/ Sign-up
Your question

Would a P4 Socket 775 3.4 be faster than C2D E6700/X6800 in any way?

  • CPUs
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
February 22, 2009 10:04:24 PM

I would greatly appreciate the help and lesson on CPUs and memory...

Would a Pentium 4 775 3.4 be faster than E6700 in any way in my case?

The only reason I ask is due to the processor speeds....

I have a Prescott Pentium 4 overclocked to 3.74 and am looking to upgrade it. The website for my motherboard tops out at the E6700 or X6800 CPU and the only thing I can change when I overclock it is the FSB. I want to keep the motherboard for now:

My P4 CPU has L1 cache of 16 Kb and L2 cache of 2MB and 800 MHz FSB

I currently have (2) 1GB of DDR2 667/PC5300 that have a latency on CPUZ of 3-3-3-8 with a frequency of 220Mhz. I think the autoconfigure in the bios has it running at 533...

The E6700 is stock at 2.66 and through research I can reach 297FSB stable on my board with clock multiplier of 10 making it 2.97Ghz. It has 4MB of L2 cache and 1066FSB. this would make the speed slower than my P4, but 2 cores, twice the l2 cache and 266 more FSB.

I do not know how high I could reach with the X6800 on the board(no research found with this processor), but it is rated at 2.93, so I hope at least 10% more overclock would be acheived(3.3). It also has 4MB of L2 cache and 1066FSB. This too would make the speed slower than my P4, but 2 cores, twice the l2 cache and 266 more FSB.

I do not want to flash the bios, for fear I will mess something up from a lot of research that I have done. so i want to use what I currently have:
version 2.40

Would anyone please help guide me to best option to max out my set-up?



More about : socket 775 faster c2d e6700 x6800

February 22, 2009 10:16:01 PM

any Core 2 Would be better than a Pentuim 4. Clock speed means nothing. Look where it got Intel with the P4. A 2GHz AMD single core was able to kill a P4 at 3GHz. It depends on the Archutechture and the Core 2 Duo's has a better Archutechture than that P4 and even better than AMD's Phenom II. But if you really want performance save your money and get a 45nm Quad from Intel.
February 22, 2009 11:34:31 PM

my board will not run that CPU or I would.
Related resources
a c 118 à CPUs
February 23, 2009 1:42:30 AM

jaq78 said:
my board will not run that CPU or I would.

About the only thing that a P4 3.4 will do faster than an E6700 is heat up your room. The E6700 is a much faster CPU and more efficient as well.
February 23, 2009 2:04:18 AM

what about the x6800? is it worth the extra money?
a c 118 à CPUs
February 23, 2009 2:12:54 AM

jaq78 said:
what about the x6800? is it worth the extra money?

How much does each of the chips cost? I wouldn't pay very much more for an X6800, especially knowing that such a chip likely had the snot overclocked out of it previously.
February 23, 2009 6:22:38 AM

even if you can find these chips. They are hard to find.
February 23, 2009 9:24:41 AM

on ebay the x6800 fetches $225, the e6700 fetches $125-175
February 23, 2009 9:28:27 AM

I would not waste any money on ebay and these chips for that price. For a few dollors more you can get the E8400 at newegg for $164.99

even though you would need a new board. But it is worth it. Or go with a Phenom II or the Core i7.

I would go for the e6700 if it was like $80 or $50
a c 173 à CPUs
February 23, 2009 11:52:57 AM

Would a Pentium 4 775 3.4 be faster than E6700 in any way in my case?

No. According to some benchmarks that PC Pro (British computer magazine) did a couple of years ago, an E6700 is probably more than 30% faster at stock speeds. C2D's and Q's have a much more efficient architecture.

Your motherboard and its rather limited memory I/O is going to be the limiting factor. Stock FSB of first gen C2D's is 266 MHz.

Intel EE's are very poor in terms of value.

OTOH, I ran my E6600 at 3.6 GHz.
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2009 12:08:29 PM

Please don't get fixated on clock speeds, as this measurement is really only relevant when comparing the same things. The "Gigahertz War" is over: What happened is that, in order to reach faster clock speeds, instructions were being cut into smaller and smaller pieces. There were overall gains for a while, but your P4 was the last generation of that design philosophy. As alluded to elsewhere in this thread, with higher clock speeds came higher power requirements and more and more heat. This simple fact of physics actively worked against the trend towards smaller and smaller components. These smaller traces and transistors (currently some 45 nanometers) decidedly do NOT like to run that hot and also have issues with 'leakage' when run with that much power. Think of it as two wires too close to each other: electricity can 'jump' from it's proper path. Bad for obvious reasons.

AMD made the break from that first, creating a slower but more efficient processor that did more work at the speeds it was running. For that reason they ended up in a dominant position against Intel for some time. The Core 2 was Intel's retaliation to AMD, and is much more efficient - processing more "Instructions Per Cycle" - than your Pentium 4 could ever hope to be: Some 25% - sometimes more, sometimes a little less depending on the measurement being taken. And it does that while comsuming less power and creating less heat.

Dug up a decent article for you, should you care to read it:,1697,1988794,00.a...
February 23, 2009 12:10:52 PM

jaq78 said:
on ebay the x6800 fetches $225, the e6700 fetches $125-175

If your willing to spend $225 on a used x6800, you would be better off buying the q6600 brand new for $180 from the Egg. And the only way your P4 would be faster is if the Core2 was defective in some way.