Having lapped your CPU shouldn't be an issue when you come to sell it. You might have the opportunity to sell it to 10 people instead of 20, but the value will be the same. What dictates the bottom line value is how it clocked, and what the temperatures were when you clocked it.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
e6600 or go e8400 or quad?
- Thread starter mathwat
- Start date
well it won't go past 3.6 no matter what volts or multi, the vid is 1.325
and the temps in my sig is under water.well it won't go past 3.6 no matter what volts or multi, the vid is 1.325
Very few E6600's will go through 3.6GHz. Many won't do 3.4GHz.
err...show me in his complete post below where "He's only on about his CPU score?"
It was kind of cut though the middle, early e6600 were generally awesome clockers but then production of the cpu's changed location and the new items were pretty poor clockers when compared to early e6600
I had an early 37B E6600 and if only I had the right board at the time I was certain it would hit 4GHz under my watercooling setup, damn that old P5N-E mb!!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,731
- Location
- Sol
Q6600 G0 for the win WOOT
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,944
- Location
- Aberlour, NE Scotland
Nope. Sorry, i mean total score. The rest of the rig is identical to my siggy apart from the cpu. Here's the full comparison:-
3Dmark06
[email protected] = 13461
[email protected] = 14044
[email protected] = 15363 Obviously higher as 3DM06 actually uses 4 cores.
A 3.6Ghz E6600 does not hold the graphics card back at all. All increases in cpu speed from 3Ghz onwards (3/3.2/3.4/3.6Ghz) only resulted in a couple of hundred marks for each extra step.
Just for some extra info, the E6600 is clocked at 3.6Ghz (9x400 or 8x450 it does'nt mind which) with 1.42v and watercooled with very low 20's at idle and mid 30's when gaming. Highest temp i have seen is 52 degrees while running Prime small fft's during the last warm spell we had. The vid is 1.3500 and the stepping is L702C486 and it's a SL9ZL.
The E8500 i had needed 1.4v for 4.2Ghz and 1.52v+ to go further. As i was one of the first to have one i (stupily) did'nt realise that i should'nt be giving it that kind of volts whereupon it started to degrade and i lost all my previous stable overclocks.
By the time new games come out that need more powerful cpus we will have Nehalem and tri channel memory. If you have a cpu that will do more than 3.4Ghz now i just don't see any point of upgrading. This is just my own view which i am fully entitled to.
I hope you will enjoy your new cpu but i just think you may be dissapointed.
yup, a difference of 600 3dmark points amounts to a fat lot of nothing in real game use, you simply wouldn’t notice it. going from an already fast c2d to a faster c2d makes nigh on no difference as many have said in this thread already.
I am sorry to disagree. It makes hell of difference in the game I play. In IL2 Forgotten Battles (OpenGL2), I found it went up by 30 fps in every test and I used even higher settings using nHancer (AA SLI 64xS and AF 16x @ 1920 x1200). Even the Q6660 did not go faster than the the E6600 under the same conditions. This was a major topic with guys on Teamspeak from all over the world. The main reason......because like many games only one core is used. We have even moved other incidentals like TrackIR 4 to the another core. One the guys from the eastern seaboard of the US has a very similar setup to me but runs a quad and he is running at many fps lower than I do. We even use nHancer with the same settings. This is not the occassional test, we spend hours on line flying with and against each other and we even send nHancer settings information to each other to test.
Last edited:
Very interesting figures! I get 18002 (see my sig) with my E8400 @ 4.1ghz. So why is it higher? SLI graphics cards!
Last edited:
Youv'e got one dodgy CPU score on that 06' score matey... compared to mine..
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=6925015
You have to make a distinction between those games that are mainly CPU or GPU limited. IL2 obviously relies on the CPU for a lot of it's calculations. The key is to find out what category the games that you play falls into and choose accordingly.
I suspect that the majority of games are GPU limited, and therefore an increase in GPU power will warrant a higher a FPS than an increase in CPU speed.
It is not dodgy at all. It is not relevant for games that I play and that is why I went for the E8400 and not the Q6600. If you read one of my previous posts, I tested the Q6600 previously and found in my case that the E8400 fitted my needs EXACTLY. Of course you do realise that the 3DMark06 is weighted and shows the Q66600 in good light because it is written to use all 4cores on a quad, where as the game I play only uses one core.
but will the e6600 cope with the next gen gfx's from nvidia/ati coz i plan on crossfire with two next gen gfx's i think the e8400 will do much better job.
plus when i went from 3.5 on the e6600 to 3.6 3dmark went up by 700 points...so if i can get the e8400 to 4.0+ all the better when the new gfx's come out..and when i crossfire, with two 22" screens.
plus when i went from 3.5 on the e6600 to 3.6 3dmark went up by 700 points...so if i can get the e8400 to 4.0+ all the better when the new gfx's come out..and when i crossfire, with two 22" screens.
Yep...exactly what I did. See my other post on this subject.
I don't disagree. My GPU setup gives me the best of both worlds for my needs at the moment. Especially on a 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,944
- Location
- Aberlour, NE Scotland
Of course you are going to get a higher score with two graphics cards. Where else do you think the difference is coming from? That's where your improvement comes from, not a 4.1Ghz cpu.
I knew someone would give me the obvious answer that I already knew! See 7 posts above! I posted the question/statement because someone had already told me that I had a dodgy CPU. We of course know that is not true.
Last edited:
Exactly! GunRunner this is another thread where you have completely lost the plot
Exactly! GunRunner this is another thread where you have completely lost the plot
Your not reading all the posts are you?
