Hi all, nice forum you've got here. Anyway, I was planning on building a new system in the coming weeks after the price drops on the core 2 processors. I purchased some DDR2-800 (4-4-4-12) Patriot ram a week or so ago on a good deal, so that part of my system is already set.

I had originally planned to get an E6600 and lower the multiplier to 8 so that I could run it at 8x400 [3.2GHz] and at a 1:1 ratio with the ram for the increased performance of running the ram in synchronous mode. Its possible that it would be able to hit 9x400 [3.6 GHz] (Ive got a Zalman 9500 with a good airflow case with 250mm fan), but that number seems pretty high and probably not likely to be achieved or even worth pushing it that far.

But now I have also recently considered a E6420, which I believe the only difference to be is that it is locked to an 8 multiplier instead of a 9 like the E6600. Other than this, is there any fundamental difference between these processors? At the same multiplier is the E6600 able to overclock higher and more reliably, statistically speaking? If there is no difference, than I guess it wouldn't be smart to get a E6600 if the E6420 can do the same thing at an 8 multiplier. They should only be $40 apart, and while budget is not really an issue, I wouldn't want to throw money away on unused features.

Or, on the other hand, would it just be better not to worry about running the ram synchronously and just push the processor to its limit at a 9x multiplier, leaving the fsb and ram slower at 667 or 533 speeds, while possibly getting a little bit more processor speed and leaving the rest of the system cooler.

If anyone has any opinions they would like to discuss I would be glad to hear them.

Thanks.

The difference between the e6400 and e6420 is the larger 4MB cache on the latter which is the same as the E6600 and up.

I think that any of those cpu's are damn good choices right now and will be even better after April 22nd when price cuts are to be announced (afaik the e6420 isnt released till then anyhow).

The key here is never to price watch after a purchase as you'll always be disappointed as the prices fall - "if only I'd waited" syndrome.

If you havn't bought yet - wait for the e6420 or lower price on the E6600 and enjoy a great proccy with massive oc headroom

For overclocking i would DEFINETLY go for the E6600, the lower FSB makes it a much easier chip to overclock (less stressful on the mobo).

Would you not then put much value then on using the RAM at a fast speed at 1:1? Keeping the fsb lower would either require the RAM to be used at a slower speed or asynchronously, both of which I would think would slow down performance. It seems it is necessary to stress the mobo to 400fsb to get the most out of the RAM.

I wouldn't assume anything about the 6420's overclock potential. Before assuming it will be a less expensive path to 6600 performance wait for the benches.
It reminds me of people waiting for the 4300 assuming it would be a cheaper path to 6300 performance.

I'd go with the e6600, it's higher binned in the intel process line, and the higher mult on it will allow for a higher overclock. And just to let you know the 4mb cache on the e6420 is a waste of money imo since the performance difference of 3.5% isn't worth the price difference

dumb question but would a OC guide for e6400 work with the e6420 while keeping things stable?

Yeah, an oc guide for all conroes by wusy works for any of them, the e6400 and e6700 or even the e6320 are all the same chip, just different names for them

the performance increase of 2mb >>> 4mb cache depends on what you are primarily using your comp for.

if you are gaming, its not much gain (1-3%). if you are video/audio editing or office productivity oriented, its a huge gain (8-15%).

Would you not then put much value then on using the RAM at a fast speed at 1:1? Keeping the fsb lower would either require the RAM to be used at a slower speed or asynchronously, both of which I would think would slow down performance. It seems it is necessary to stress the mobo to 400fsb to get the most out of the RAM.

It appears to me that you have missed the point i was trying to make.
Because the E6600 has the lower FSB but higher clock multiplier it would make it an easier chip to overclock to higher speeds.

Yes, but guess what, if you take an e4300 to 266fsb, the same speed of the e6600, you just got your 8-15% back instead of buying an e6420. I say just get an e6700 when the price drop happens for $300 because that's an amazing value there especially for overclocking

and if you OC your 6420, you regain your 8-15% advantage

But it costs a considerable amount more for a 6420, you could buy very high end aircooling for the e4300 and take that up 3.4ghz or so, while the e6420 for the same price you would have to keep the stock cooler and would only reach 3.2ghz or so

then its pretty even all around, no?

4300 + very high end cooler = $200 = 3.4ghz + 2mb cache
6420 + stock cooler = $200 = 3.2ghz + 4mb cache

again, there's not much difference between 2mb cache and 4mb cache, when it comes to gaming, but when it comes to office productivity, there is.


but to get back on topic....

i too will take the 6600 over the 6420

[quote="disposablehero"]
again, there's not much difference between 2mb cache and 4mb cache, when it comes to gaming, but when it comes to office productivity, there is.[quote]

What kind of office do you work in?!?! Office productivity = opening word/excel spreadsheets at an "accelerated rate"?

Dude, with the e4300 being at $113, you could get a very cheap watercooler to make the total $200, but oh well, I prefer the e6600 over both anyways

i work in an office that uses 8,500,000+ cell spreadsheets that are supposed to update frequently throughout the day. being able to update in 10 min, rather than 30 min = a more productive office.

i work in an office that converts 12,000+ page word docs to pdf at least once a day. having the secretary tell me its done 1 minute later instead of having to ask her to go make me coffee while we wait for it to finish = a more productive office.

i work in an office that compresses and archives terabytes of data every friday. being able to get it done on a friday afternoon instead of a whole overnight session = a more productive office.

any other questions?!?!?!

But more memory and a faster cpu would make more of a substantial difference than cache unless your business uses an ibm power5 or power6 cpu that include a 35mb external l3 cache that all the cpus in the workstation can share, and that would make a big impact for certain applications, so I would only agree with you to some extent on that. My guess is the place you work at either uses 32bit sql windows or 64bit sql windows, because teh sql windows for servers make better use of memory and if you have lots of memory and go 64bit, that would give you a far greater increase than just an extra 2mb of cache, think about that, and that not all people here are using their computers for working on a major enterprise

What GPU are you going to purchase?

With the $40 difference I may go with the E6600.
However, I would strongly consider moving even lower than the E6420 is the saved cash would translate into a better GPU.

Personally, I'd say if the op must have the 4mb cache, just get an e6320 wtih a dq6 and oc that, ninja and I have discussed this quite a bit, and have found out that his dq6 can hit over 550fsb stable, so that would transilate into almost 4ghz, or more than you would reach on air safely on an e6320 anyways. I've been thinking about this for quite a bit now, and I'd say the e6320 with a nice cooled 965p board like the dq6 and some nice cpu cooling, and you'd get as far as you ever would with a cheap mobo and the e6600, so if you get the cheaper cpu, when upgrade time comes, you already have the high end mobo and cooling 8)

my disagreement was with your statement that "the 4mb cache on the e6420 is a waste of money imo since the performance difference of 3.5% isnt worth the price difference". its not 3.5% performance difference in an office productivity scenario, its much higher, so the price difference may very well be worth it. for a game machine, i agree, its not worth it.

i never said anything about a 2mb cache increase to 4mb being better than increased memory and a faster cpu. thats just ridiculous.