Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6600 or E6300 What is the bang for the buck?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 27, 2006 1:10:26 AM

I was planning on popping on an e6600 either OEM at $279.99 or Retail at $300.00, but I have heard all these great things about oc'ing the e6300.

Background:
I am looking at building a new rig and this is how it will shape up:
eVGA 680I MB - $229.99 @ newegg
E6600 C2D - $279.99 @ Stalliontek
2GB Corsair XMS - $236.99 @ newegg
XFX 7900gs 256MB VC - $139.99 @ newegg (need to stay around $900 or better, and since this dx10 thing seems like it could wait until prices drop, seems like best bet for at least the next 6 mos.)
Also plan on using 250GB WD 7600 8mb in new build from old system

Now my question is, with all the oc features of this board, could I get as much performance out of an e6300 oc'd and then wait close to a year and go to quad core and 8800GTX at that point.

Any input would be much appreciated on all of the aforementioned componants, but I am trying to build the most economical now to avoid vista and dx10 bugs at the beginning of their run.

More about : e6600 e6300 bang buck

December 27, 2006 1:27:59 AM

Either one would serve you well, but in your case, if you're going to use a Conroe to tide you over till a quad core, get the E6300. Very respectable performance. The 8800GTX will be superseded by an even faster GPU by then, for sure.

You're plan makes perfect sense, I'm sure others have the same idea. Quad core has little use now unless you're into heavy multitasking, but in a year, different story :D  . Good luck!
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2006 4:08:58 AM

Either one would work.

If you plan on keeping the cpu for a while go with the 6600.
You should be able to push it further w/ a 9X multiplier and it has 4Mb vs 2Mb L2 cash.

If you just want a cpu to get you buy get the 6300.
It can still overclock verry high whilest saving you money for future upgrades.

Either way, if you are overclocking, do your self a favor and get your cpu a good cooler.
Related resources
December 27, 2006 4:17:08 AM

If you go for the E6300 and want to overclock it to the limit(or near limit), get some good PC-6400 or better RAM, as 400+ MHz FSB's will be easily surpassed.
GL :) 
December 27, 2006 4:53:16 AM

The E6300 is a strong overclocker but the 6600 is in a different class when it comes to performance gains with the extra L2 Cache and 9X multiplier.
If you are looking for the best performance go for the E6600.
December 27, 2006 11:07:30 AM

the best bang for the buck if you overclock is the E6400.
December 27, 2006 11:42:23 AM

Exactly what Id get...for now.Im waiting tho
a c 471 à CPUs
December 27, 2006 2:35:31 PM

I would get the E6400. The extra clock multiplier will give you better overclocks. I'm a bit skeptical about a quad core CPU even for a game machine within the next year. A few years from now, yeah I suppose having a quad core will give good performance increase over a dual core CPU. Hey, whatever floats your boat.
December 27, 2006 4:13:55 PM

With that 680i motherboard and a Corsair DDR2 800 memory and with a proper cooling you can overclock the E6300 well enough to get some good performance to match the E6600 at stock setting.
December 27, 2006 5:17:46 PM

Why not the E6400? it has x8 instead of x7 multiplyer and goes for 100$ less then the E6600, i bought the E6400 and run it on my 680I board at 3.2ghz(400FSB giving me a 1:1 ratio with 800mhz ram) stable at 55 degree and when quad-core drops around Q2 07' you pick it up and save that E6400....
December 27, 2006 9:10:38 PM

Quote:
I would get the E6400. The extra clock multiplier will give you better overclocks. I'm a bit skeptical about a quad core CPU even for a game machine within the next year. A few years from now, yeah I suppose having a quad core will give good performance increase over a dual core CPU. Hey, whatever floats your boat.




Can you explain what you guys are talking about as far as the advantage of the clock multiplier on the e6400 as opposed to the e6300?

