In defence of the E6400
Hi guys,
I'm looking at the overclocking prospects on the Core 2 range, but I'm a bit of an OC'ing n00b so I wanted to "think out loud" and see if you guys agree or disagree with my logic. What I'm trying to establish is which components will give you best real-world performance for their cost. I'm not trying to base my estimations on the very highest reported OC'ing figures people have had with their hardware; instead I try to present the expected performance range, from more conservative expectations to higher-end.
From what I've read on OC'ing boards, the OC'ing ability of Core 2 chips on air cooling becomes CPU-limited somewhere in the 3.4Ghz - 3.8Ghz range depending on chip. Some people are luckier than others and may report higher-end figures.
Meanwhile 680i chipset mobos, ASUS P5B Deluxes and Gigabyte DS3's can do 450-500 FSB, with a little degree of luck involved (the higher-end results being more dependable for the latter two boards than the 680s).
Micron D9 based RAM (such as Corsair Dominators) are known good overclockers, and you can reasonably expect to OC some 4-4-4-12 DDR800's to DDR1000 speeds (i.e. FSB 500) without slackening timings much or the chips going caput.
So, if you're looking for the air-OC'ing sweet spot, where you can get decent OC'ing results from all your hardware without crazily overvolting and have all components performing at their peak ranges, you want a configuration where your CPU is operating in the 3.4-3.8GHz range with an FSB of 450-500 (i.e. RAM timings DDR900-1000).
Which theoretically lands you squarely on the E6400's x8 multiplier. The x7 of the E6300 gives you 3.15-3.5GHz in the 450-500FSB range, a little low on the CPU, while results from OCer's using the E6600's x9 multiplier have reported that they're becoming CPU-limited with the FSB a little over 400, 425 max. Meanwhile with the E6400's x8 multiplier you're given a range of 3.6GHz-4.0GHz at 450-500FSB, and you're really not getting more than 4.0GHz with air cooling no matter how hard you wish to Santa.
The E6400 costs £20 more than the E6300, but will overclock to its limits without needing to push beyond the expected sweet spot of the current range of OC'ing mobos, and without pressuring quality Micron D9-based RAM. So, as I see it, if you want to push the current generation of Core 2 chips to its limits, while seeing your good-quality memory and mobo performing at their potential, you go for the E6400.
Considering this, and the fact that the extra 2mb of cache on the E6600 is only noticeable in real-world applications if you do video encoding (or if Superpi benchmarking is your hobby), why do people favour the E6300 and the E6600 while the E6400 goes comparatively ignored?
Hi guys,
I'm looking at the overclocking prospects on the Core 2 range, but I'm a bit of an OC'ing n00b so I wanted to "think out loud" and see if you guys agree or disagree with my logic. What I'm trying to establish is which components will give you best real-world performance for their cost. I'm not trying to base my estimations on the very highest reported OC'ing figures people have had with their hardware; instead I try to present the expected performance range, from more conservative expectations to higher-end.
From what I've read on OC'ing boards, the OC'ing ability of Core 2 chips on air cooling becomes CPU-limited somewhere in the 3.4Ghz - 3.8Ghz range depending on chip. Some people are luckier than others and may report higher-end figures.
Meanwhile 680i chipset mobos, ASUS P5B Deluxes and Gigabyte DS3's can do 450-500 FSB, with a little degree of luck involved (the higher-end results being more dependable for the latter two boards than the 680s).
Micron D9 based RAM (such as Corsair Dominators) are known good overclockers, and you can reasonably expect to OC some 4-4-4-12 DDR800's to DDR1000 speeds (i.e. FSB 500) without slackening timings much or the chips going caput.
So, if you're looking for the air-OC'ing sweet spot, where you can get decent OC'ing results from all your hardware without crazily overvolting and have all components performing at their peak ranges, you want a configuration where your CPU is operating in the 3.4-3.8GHz range with an FSB of 450-500 (i.e. RAM timings DDR900-1000).
Which theoretically lands you squarely on the E6400's x8 multiplier. The x7 of the E6300 gives you 3.15-3.5GHz in the 450-500FSB range, a little low on the CPU, while results from OCer's using the E6600's x9 multiplier have reported that they're becoming CPU-limited with the FSB a little over 400, 425 max. Meanwhile with the E6400's x8 multiplier you're given a range of 3.6GHz-4.0GHz at 450-500FSB, and you're really not getting more than 4.0GHz with air cooling no matter how hard you wish to Santa.
The E6400 costs £20 more than the E6300, but will overclock to its limits without needing to push beyond the expected sweet spot of the current range of OC'ing mobos, and without pressuring quality Micron D9-based RAM. So, as I see it, if you want to push the current generation of Core 2 chips to its limits, while seeing your good-quality memory and mobo performing at their potential, you go for the E6400.
Considering this, and the fact that the extra 2mb of cache on the E6600 is only noticeable in real-world applications if you do video encoding (or if Superpi benchmarking is your hobby), why do people favour the E6300 and the E6600 while the E6400 goes comparatively ignored?
Last edited:
