Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel core2 duo 6800 through 6600

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 15, 2006 6:08:38 PM

Other than clock speed and cost what are the difference in the top three CPUs? Do they have more transistors? Better designed registers and stacks? Anyone know?
December 15, 2006 6:10:34 PM

:D 
The top 3 CPUs have exactly the same number of transistors, registers, etc.
The models E6300 and E6400 have half the L2 cache.
December 15, 2006 6:16:28 PM

so if I clock a 6600 to match the 6800 the performance will be the same?
Related resources
December 15, 2006 6:21:31 PM

Indeed. :p 
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 6:40:36 PM

The multiplier is an important consideration in choosing a motherboard. Since x10 only requires 360Mhz FSB to reach 3.6Ghz, x9 requires 400Mhz FSB to also reach 3.6Ghz. Some motherboard / chipset combinations become limited in their FSB overclockability in certain frequency ranges.

Hope this helps. Good Luck! :D 
December 15, 2006 6:56:34 PM

So by locking the multipier on the CPU that is what makes the only difference in the CPU. Other than that they are the same? I understand the front side buss speed the core speed. If you could theoretically unlock the multiplier the 6600 is the same as the 6800?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 6:58:48 PM

X has unlocked ,multiplier and is binned higher meaning it will OC further.

Cool thread for those who don't beleive me =)

Note: not enough data for the X6800 but it will indeed clock higher =)
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 7:12:21 PM

Labbbby is correct. The X6800 has an unlocked multiplier, additionally, the E6600 & E6700 are essentially identical, except for the multiplier.
December 15, 2006 7:16:55 PM

Thank you
December 15, 2006 7:35:57 PM

Yup, the CPU dies are tested for max speed, the best ones become x6800s and e6700s, the weaker ones e6600s. The even weaker ones, or the ones with a defect in any of their cache, become e6300s and e6400s.

I'm of the belief that the e6700s and the x6800s come from the same bin, due to the higher TDP of the x6800 indicating it needs more power for its higher speed. Of course the x6800 is multiplier unlocked, which is very useful.
December 15, 2006 7:42:40 PM

Quote:
Yup, the CPU dies are tested for max speed, the best ones become x6800s and e6700s, the weaker ones e6600s. The even weaker ones, or the ones with a defect in any of their cache, become e6300s and e6400s.

I'm of the belief that the e6700s and the x6800s come from the same bin, due to the higher TDP of the x6800 indicating it needs more power for its higher speed. Of course the x6800 is multiplier unlocked, which is very useful.


I have been of that opinion as well. It does seem like Intel makes the chips bin from the top down, meaning all of them start out as X680 and the multipliers are adjusted accordingly along with the active cache.

It's actually a good idea if you want to have more headroom, but it does make the 6700/6600 less attractive than the 6400 and makes the X6800 as much of a niche item as QFX is said to be.

I mean why would you spend $1000 when you can $316 and OC?
December 15, 2006 7:49:25 PM

Quote:
Yup, the CPU dies are tested for max speed, the best ones become x6800s and e6700s, the weaker ones e6600s. The even weaker ones, or the ones with a defect in any of their cache, become e6300s and e6400s.

I'm of the belief that the e6700s and the x6800s come from the same bin, due to the higher TDP of the x6800 indicating it needs more power for its higher speed. Of course the x6800 is multiplier unlocked, which is very useful.


I have been of that opinion as well. It does seem like Intel makes the chips bin from the top down, meaning all of them start out as X680 and the multipliers are adjusted accordingly along with the active cache.

It's actually a good idea if you want to have more headroom, but it does make the 6700/6600 less attractive than the 6400 and makes the X6800 as much of a niche item as QFX is said to be.

I mean why would you spend $1000 when you can $316 and OC?

Because I just cant be bothered with the headache of overclocking with a locked x7 or x8 multiplier :p 

Although the x6800 is a silly CPU imho when the qx6700 is the same tray price, and pretty close in retail price.

