Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PentiumD 3.20ghz vs E6700 2.6ghz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 5, 2008 6:53:08 PM

I'm running the following motherboard in my bargain bin gaming machine.

http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en-us/mb/content.php?S_ID...

I currently have the 3.20ghz PentiumD (940 SL95W) processor in it. I see that the board supports a 2.66ghz Core2Duo chip (E6700 SL9S7). Obviously the E6700 runs at a faster FSB speed and uses less voltage. Both chips have the same amount of L2 cache (4MB). The E6700 runs at an overall higher clock speed.

I am running Windows XP (32bit). I currently have 2GB of 533mhz RAM (Kingston).

Is the E6700 significantly better than the 940? Will the 2.66ghz E6700 significantly outperform the 3.20ghz 940? If so, where is a good place to get the E6700 chip? I've checked NewEgg and a few other sites but they all seem to be carrying the E6750.

I mainly use the machine to play games and I already have a GeForce 8800GT with 512MB of RAM on it. I do the occassional DVD encoding but other than that I do not use many applications that are CPU intensive.
a c 126 à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:02:40 PM

Oh yes. the E6700 will mop the floor with the 940. But they are very hard to find.

I would suggest Ebay. Intel doesn't make the E6700s anymore. In fact the E6750s will be out soon too.
November 5, 2008 7:05:24 PM

Yes, the E6700 is much better than the PD940. The E6750 is pretty much the same as the E6700. The mobo should support it.

If your motherboard could support it, I'd go for the E8400.

Also, if you don't think you need a new processor, why waste the money. Your Pentium D can probably last a bit longer. Only upgrade if it'll be worth the $150+.
Related resources
November 5, 2008 7:10:50 PM

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm only considering doing the upgrade because Christmas is coming and I have some extra money. I had thought that the CPU prices would have dropped a lot by now because they are so old. Most of the places that I have found them want ~$350 though!?!? That seems ridiculous when E8400s are going for less than that.

Where else besides eBay can I look for old E6700s?
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:13:50 PM

Hard to find the e6700, if you do it is way overpriced, found one for like 350.

Might find a E6400 for arround $200. I have one and Like many, have it OCed to 3.2 GHz. NOTE not much diff between 6400/6700 if OCed to 3.2. Not sure your into overclocking. And Yes both will beat the pentium D940

Here are two places. CAN Not vouch for estore. But do a google for E6400.

http://www.nowdirect.com/exec/partInfo/part_detail.tsb?...

http://www.compumusic.com/p162876.htm
November 5, 2008 7:14:47 PM

If it will support the e8400 than try the e7200. it is cheap($120) and can OC big time (3.8Ghz).
a c 123 à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:16:57 PM

An e4x00 will "mop the floor" with a 940D, especially if you overclock it.
a c 83 à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:19:05 PM

Considering how bad the netburst arch is, you'd be surprised what would beat that 940. I remember when the C2D first came out, there were three basic groupings. The first were the C2D based machine (including the 6300) at the top, with the Athlon64s in the middle, followed by the 9xx series at the bottom. I was impressed that the lowend 1.86MHz, 2MB cache, 1066FSB 6300 could beat the highest clocked 9xx chips nearly at will. (there were only a few tests that the 9xx would win, and they didn't really matter.)

I don't think I'd bother upgrading the CPU however. If this is your "bargain bin gaming machine", keep putting the older things as you upgrade into it. Meaning as you upgrade your machine(s), put the old things into this computer. That way it sees upgrades, but as its not your primary gaming rig, you aren't actually spending money on it.
November 5, 2008 7:19:15 PM

Try the e2180 @ $70 or the e5200 @ $80.
November 5, 2008 7:20:42 PM

I will look into the E6400. Will that be better than the 940D?

I don't mind overclocking, in fact I've been overclocking chips since the P3/450 days. But I'd rather not try to do it on this cheap-o BioStar board. If I had an Asus board, that would be another story.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:24:19 PM

His MB only supports the following c2d's:
E6x00
E4x00
E21xx
November 5, 2008 7:26:09 PM

4745454b said:
If this is your "bargain bin gaming machine", keep putting the older things as you upgrade into it.


Thanks for the reply. When I said bargain bin, I meant that I haven't spent much money on it. The machine is my primary gaming machine. I just don't have a lot of money to build an insane, top of the line machine and my gaming is limited to about 10 hours a week of WoW that I play with my g/f.

The concensus seems to be that the E6xxx series chips will definitely beat the 940D despite running at slower clock speeds. I thought that was probably the case but I didn't want to go spend a couple of hundred dollars and deal with the hassle of taking the computer apart for only a slight upgrade.
November 5, 2008 7:30:26 PM

ah.