Also thanks everyone for your input so far, I might be more confused than closer to a decision, but it has given me a bunch to research and think about. :) 
December 27, 2006 10:08:40 PM

Quote:


Can you explain what you guys are talking about as far as the advantage of the clock multiplier on the e6400 as opposed to the e6300?

Also thanks everyone for your input so far, I might be more confused than closer to a decision, but it has given me a bunch to research and think about. :) 


Put very simply the limit to overclocking an Allendale (E6300/6400) is the speed of the rest of the system, FSB and memory, rather than the speed of the processor. With the speed of the system at its maximum overclockability the E6400 with a higher multiplier is going to give a higher processor speed than the 6300. Or put another way, for the SAME processor speed the E6400 requires the motherboard and memory to not have to work so hard. That would mean a cooler Northbridge and cheaper memory, counterbalancing the extra cost of the 6400 over the 6300. And all else being equal, at a given Processor speed the E6400 runs slightly cooler than the E6300 because of the lower Buss speed.
December 27, 2006 10:28:27 PM

Just get the dang 6600 and leave it at stock. :wink:
December 28, 2006 12:28:34 AM

Quote:
bah, isn't his whole reason for deciding between a 6300 and 6600 because of overclockability :oops:  If you won't overclock, you might as well not get a conroe and get the 5200, at 280, the performance at stock is comparable to the 6600, but its cheaper and amd mobos are less expensive than intel ones in general for a good board, so you could use the difference in price to get a better gfx card instead. But still, all that is besides the point and doesn't help the op at all


I WAS planning on overclocking I just don't know as much about it, as this will be my first attempt at overclocking with a build. My last build has lasted for 5 years with only a few upgrades. I am now hitting the wall with my t-bird :D  If you guys have more info on oc'ing, and optimum setups from what i have shown I want, i am all ears!!!
December 28, 2006 12:28:54 AM

Quote:
I would get the E6400. The extra clock multiplier will give you better overclocks. I'm a bit skeptical about a quad core CPU even for a game machine within the next year. A few years from now, yeah I suppose having a quad core will give good performance increase over a dual core CPU. Hey, whatever floats your boat.




Can you explain what you guys are talking about as far as the advantage of the clock multiplier on the e6400 as opposed to the e6300?

Also thanks everyone for your input so far, I might be more confused than closer to a decision, but it has given me a bunch to research and think about. :) 

With a higher multiplier you’re not pushing the front side bus as high as with a lower multiplier.
Most motherboards (not all) can handle 400 to 430 fsb without pushing the Northbridge as hard while achieving higher GHz. also the ram gets a harder workout when you’re at 500 MHz fsb.
Bandwidth is the issue most affected with the multiplier.
The higher the fsb the more voltage necessary at the Northbridge to keep the system stable and the more likelihood of data loss or errata
Performance can also degrade beyond a certain set frequency.
Like RobsX2 said you can easily achieve 3.6 GHz with an E6600 and Stable.
The E6300 at 3.6 GHz almost always has less overall performance than the E6600 at 3.6 GHz
Since I'm rambling on I will admit the E6400 would be much better than the E6300 for overclocking results.
December 28, 2006 1:03:01 AM

I guess you were :lol: 
December 28, 2006 1:04:48 AM

Well you better tell him how much more he will have to spend on a high end board, memory, power supply, cooling to overclock the thing. If he has the money then cool if not he can still buy a cheaper system with the 6600 and keep it krunk at the same time.

Also if he is going to overclock he should go with the 6400 as that was judged the best bang for buck overclock king of the hill.
December 28, 2006 1:56:06 AM

So that is about $800.00 minus the cpu. Which one did you think he should get? Now what else will he need? Case, keyboard, monitor........?

I like my Saitek lighted keyboard.

Well Tacos you certainly have a bigger budget for computers than I do.

Of course my kitchen is costing me $13,000 for my new kitchen cabinets. You have to have your priorities.... :wink:
December 29, 2006 12:03:41 AM

Wow I am very impressed with your enthusiasm and thriftyness. And the fact that you borrowed the money from your parents with the idea of paying them back shows a lot of maturity on your part.