On a completely unrelated note that will no doubt see me flamed, I do wonder if the people complaining loudly about QFX would not have been staunch QFX supporters if it had been available before C2D, as it would have been 2 of the then fastest CPU going....
December 15, 2006 8:00:17 PM

Quote:
Because I just cant be bothered with the headache of overclocking with a locked x7 or x8 multiplier Razz

Although the x6800 is a silly CPU imho when the qx6700 is the same tray price, and pretty close in retail price.

On a completely unrelated note that will no doubt see me flamed, I do wonder if the people complaining loudly about QFX would not have been staunch QFX supporters if it had been available before C2D, as it would have been 2 of the then fastest CPU going....
_________________


Right. Some people wouldn't want to OC and have the money for it why not, but you see my point though that the average "enthusiast" wouldn't consider X6800 over OCing 6600 or even 6400.

Yes, I can see the flames now. That's like blasphemy.
December 15, 2006 8:11:42 PM

The e6800 also has hyperthreading turned on. The others do not
December 15, 2006 8:14:19 PM

No way E6700 and E6600 top out around 3.8-4Ghz E6800 go well beyond that. The E6700 and E6600 are the same other than the multiplier. I'm pretty sure that read that from a reputable source some time ago.
December 15, 2006 8:16:56 PM

Quote:
The e6800 also has hyperthreading turned on. The others do not


Lies. The old Pentium D Extreme Editions had Hyperthreading. NO Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom CPU (Conroe = Core 2 Duo) has Hyperthreading.

Hyperthreading was a botch job to try to get a little efficiency back from the wastefull netburst design and is useless on Core 2.
December 15, 2006 8:20:20 PM

Quote:
No way E6700 and E6600 top out around 3.8-4Ghz E6800 go well beyond that. The E6700 and E6600 are the same other than the multiplier. I'm pretty sure that read that from a reputable source some time ago.


Mainly because of the multiplier imho. Most Core 2s dont like more than a certain level of FSB, as shown by the differing max FSB dependant on CPU with nForce 680i boards. Alot of Conroe (4mb cache) CPUs dont like more than around 1800 effective FSB.

My CPU is limited by FSB. My board will not post over 380 and is unstable over 360, even with the multiplier @ 6x. If my e6700 was somehow unlocked I fully believe I could keep up with the x6800s I see hitting 4GHz+ We shall see when I get my nf680i or RD600.....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 8:20:55 PM

LN2/Phase benching is one of the only reason I would consider a X6800 but I am not into it.

The same can be said about top of the line FX
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 8:32:56 PM

Darkstat782, check out this cooling mod for the P5W DH.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

This mod raised my FSB ceiling to 414Mhz, along with installing a 40mm fan on the northbridge heat sink. The Cooler Master Blue Ice SLC-S41-U1 is on the shelf at Comp USA for $10.00. Discard the boxed heat sink and use the same screws to attach the fan. It's a perfect fit, and the three wire connector will allow the RPM to be monitored. :D 
December 15, 2006 8:43:45 PM

Quote:
Darkstat782, check out this cooling mod for the P5W DH.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

This mod raised my FSB ceiling to 414Mhz, along with installing a 40mm fan on the northbridge heat sink. The Cooler Master Blue Ice SLC-S41-U1 is on the shelf at Comp USA for $10.00. Discard the boxed heat sink and use the same screws to attach the fan. It's a perfect fit, and the three wire connector will allow the RPM to be monitored. :D 


Meh...

I ripped the stupid copper coloured cover off the heatsink on day 1. I have the removable radial fan on the end of the heatpipe, and a 40mm fan glued to the NB. My BIOS allows me to set 1.85 vMCH so I haven't bothered with a vMCH mod. I dont find 1.85v to offer much over 1.65v anyway. I could do with replacing the stock thermal paste I suppose but I'm too lazy to take the mobo out the case now :D 

Every time I try to get more out of the stupid motherboard and fail I get more and more pissed at the stupid thing so I'm avoiding it now :p 

I don't much care anyway, I spend ~£500 a month ($950) or so on my computer, so a 680i board or an RD600 board will come soon. Trying my best to wait till after the R600/RD600 releases to decide, must buy more HDDs instead....
December 15, 2006 8:51:15 PM

Quote:
Yup, the CPU dies are tested for max speed, the best ones become x6800s and e6700s, the weaker ones e6600s. The even weaker ones, or the ones with a defect in any of their cache, become e6300s and e6400s.