The e2180 2Ghz to start with a 10 multiplier for $70 would be a nice economy cpu. A lot cooler and still probably equal or better than the 940. I got rid of my pent d 6 months ago. It was a dog.
a c 83 à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:31:17 PM

Ohhhh, that bargain bin. In that case, yes, get any of the C2D based chips that you can. I'm not sure if the 21xx (stock) will beat the 940, but any of the 4 or 6 series chips should. (yes, stock) Not only will they be faster, but they will consume less power, emit less heat, etc.

WoW isn't very CPU intensive, are you sure you need this upgrade?
November 5, 2008 7:34:16 PM

4745454b said:
WoW isn't very CPU intensive, are you sure you need this upgrade?


I don't need it for WoW but I am going to try to play GTA IV when it comes out. I realize that the system will be underpowered for that game but I'd like to get as close as I can to having a decent GTA IV experience.

Do you think that the nvidia 9800 series cards are significantly better than the 8800 series? I'm not going to SLi them or anything.
November 5, 2008 7:35:33 PM

well. if his mobo was running a fire hot 940 he can stretch OCing a e2180 just enought to get him another 6 months out of his system.
a c 83 à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:39:49 PM

Gotcha. Now I'm up to speed I hope.

In some cases the 9 series cards ARE the 8 series cards. The 9500GT is nothing more then an 8600GT. The 9600GSO is an 8800GS. The 9800GT is an 8800GT. Some of the nine cards are different/new, (9600GT, 9800GTX) but others are simply 8 series cards with new names. I don't think they are "significantly better", but seeing as the named 8 series cards are being phased out, the 9s are probably a better buy.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 8:19:52 PM

For performance diff. check this chart (you can select the desired benchmark - use processor intensive vs not using GPU weigthed ones for determining which proc to get.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2...

Bear in mind these are normally stock so if you have a modest OC you would have to factor that in
November 5, 2008 8:24:20 PM

Thanks Chief. That is really helpful.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 9:22:03 PM

From the chart that Chief linked, E2180 or E6700 isn't that much better than the PentiumD 940.

Im just playing devil's advocate here, maybe you should consider this:

Buy a new motherboard with your up'n coming money and invest in a much better CPU cooler. You can then OC your CPU, I've heard to about 4ghz or more.

What's holding you back the most is your mobo, not your CPU. At $150 listing from Tigerdirect for a E6600, that's a nice new mobo with CPU cooler that will support E5x00, E7x00, E8x00, and Q9xx0 processors.

Other major etailers, Fry's, Newegg, Microcenter, doesn'te even list E6x00 CPUs anymore.
November 5, 2008 9:43:57 PM

I'm not really interested in replacing the motherboard. I'd rather just get the most out of the current board and leave it at that. Don't get me wrong, I've been a fan of Asus boards for a long time and I'd much rather have one of those in my case than this BioStar brand board.

I don't want to overclock anything either. I'd rather just run everything at standard specs and be done with it. I realize that this forum is all about getting the most out of the hardware so I appreciate where you are coming from. But I've been using computers since the 286/4mhz and I think the thrill of squeezing every last ounce out of the machine worn off. At this point in my life I just want to turn the thing on and know it will work and not have to constantly worried about CPU temps and voltages and core multipliers and all that.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 10:14:40 PM

flyinin15sec
Did you go thru the ones that are more related to processor vs GPU. In GPU benchmarks, unless the processor is a bottleneck, they should be relatively close as the determining factor is the GPU.

If you look at PCMark 05-CPU the E6400 only beets the 940 by 2%. But if you look at H.264 Encoding, or 3D Studio Max 9, the gain is like 23% and 34% improvement over 940.

And that does not include the bump from 2.12 GHz -> 3.2 GHz on a $100 MB. That wopuld totally wipe the floor of a 940.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 10:14:58 PM

Well I was going to suggest a E21xx and say OC it, but you said you don't want to, So the E6600 would probably be your best bet.

And Tigerdirect has it as someone mentioned earlier, Ill repost the link

Price with Shipping to my area(yours may vary) $161.98
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 12:11:15 AM

dave562 said:
I'm not really interested in replacing the motherboard. I'd rather just get the most out of the current board and leave it at that. Don't get me wrong, I've been a fan of Asus boards for a long time and I'd much rather have one of those in my case than this BioStar brand board.

I don't want to overclock anything either. I'd rather just run everything at standard specs and be done with it. I realize that this forum is all about getting the most out of the hardware so I appreciate where you are coming from. But I've been using computers since the 286/4mhz and I think the thrill of squeezing every last ounce out of the machine worn off. At this point in my life I just want to turn the thing on and know it will work and not have to constantly worried about CPU temps and voltages and core multipliers and all that.


