Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6550 or E7400

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 28, 2009 11:49:46 AM

Hi,

I'm looking at two CPU's right now.

1) E6550 - 2.33Ghz - 4MB Cache - 1333Mhz FSB (G0)
2) E7400 - 2.80Ghz - 3MB Cache - 1066Mhz FSB (R0)

I wanted to know which one I should ditch out, and which I should keep. (sell of the other one.)

If you pay close attention to it, the E6550 has an extra MB of cache. The only downside to this CPU is the fact that its clocked 467Mhz lower then the E7400.

My real question here is, should I ditch out the E7400 and just OC the E6550 to 2.8Ghz? Plus, the E6550 has a 1333FSB.

More about : e6550 e7400

a b à CPUs
November 28, 2009 1:43:47 PM

If u ask me, i would choose E6550 coz 2 things, more cache and more FSB...
U can overclock it if u want later if u choose E6550, but if u choose E7400 then u still can OC'ing but doesn't have more cache and FSB...
November 28, 2009 2:20:22 PM

Any objecters to the idea? I also was thinking on going with the E6550.

I just checked... The E7400 has a 10.5 bus/core ratio. And the E6550 has a bus/core ratio of only 7.

Any ideas?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2009 2:53:36 PM

The E7400 is way better. It's 45nm instead of 65nm (runs cooler), is faster clock per clock due to newer architecture, overclocks better, and is already clocked higher.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2009 3:02:27 PM

The 1066 FSB with the 10.5 multiplier is better by far for overclocking.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2009 3:37:07 PM

ohh... I'm forget to considering it too (architecture)...
Yes, sorry guys, my mistakes, like bluescreen said, it's 45nm...
Godbrother, u know the answer...
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2009 4:34:08 PM

It's not new architecture. It is a die shrink with minor tweaks, but it is still superior.
November 30, 2009 4:59:53 PM

Hmm... I'm still in doubt, and I don't know why. 1333 Vs. 1066... 4MB Vs. 3MB.

I find it hard to accept it. The only difference is the fact that one is on 65 and the other on 45. The E6550 seems so much more better.

HELP! :D 
a c 172 à CPUs
November 30, 2009 6:36:52 PM

wa1 said:
If u ask me, i would choose E6550 coz 2 things, more cache and more FSB...
U can overclock it if u want later if u choose E6550, but if u choose E7400 then u still can OC'ing but doesn't have more cache and FSB...

Disagree. The E7200's higher internal multiplier and lower FSB make it much easier to overclock. I'd go with the E7200.

That's why I built a junkbox system with an E5200 (200 MHz X 12.5).
November 30, 2009 9:54:20 PM

jsc said:
Disagree. The E7200's higher internal multiplier and lower FSB make it much easier to overclock. I'd go with the E7200.

That's why I built a junkbox system with an E5200 (200 MHz X 12.5).


Hmm. Hmm.... Decisions decisions...
December 1, 2009 12:07:49 AM

I would use the E7400. 3.2GHz should be easy to do on that cpu, or you can go higher.
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2009 12:31:56 AM

BadTrip said:
It's not new architecture. It is a die shrink with minor tweaks, but it is still superior.

The 65nm E6550 is a conroe and the 45nm e7400 is a wolfdale, so "newer" architecture.

godbrother said:
Hmm... I'm still in doubt, and I don't know why. 1333 Vs. 1066... 4MB Vs. 3MB.

I find it hard to accept it. The only difference is the fact that one is on 65 and the other on 45. The E6550 seems so much more better.

HELP! :D 


1333MHz vs 1066MHz doesn't give the 1333 E6550 any advantages, because the E7400 has a higher multiplier, so the E7400 is clocked higher overall. The lower FSB also allows better overclocking.

E7400: Clocked higher, higher overclock-ability due to lower FSB/higher mutli, 45nm (cooler/uses less energy), better clock per-clock due to more efficient architecture.
E6550: 1 more mb of cache


If you're going by cache alone, the Pentium Ds have 4mb of cache, while Pentium Duals have 2mbs of cache...whereas a 2.0GHz Pentium Dual can beat a 3.2GHz Pentium D.

Look at the benchmarks:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2009 12:34:38 AM

E7400: 1868
vs
E6550: 1428
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2009 12:40:49 AM

Like my last post, i changed my mind coz I'm wrong...
E7400 is better like Vets said... :) 
December 1, 2009 12:43:45 AM

The main difference between Conroe and Wolfdale is the larger L2 cache in the E8xxx series. In the E7xxx it has half the L2 cache of the 6MB the E8xxx series have. Another improvement is the SSE 4 Extensions. Other than that, there aren't too many other major changes. Conroe is 65nm and the E6xxx version has 4MB of L2 cache.

I would get the E7400, personally. It has a higher default clock, higher CPU multiplier. I've seen E6550s hit 3.4GHz and I'm sure the E7400 can do much more. The E7400 is also 45nm versus the 65nm technology in E6550.

Bottom line: Get the E7400
December 1, 2009 7:44:09 AM

Alrighty, I'm going to keep the E7400 and sell off the E6550.

Anyone looking for a CPU? *AD* - It's like 10x better then any i7 out on the market today! :D 
!