Not correct.

E6300 and E6400 are lithographed with only 2 megs of Cache.

Folks usually refer to the whole c2d family as "conroe" but in actuality the 2 meg cache versions are a seperate stepping/mask callen "allendale" (SP?) I believe.
December 15, 2006 8:52:51 PM

I mean why would you spend $1000 when you can $316 and OC?



i mean why would you spend the same money on AMD with less performance than intel for the same price?



none of em make sens right? :D 
December 15, 2006 8:57:18 PM

Quote:
Yup, the CPU dies are tested for max speed, the best ones become x6800s and e6700s, the weaker ones e6600s. The even weaker ones, or the ones with a defect in any of their cache, become e6300s and e6400s.



Not correct.

E6300 and E6400 are lithographed with only 2 megs of Cache.

Folks usually refer to the whole c2d family as "conroe" but in actuality the 2 meg cache versions are a seperate stepping/mask callen "allendale" (SP?) I believe.

Actually, although Intel have Allendale on their roadmaps, all the current e6300s and e6400s are Conroe cores with 2mb disabled, CPU-Z is incorrect in calling them Allendales.

The upcoming e4000 series with an 800FSB are the true allendales which are based on a different lithographic mask.

One of multiple sources supporting this

Quote:
Unlike its fancier big brothers, the E6300 has only 2MB of L2 cache to share between its two execution cores. You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.
December 16, 2006 5:22:20 AM

Then you should still be able to out clock a E6600 which you can not. There are a number of OC sites which demonstrate that they max out at the same point. Face it you own a relabeled E6600 with different clock multiplier. The 6800 are binned separately.
December 16, 2006 8:47:26 AM

My CPU is but a stopgap until qx6700s are actually available in the UK, at which point it will sit on a shelf in my cupboard. I'm not actually that bothered :) 

My board still hits its max at 360MHz stable, this would be 3.24GHz with an e6600

If the x6800 is a higher bin, why does it need a 10W higher TDP for 266MHz more?
December 16, 2006 10:12:46 AM

Quote:
Other than clock speed and cost what are the difference in the top three CPUs? Do they have more transistors? Better designed registers and stacks? Anyone know?


The only difference apart from clock speed is the unlocked clock multiplier of the x6800.
December 16, 2006 10:30:14 AM

Quote:
Yup, the CPU dies are tested for max speed, the best ones become x6800s and e6700s, the weaker ones e6600s. The even weaker ones, or the ones with a defect in any of their cache, become e6300s and e6400s.



Not correct.

E6300 and E6400 are lithographed with only 2 megs of Cache.

Folks usually refer to the whole c2d family as "conroe" but in actuality the 2 meg cache versions are a seperate stepping/mask callen "allendale" (SP?) I believe.

Actually, although Intel have Allendale on their roadmaps, all the current e6300s and e6400s are Conroe cores with 2mb disabled, CPU-Z is incorrect in calling them Allendales.

The upcoming e4000 series with an 800FSB are the true allendales which are based on a different lithographic mask.

One of multiple sources supporting this

Quote:
Unlike its fancier big brothers, the E6300 has only 2MB of L2 cache to share between its two execution cores. You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.


so what your saying is that there are 4mb's of L2 cache but only half of it works? hmmmm is there a way to enable the other half in my E6400??? Probably not, but worth asking anyway!
December 16, 2006 10:38:32 AM

Only half of it is enabled, it may or may not work depending on how reliable Intel's process is.

It will be disabled at a low level, either laser cut or some packaging alteration. There isn't a way to re-enable it, and the performance difference of it is minimal anyway.
December 16, 2006 10:42:22 AM

yeah, around 4-5% from what I've heard. Good to know that all c2d 6xxx are actually the same cpu. Makes me feel a little better for my E6400!!!
December 16, 2006 4:43:54 PM

The average difference is 3.5% (Anand)
However, the boost on several memory intensive applications is in the range 5-10%, not too shabby.
But the 2MB Conroes are still a great buy.
!