E6600 or E6400

before you start making comments, I do not over clock at all.

I need to know how much of a performance hit I would be taking if I went to the e6400 instead of the e6600?

basic stats:

E6600: 4 meg cache and little bit faster, 1066 FSB

E6400: 2 meg cache and little bit slower, 1066 FSB

I know that the L2 cache can make a big difference, but I need to know how much so I can justify payin the extra money for it.

theres a $90 price differnce there. I can find plenty of reviews comparing the e6600 model and up, but nothing inclusive of the e6400. And I can no longer find the CPU price/performance charts that Tomshardware used to have posted :?

Just a gamer here, potentially gonna be installing Vista with this machine as well, so when commenting please take that into account.

And as always, if this has already been posted, please post a link to the thread for me.
2 answers Last reply
More about e6600 e6400
  1. If your not going to oc i would get the E6600, you'll get a little more life out of your system. L2 cache can make a big difference, but only if your doing something like video editing. In gaming the difference between 2mb of cache and 4mb is pretty much unnoticeable (maybe a 5% performance increase).

    Ive noticed alot of people cant find the charts. I dont really see what the problem is, there pretty easy to find.

  2. gee I feel like smackin my head into the keyboard lol. thanks for pointing out the obvious its exactly what I wanted.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance Cache