I am sure you will do well for yourself in the future and will probably have a very expensive computer some day!
December 29, 2006 1:32:10 AM

Well just chiming in here but I just built my 6600 system and am doin 3.52 mhz at 1.3 v abd my ram is 6400 team extreme at 2.18 volts on a striker extreme. Temps are at 44c on full load with orthos with a zalman 9700. I can't seem to get any higher but I'm also pretty new to oc'ing so I'm sure after I learn a bit more I'll get it a bit higher.
I had a 6300 in there before it but couldn't get it over 3.2 even with the zalman, just wasn't stable no matter what i did, so i got the 6600 and thats what I got so far.
December 29, 2006 10:02:51 PM

I don't know but for some reason it will not be stable if i raise the vcore. It becomes unstable even if i leave the settings all alone and just change the vcore to 1.4 it won't even boot lol. I dunno I'm gonna try to relax the mem timings from the 4-4-4-9 1t to whatever is stable i guess haha. Ahh sucks to fiddle with it all but it is pretty fun after you get it cookin!
December 30, 2006 4:08:31 AM

This is also somewhat off topic, but it's about system performance. IMO, all the overclocking is a waste to gain extra performance other than for video encoding, unless your hard drive is of the latest type, like a 7200.10 or a 150 GB Raptor. That is, generally speaking, a slower dual core system will outperform a faster dual core system overall if the slower dual core system has a better hard drive.

And it's interesting to consider also that hybrid drives will be coming in a few months, and then there's that nice prospect of quick resume, etc. One route to play that both ways is a 7200.10 that becomes just the video data drive later when you upgrade your drive.
December 31, 2006 1:27:27 AM

So a E6300@1.8 with a 150GB raptor will out perform a X6800@2.8 with a Western Digital Calivier SE?
December 31, 2006 1:32:29 AM

SUP, dude i'm now woundering the same thing. the E6300 has SSE4 and the E6600 has SSSE3. the E6300 has only 2mb of cache while the E6600 has four. i'm confused too.

l8er :) 
December 31, 2006 1:41:16 AM

Hmmm....there's an interesting comparison to make. Of course, it's unlikely those systems even exist. But what I was thinking was a 6300 with a new tech Raptor would beat a 6600 with that caviar, yeah, and so it's quite possible that on some common task, like a virus scan, the answer for would be -- yes.
On a boot -- yes. On a game level load -- yes.

Yes.
December 31, 2006 1:46:27 AM

I mean, in those common tasks, important ones, the answer is yes. But of course on some other important things, like a video encoding, a audio encoding, or a frame rate, the answer is no.

But here's a good question -- which one would I rather be stuck with for 18 months, with a rule I could not scavenge and sell parts or upgrade the cpu or hard drive.

For me, the answer is I'd rather have the cheaper system -- 6300 and Raptor, because of the general superior speed the majority of the time for my overall all around use. I could always clock up the 6300 some if a game or such finally slowed down from the cpu enough to irritate me.
December 31, 2006 3:52:05 AM

Quote:
For me, the answer is I'd rather have the cheaper system -- 6300 and Raptor, because of the general superior speed the majority of the time for my overall all around use. I could always clock up the 6300 some if a game or such finally slowed down from the cpu enough to irritate me.


I appreciate all the dialog on this, but just for adding reference, I am pretty sure now that I am gonna get the eVGA 680i MB, 2gig of pc6400 Corsair XMS2, eVGA 7900gs vid card, I am keeping my current caviar 120gig 7200rpm 8m cache HD, based on all I have read and researched, Ii'm planning currently on going for the e6300 oem, and overclocking it... then, 12 mos. probably I will upgrade to dx10 vid. and core extreme or quad along with a raptor of some sort. this way, I can get a new system at around $800 and drop another 6-800 later and completely trick it. If anyone sees holes in this logic, by all means, let me hear about it.
--thanks
December 31, 2006 11:39:53 AM

There's nothing like a good upgrade to make you feel nice about your old computer, and it's a good feeling when you don't break the bank. 8)
December 31, 2006 12:36:39 PM

Quote:
I was planning on popping on an e6600 either OEM at $279.99 or Retail at $300.00, but I have heard all these great things about oc'ing the e6300.