I understand what you are saying and that is why I suggested a new motherboard. You don't have overclock, overclocking was just a suggestion so your 940 could perform a bit better. A new motherboard, opens up the options for a lot of newer processors. A E8400 at 3ghz is just a drop in that can give your system alot more years. The Asus was just an example, you can find a ton of boards at the $100 dollar range or less that can support the newer Penryn processors.

Ultimately it's your choice, just giving you another option.
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 12:19:58 AM

RetiredChief said:
flyinin15sec
Did you go thru the ones that are more related to processor vs GPU. In GPU benchmarks, unless the processor is a bottleneck, they should be relatively close as the determining factor is the GPU.

If you look at PCMark 05-CPU the E6400 only beets the 940 by 2%. But if you look at H.264 Encoding, or 3D Studio Max 9, the gain is like 23% and 34% improvement over 940.

And that does not include the bump from 2.12 GHz -> 3.2 GHz on a $100 MB. That wopuld totally wipe the floor of a 940.



Yes, you're right. The jump between a 940 and E2160 was not alot, but between the 940 and E6600 it was alot more. I looked at only the gaming, some scores were in fact 50% difference.
November 6, 2008 12:44:05 AM

here are the exact benches between a 940 and e6700

come on you guys, use the effing charts.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2006/comp...[202]=on&prod[230]=on

Seeing that E6700's were phased out long ago, I doubt you could find one with a reasonable price. At best, I would think you could find a new one at $170. May I offer an alternative? Why don't you pick up a nice AMD 6000 and new AMD 780G motherboard?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
It costs under $160 for both, and everything you currently have (including RAM and graphics card) should work fine with it.
The AMD 6000 performs variably against the E6600 and E6700, sometimes better then both, sometimes loosing by a good margin.

Here are the pros and cons of getting an entirely new motherboard-
1. Huge upgrade room.
2. Excellent chipset.
3... it's new, less likely to fail then your older one.
4. It's probably a lot cheaper then the E6600 or E6700
5. The audio is better, and the board has way more features.

Cons
1. The AMD 6000 sometimes performs slower then the E6600/6700.

I dunno why you're reluctant to upgrade your motherboard. That Biostar motherboard you have sucks anyway.
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 12:44:18 AM

4745454b said:
The 9600GSO is an 8800GS.

Be very wary of the 9600GSO. Zotac, and I assume others, have released "new" versions which are cut down G94s (ie. 9600GT), not G92s. They only have 48 stream processing units, but 512/1024MB RAM and a 256-bit memory bus.
November 6, 2008 12:51:17 AM

4745454b said:
Gotcha. Now I'm up to speed I hope.

In some cases the 9 series cards ARE the 8 series cards. The 9500GT is nothing more then an 8600GT. The 9600GSO is an 8800GS. The 9800GT is an 8800GT. Some of the nine cards are different/new, (9600GT, 9800GTX) but others are simply 8 series cards with new names. I don't think they are "significantly better", but seeing as the named 8 series cards are being phased out, the 9s are probably a better buy.


If I'm not mistaken, the 9800GT offers tri-SLI over the 8800GT (which is kind of pointless, seeing that tri-SLI has really bad scaling), and the 9800GT is 55NM, so it will run cooler and use less power.

@ randomizer, as long as you look at the specs, this should not be a problem.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
All of the 9600GSO's at the egg afaik are 96 SP w/ 348/768MB GDDR3... with the exception of this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
which is carp.
a c 83 à CPUs
November 6, 2008 12:53:21 AM

So to recap, there are now 3 different GSO's out there?

192bit 384MB cards that are good.
128bit 512MBs that are ok, but not that good.
256bit 512MBs that are junk because the number of SP is to low.

Seriously, I might boycott Nvidia simply for this reason. They have good cards, but my decoder ring broke trying to figure out which one I should buy.
a c 83 à CPUs
November 6, 2008 12:56:48 AM

Correct Dave, but they have the same specs overall. Memory bus, number of SP, etc is all the same. (as are the video playback abilities.) Stock 9800GTs shouldn't be any faster then overclocked 8800GTs. (did they raise the clock rates for the 9800GT?) There are a few differences which you pointed out, but its the same card. (more or less)
November 6, 2008 1:07:58 AM

4745454b said:
So to recap, there are now 3 different GSO's out there?

192bit 384MB cards that are good.
128bit 512MBs that are ok, but not that good.
256bit 512MBs that are junk because the number of SP is to low.

Seriously, I might boycott Nvidia simply for this reason. They have good cards, but my decoder ring broke trying to figure out which one I should buy.


