6300 vs 6600 oc'ing

Junk · 15 Jan 2007 at 18:15

hi chaps,

i want a fast fast system, and the 6600 has more cache than the 6300 and 6400.

which would you recommend?

my line of thinking is that th extra multiplier and cache will give me a bonus with the 6600, what are your experienced thoughts?

jongeeone · 15 Jan 2007 at 18:29

Erm the cache only gives around 4% difference in perfomance which isnt noticable. I went for the e6300 as its bang for buck and loves to be overclocked, reports of around 4.2ghz for a e6300 which is impressive. The e6600 is a good but its also expensive when the 63 will do the same speeds out the box

Junk · 15 Jan 2007 at 19:22

thanks.

have a little money to burn, so may go for the high multiplier to make life a little easier.

El Jimben · 15 Jan 2007 at 19:52

You could always go for the 6400 over the 6300

ledbythereaper · 15 Jan 2007 at 21:05

Any links to the 4.2Ghz E6300? I have one sat in the motherboard waiting for a graphics card, case and water cooling kit.

OC_A64 · 15 Jan 2007 at 21:13

jongeeone said:
Erm the cache only gives around 4% difference in perfomance which isnt noticable. I went for the e6300 as its bang for buck and loves to be overclocked, reports of around 4.2ghz for a e6300 which is impressive. The e6600 is a good but its also expensive when the 63 will do the same speeds out the box

4.2 will be a REAL push for 6300's. Well, the CPU will be fine to 4.2 but getting a mobo capable of 600 FSB is not easy at all.

beast · 16 Jan 2007 at 11:23

I've owned both, and I prefer the 6600 for the better multi's. It also clocks higher on stock volts. There is quite a difference in test results in Sandra when both are at the same speed too.

easyrider · 16 Jan 2007 at 11:51

jongeeone said:
Erm the cache only gives around 4% difference in perfomance which isnt noticable. I went for the e6300 as its bang for buck and loves to be overclocked, reports of around 4.2ghz for a e6300 which is impressive. The e6600 is a good but its also expensive when the 63 will do the same speeds out the box

LOL

Reports of around 4.2ghz ?
with what hardware and cooling?

The 6600's usually clock higher than the 6300's.

All of the time.

simonnance · 16 Jan 2007 at 13:39

I went for the E6400, as i thought i might get a bit more of an overclock without pushing extreme volts into the chip, and the multi means i am less limited by the mobo FSB for what speeds i can hit!

I briefly thought about the E6600, but the jump from E6300 to E6400 is nowhere near that to E6600! Law of deminishing returns starts to kick in on how much extra performance (even at OC) you can get for that money.

OC_A64 · 16 Jan 2007 at 13:45

easyrider said:
LOL

Reports of around 4.2ghz ?
with what hardware and cooling?

The 6600's usually clock higher than the 6300's.

All of the time.

6300 here does MUCH better than 6600 under air/water. Pitty it's mobo limited @ 600 FSB though, she should be good for 4.4+ easily based on what I've seen

(phase cooled btw...)

easyrider · 16 Jan 2007 at 17:27

OC_A64 said:
6300 here does MUCH better than 6600 under air/water. Pitty it's mobo limited @ 600 FSB though, she should be good for 4.4+ easily based on what I've seen
(phase cooled btw...)

Yes indeed phase cooled..

jongeeone makes it sound like all 6300 will do this speed on normal cooling.

Not 500 quids worth of phase.

what mobo do you have that hits 600 FSB BTW?

OC_A64 · 16 Jan 2007 at 18:56

easyrider said:
Yes indeed phase cooled..

jongeeone makes it sound like all 6300 will do this speed on normal cooling.

Not 500 quids worth of phase.

what mobo do you have that hits 600 FSB BTW?

Totally agree on that front. Getting it on water would be an ask. With the right board you *maybe* lucky. The P5B needs a cold CPU to help push the FSB speed up especially when shooting for high FSB speeds.

Mobo used was P5B vanilla, one of the cheapest 965's you can buy. Budget overclocking to the max