have the money for another 512MB in about two months ... and my Motherboard has 4 Memory Slots so I could upgrade later without throwing anything out.


Hmmm.. and what will be the main use? Gaming? Also, how long do you see this rig lasting? Is its omething you want to upgrade over time; or is it something to last a couple of years and then you'll start again. And youve not mentioned any of the other essentials; graphics card, hard disk, optical drive, etc. Do you have these already? If so, what are they.. need to know whether they'll be compatible. And if you already have a case / psu, maybe you could save some money there?

If not, Im thinking C2D may be slightly out of reach...
!