So let me get this straight, the 192bit 384MB cards are better than the 256bit 512MB cards simply because they have more processors? I can understand the logic, but intuition says that you're better off with a higher bit rate. What is the difference? Are the 192bit cards performing better on current generation apps because the 256bit cards aren't being fully utilized yet?
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 1:08:53 AM

The 9800GT is both 65nm and 55nm, which one you get depends on when you bought it.
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 1:21:49 AM

dave562 said:
So let me get this straight, the 192bit 384MB cards are better than the 256bit 512MB cards simply because they have more processors? I can understand the logic, but intuition says that you're better off with a higher bit rate. What is the difference? Are the 192bit cards performing better on current generation apps because the 256bit cards aren't being fully utilized yet?

The 192-bit memory bus is fine at lower resolutions without AA. A 9600GSO (the good one) will beat a 9600GT without AA generally. However, turn up the AA and the card chokes from lack of memory bandwidth.

Take my usual car analogy for example. Pretend that every lane on a road can only have one car on it at a time without causing traffic problems. A 20 lane road (256-bit) vs a 15 lane road (192-bit) has 12 cars on it, one in each lane. Assuming nothing else is different, neither road should have traffic problems. If you now add in 5 more cars (turn on AA), the 20 lane road still has 3 lanes free, while the 15 lane road is doubling up on some lanes, causing a bottleneck and slowing down traffic overall.

With a reduced number of stream processors, you are simply cutting back on raw processing power and it will be slower overall, no matter what settings you run.

At the end of these roads there are car parks (for some reason) At each car park, each car needs to have a ticket to raise the gate so they can get in and park. One particular car park can give out tickets to 10 cars at a time because there are 10 ticket machines (crazy, I know). Another car park can only process 5 cars at a time. No matter what the traffic conditions are like on the roads leading to the car park, the car park that can process 10 cars at a time is always going to be more efficient. Even if you had a 100 lane road, you can still only give out tickets to 5 cars at a time at the car park.

Yes, the second analogy is quite poor, but I've never done that one before. Made it up as I was going along.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 10, 2008 1:13:36 PM

I use a 6700 currently, i might be will to part with, since my board supports higher.

email me and lets see if we can work something out.

E

edwardwstanley@hotmail.com
a c 83 à CPUs
November 10, 2008 5:09:49 PM

Quote:
So let me get this straight, the 192bit 384MB cards are better than the 256bit 512MB cards simply because they have more processors? I can understand the logic, but intuition says that you're better off with a higher bit rate. What is the difference? Are the 192bit cards performing better on current generation apps because the 256bit cards aren't being fully utilized yet?


Actually, they have the same number of SP, and the same core clock speeds. (not sure about SP speeds.) The difference is that the "odd" 9600GSO has 384MBs of DDR3 clocked at shy of 2GHz, while the 512MB card has DDR2 ram clocked at 1GHz. The card with more ram is bandwidth starved. If you could find one, as normal clocked 9600GSO with 512MBs of DDR3 ram at around 2GHz should be best. If I'm not mistaken however, that card is called the 9600GT.
a c 83 à CPUs
November 10, 2008 9:35:22 PM

D@mn you Nvidia and your naming scheme. Leads to confusion even among those who should know better. Let me sum up as best I can.

1) 9600GSO. 96SP, 384MBs of ram, 192bit bus, memory speeds about 1.8GHz. (DDR3)
2) 9600GSO. 96SP, 512/1GB of ram, 128bit bus, memory speeds about 1GHz. (DDR2)
3) 9600GSO. 48SP, 512/1GB of ram, 256bit bus, memory speeds about 1.8GHz (DDR3)

When I looked a couple of days ago the Zotec card isn't available on Newegg, so I suspect its a foreign market only card. (kind of like how the ATI 9550 was supposed to be until US markets wanted it also.) Card one is really the best as card two will be starved for memory bandwidth, and card three simply doesn't have enough SP. Whats the point of putting all that memory on a card that has so few SP?
a b à CPUs
November 10, 2008 9:43:03 PM

There are 1GB 8500GTs too. More RAM = more buyers.
January 4, 2009 5:11:55 PM

I have an e6700 that I'm not using anymore. I'll let it go for $250. I know it's stable at 3.6ghz without any voltage increase. Should hit 4ghz with a solid motherboard and a voltage bump. Always ran it water cooled, so it's never been hotter than 45c. I only stopped using it because I upped to an i7 system. I think I still have the oem cooler...not sure though.

Running folding at home, this thing would finish an SMP instance in 15-20 hours. It's a fast CPU. I was thinking about using it for an HTPC, but I'm too busy and broke now. jbavousett at yahoo dot com if you want it.
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2009 9:35:15 PM

You can almost by a quad for $250 :lol: 
January 4, 2009 10:09:36 PM

no almost to it lol
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2009 10:25:07 PM

Oh, well I was thinking AUD, but yea, in USD you can get a quad for $190. Why would you pay $250 for a 2.5-year-old CPU?
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2009 12:15:12 PM

+1 for the E2180/5200. Both OC very well. Once OCed to 3-3.2Ghz it's the same as a E8400.


!