After scanning this whole thread, it sounds like you want a gaming box for the most part, right? Go out an look at the early C2D benches for games like Oblivion, then look at later GPU reviews of the same games. Even a stock 6300 will have less of a contribution to the big picture than will an upgrade to the GPU. As much as I like to recommend the 6600, the advice you got here about getting a 6400 is pretty sound in the bang per buck category. I'd spend more time researching and then more money on the GPU and just don't worry too much about the CPU. Similarly, for your upgrade, don't worry about a quad core for gameing in the next year or two - think about bang per buck in DX10 and by the time you're ready, ATI should be in the game and there should be some solid mid price options.
December 31, 2006 3:49:02 PM

Quote:
[I don't know why anyone would pick a E6300 over a E6400. The prices are simply to close together and it makes no sense not go with the chip that has the better multiplier.


$40 doesn't seem like a big jump, but the whole purpose of the e6300 over the e6600 is $120, if I go with the e6400 then that drops my advantage to $80. What is the point in that? Also I've heard nothing but awesome things out of that e6300, and with this eVGA MB was handmade for overclocking, I've made up my mind.

Do any of you guys have some good links for oc'ing as this will be new ground for me, and I want to get the most out of the cpu, memory, vc etc. The main thing that seems to be really confusing me is messing with the mem timings.

also, thanks for the post on the quad, I will stick with my oc'd e6300 until it implodes and go crazy on a dx10 card or two in 6 mos. to a year. that frees up some money for a new psu when I go SLI.
December 31, 2006 4:44:44 PM

Quote:
[I don't know why anyone would pick a E6300 over a E6400. The prices are simply to close together and it makes no sense not go with the chip that has the better multiplier.


$40 doesn't seem like a big jump, but the whole purpose of the e6300 over the e6600 is $120, if I go with the e6400 then that drops my advantage to $80. What is the point in that? Also I've heard nothing but awesome things out of that e6300, and with this eVGA MB was handmade for

The 6400 is definitely way better than the 6300. You get a nice multiplier which allows Ram to work at 1:1 with a decent overclock at 3.2 Ghz, and remember that these things are binned according to capability, the 6300 not only requires the motherboard to work harder for the same CPU speed but has a lower maximum speed capability within itself. According to every review you will ever read on the 6300 versus 6400 versus 6600, the 6400 gives best bang for the buck. It's your money, but I had to make these same decisions when I built an early C2D system, and I chose the 6400, and time has shown it to be the right choice.
December 31, 2006 5:43:38 PM

Quote:
[I don't know why anyone would pick a E6300 over a E6400. The prices are simply to close together and it makes no sense not go with the chip that has the better multiplier.


$40 doesn't seem like a big jump, but the whole purpose of the e6300 over the e6600 is $120, if I go with the e6400 then that drops my advantage to $80. What is the point in that? Also I've heard nothing but awesome things out of that e6300, and with this eVGA MB was handmade for overclocking, I've made up my mind.

Do any of you guys have some good links for oc'ing as this will be new ground for me, and I want to get the most out of the cpu, memory, vc etc. The main thing that seems to be really confusing me is messing with the mem timings.

also, thanks for the post on the quad, I will stick with my oc'd e6300 until it implodes and go crazy on a dx10 card or two in 6 mos. to a year. that frees up some money for a new psu when I go SLI.Read Wusy's overclocking guide first...it's pretty thorough, and tells more than most "review site's" overclocking articles.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Core2Duo-Overcl...

If you have any more questions, or are confused by anything in Wusy's guide.. Post back with them, and we'll try and get you straightened out. GL :) 
!