Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6400 to E6500 upgrade

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 24, 2010 7:50:31 PM

Hi !
I would like to upgrade my CPU and add 1GB more to my current RAM. My specs are :

Intel Dual Core E6400 2.13 GHz CPU (10066 MHz FSB, 2MB cache)
MS 7318 motherboard with VIA P4M890 chipset (max RAM bus speed 266 MHz)
Nvidia Geforce 7650
1GB RAM, Vista

A similar problem can be found here:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/250588-10-upgrade-e...

I'm considering the 2.93 GHz (11*266 MHz) CPUs like E7500 (3MB cache) or E6500 (2MB cache) - the second is preferable, due to a lower price).
I need it for a faster FULLHD playback and multimedia formats conversion (not for games !). Software like VLC, MPC HC (external/internal codec combinations), or Mirillis Splash are still too slow - H264 files faster than 15 Mbps or those with 30fps
stutter (excepting Splash which has a small stuttering in full screen mode). I know that my RAM bus is slow, but will the performance be increased in this case using a faster CPU ? I know.. i should buy a new motherboard, but this means a new RAM, graphic card, etc., a solution that i find expensive because i don't want to invest a lot of money in it. Besides, the configuration i'm considering exists already on the market, and it doesn't worth to build it by myself anymore.
My PC performance indexes are:

CPU 5,0
RAM 4,1
Graphics 4,3
Graphics (Games) 4,7
Primary Drive 5,8

Is the Bus/Core ratio a fixed number (like in the Intel datasheet) or does it change automatically ? Does the extra amount of cache increase the performance (2MB at E6500 to 3MB at E7500) or is it insignificant ?

Thanks!

More about : e6400 e6500 upgrade

a b à CPUs
March 24, 2010 8:03:48 PM

Bumping your RAM alone may solve your issue. 1GB RAM on Vista does not allow for good performance.

What's the price difference on the E7500 vs E6500? You'd see a definite improvement with the E7500.

Also, have you considred overclocking your E6400? My thought is you won't see that much of an improvement with the E6500 when a little overclocking on the E6400 could get you the same boost.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2010 8:27:44 PM

Second that - your CPU is fine, there would be little point in upgrading to another processor of similar architecture and just slightly higher clocks. I dont know what that mobo is like for overclocking, but you might be able to push it to E6500 levels just by altering the FSB through the BIOS.

I'm only guessing here but your mobo probably takes DDR2 ram. Buy a nice new 4Gb kit and you will be rocking! Easy to install - just take the side off, pull the old ones out and push the new ones in :)  Can be a bit stiff though lol.
Related resources
a c 172 à CPUs
March 24, 2010 9:06:04 PM

Will your motherboard support the newer chips with or without a BIOS upgrade?
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2010 11:45:06 PM

Are you talking about the 65nm Core2Duo E6500 Conroe, or the 45nm PentiumDualCore E6500 Wolfdale?

Make sure your mobo can support 45nm CPUs before considering the E7400, E7500, etc
March 25, 2010 7:49:53 PM

The mobo is an Medion one made for ALDI (yes, i know...). It doesn't allow overcklocking, i made today a BIOS update and didn't notice any speed improvement. I'dont know whether it offers support for Wolfdale ( i was reffering to 65nm Core2Duo E6500 Conroe, CPU that is no longer manufactured by Intel, i found this out today on their site). 4GB of RAM makes problems, though
supported from the VIA's chipset(some people reported on forums they had problems with the soundcard). Unfortunately, Medion does not offer very much information related to their products (the older BIOS versions didn't support Conroe, but i don't kow anything about the newest one (1.13)). Is there any other Dual Core Conroe CPU at aprox. 3 GHz (i'm not ready to spend more than 100 euro)?
March 25, 2010 11:55:11 PM

The E6850 is 3 Ghz (4 Mb L2 cache). But if you're running a E6400 now, the highest you can go is probably an E6700. Both require a 65nm board. And a swap from E6400 to E6500 is definitely not worth it. My understanding is the rule-of-thumb is you should be able to get at least a 50% speed increase before it's economically prudent to upgrade the CPU. Going from a E6400 to an E6500 doesn't cut it. Neither does upgrading to E6700. If your board can run at 45nm then an Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 at 3.0 Ghz (versus the E6400's 2.13, 2Mb L2) is almost there.

I just went through this upgrading my Dell Optiplex 745 to a 755. The 745 mobo running a E6400 (1066 FSB) was limited to a E6700 max. But with the 755 mobo (45nm, 1333 FSB) I can run the E6850, or if I want, pick up from e-bay a Core 2 Quad Q6500 or Q6600. Used E6850 CPUs are going for $80 to $90 bids.

Either way, it's still the EOL socket 775 architecture. It works for me because I only run business applications of which my scanning and voice recognition applications suck power.

Oh, I swapped out my RAM for 1Gb X 4 DDR2 Corsair memory. That memory swap was the single best thing I did. Win XP only sees about 3.5 of it, but the matched set runs much better than the OEM 1Gb X 2 mismatched memory that was installed.
March 26, 2010 4:55:26 PM

Sorry for my mystake. I wrote above that my mobo older BIOS versions didn't support Conroes... It was about
Wolfdales.
March 27, 2010 9:13:41 PM

I upgraded today the RAM with an extra 1GB (the Crucial RAM utility says i'm not allowed more than 2 Slots * 1 GB). My system performance RAM index is the same, moreover, the pagefile.sys has become bigger (from 1,3 GB to 2,4 GB).
When i disabled pagefile.sys the system overall performance got worse, and the kernel was still storing data into the file. Why ?
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2010 4:13:02 AM

If Your on a real tight budget - Replace the MB an OC the E6400, many (myself included) hit 3.2 Ghz. (thats a 50% increase in CPU speed) for around $100.

Pick a good MB, then later upgrade to a C2Q (may be hard to find)

Best option is upgrade system, But That cost Bucks, or pounds.
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2010 7:06:30 PM

fullhd_fan said:
I upgraded today the RAM with an extra 1GB (the Crucial RAM utility says i'm not allowed more than 2 Slots * 1 GB). My system performance RAM index is the same, moreover, the pagefile.sys has become bigger (from 1,3 GB to 2,4 GB).
When i disabled pagefile.sys the system overall performance got worse, and the kernel was still storing data into the file. Why ?


Keep your pagefile enabled...windows likes it that way. And, yes, your pagefile gets larger when there is more RAM. The size of the file is in relation to RAM. My pagefile is 6434MB on 64-bit Vista because I have 6GB of RAM installed.

So, you now have 2GB of RAM? Ignoring the index, how do things feel? Is anything faster?
March 29, 2010 10:11:48 AM

well, only a bit. It responds faster to some commands, especially in those appps which are CPU an memory extensive (nero 7, multimedia format conversion, opening a lot of tabs with youtube videos in the same browser window, switching between windows), but the overall performance is unsignificant and almost unnoticeable.
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2010 4:56:53 PM

@andy: I don't think his motherboard supports Wolfdale processors.

@fullhd_fan: Run CPU_Z and double check that the RAM is running in dual channel mode, not single channel. Makes a difference.
March 29, 2010 9:48:06 PM

it is running in single channel mode.
!