Allendale vs Conroe - extra cache worth it?

adslegend · 12 Mar 2007 at 12:53

Hi,

I'm deffo gonna get a C2D but I'm unsure if the extra cache is worth it for general gaming. I'd like the E6400 because of the good strap but the E6600 is tempting because of the extra cache. In my experience extra L2 only seemed to help people get higher 3D mark scores and I think benching is a bit sad if that's all you do. My San Diego at 2.9 wasn't much faster than my Winchester at 2.75 including encoding, despite having twice the L2.

On water would the 6600 likely clock much higher?

w3bbo · 12 Mar 2007 at 13:42

You have a higher chance of higher overclocks with a higher stock clockspeed(E6600). As you have stated the cache makes very little difference at this moment in time - whether it will or not in the future is debatable. You need to consider the main difference between the 6400 and the 6600 - an 8x multi vs a 9x multi i.e the 6400 will require a higher FSB to reach the same clockspeed.

Water will help both cpus reach a higher overclock as you can add more vcore than you would with air without fear of temps being the limiting factor.

My personal opinion is that the 6400 is a great chip and if you are lucky enough to get a good clocker they can easily match a 6600 but if want the best chance of a high clock then the 6600 is where my money would go. Even then you are not guarenteed high clocks asevery cpu clocks differently...it all depends on chance.

adslegend · 12 Mar 2007 at 14:36

w3bbo said:
You have a higher chance of higher overclocks with a higher stock clockspeed(E6600). As you have stated the cache makes very little difference at this moment in time - whether it will or not in the future is debatable. You need to consider the main difference between the 6400 and the 6600 - an 8x multi vs a 9x multi i.e the 6400 will require a higher FSB to reach the same clockspeed.

Water will help both cpus reach a higher overclock as you can add more vcore than you would with air without fear of temps being the limiting factor.

My personal opinion is that the 6400 is a great chip and if you are lucky enough to get a good clocker they can easily match a 6600 but if want the best chance of a high clock then the 6600 is where my money would go. Even then you are not guarenteed high clocks asevery cpu clocks differently...it all depends on chance.

Not too familiar with how Intel bin the cores, so you're suggesting a better overclock with the E6600. Hmm might be able to stretch the wallet as I get bonus at the end of this month

The 6400 still sits in the strap 'sweet spot' though from what I've read. Decisions, decisions...

spb251272 · 12 Mar 2007 at 14:54

I had the same dilemna last week, and ended up plumping for the e6600. I thought that it would be worth it for the extra £60 just in case I couldn't get a high fsb overclock

Shocky-FM · 12 Mar 2007 at 16:51

Worth it for the performance? Probably not.. Worth it to stop that nagging feeling you should have got the E6600? Yes..

spb251272 · 12 Mar 2007 at 16:57

Yeah you're probably right

easyrider · 12 Mar 2007 at 16:58

I currently have a 6400 running at 3.8ghz

The cache has little effect in testing but the higher multi of the 6600 helps.

Wether this will get you higher clocks depends on the chip itself.

I was lucky I have a nice 6400.

At the same clock speed I notice no difference between my 6400 and 6600 running @ 3.8ghz.

The Running Man · 12 Mar 2007 at 17:18

superPi does however,

for example 6600 on superpi 15seconds is quite easy to achieve. get 15 secs on a 6400 and your doing VERY well.

my 6400 wont go much above 3.0ghz atm (board or cpu prob? i dont know),

i can get an 18.8 SuperpI @ 3.0Ghz.

it just depends if that extra performance is worth £50 or so. it is there, it is noticble and not everyone will get a good oc'ing 6400.

Shocky-FM · 12 Mar 2007 at 17:20

easyrider said:
I currently have a 6400 running at 3.8ghz

The cache has little effect in testing but the higher multi of the 6600 helps.

Wether this will get you higher clocks depends on the chip itself.

I was lucky I have a nice 6400.

At the same clock speed I notice no difference between my 6400 and 6600 running @ 3.8ghz.

So you had both E6600 and E6400 at 3.8GHz? lol.. Nobody is that lucky, how many did you buy until you got good clocking chips then?

easyrider · 12 Mar 2007 at 17:22

Nickg said:
superPi does however,

for example 6600 on superpi 15seconds is quite easy to achieve. get 15 secs on a 6400 and your doing VERY well.

my 6400 wont go much above 3.0ghz atm (board or cpu prob? i dont know),

i can get an 18.8 SuperpI @ 3.0Ghz.

it just depends if that extra performance is worth £50 or so. it is there, it is noticble and not everyone will get a good oc'ing 6400.

Same can be said for getting a good clocking 6600.

Super PI is not really a true way of depicting performance.

Render the same DV file in premier with a 6400 and 6600 at the same clock speed and the difference is tiny.

I have no problem using a 6400 over my (now sold) 6600 as I would argue at the same clock speed no one would notice the difference.

The Running Man · 12 Mar 2007 at 17:25

yes but your not weighing up the likeliness of getting a 6400 get to 3.6 or 3.8GHZ and the chances of a 6600 getting to similar clocks.

i believe that benchies will show that additional 2mb cache on thr 6600 will be worth close to 200mhz over a 6400 chip. the chances of you getting a 6400 that will clock to at least 200mhz over a 6600 are marginal tbh.

you pays your money and takes your chances but +1 multiplier + higher stock speed + double cache = potential to have faster cpu than buying a 6400,

easyrider · 12 Mar 2007 at 17:31

Shocky-FM said:
So you had both E6600 and E6400 at 3.8GHz? lol.. Nobody is that lucky, how many did you buy until you got good clocking chips then?

The 6600 was ES

The 6400 was just luck

Shocky-FM · 12 Mar 2007 at 17:37

easyrider said:
The 6600 was ES

The 6400 was just luck

Why the hell are you using a E6400 if you had E6600 or simalar that did 3.8GHz with twice the cache?

easyrider · 12 Mar 2007 at 18:01

Shocky-FM said:
Why the hell are you using a E6400 if you had E6600 or simalar that did 3.8GHz with twice the cache?

The 6600 helped fund the Quad.

The quad was tested got out of my system and now a 6400.

In fact the best chip to clock has been the 6400.

Getting high clocks on lower end chips is far more enjoyable and satisfying

Shocky-FM · 12 Mar 2007 at 18:11

easyrider said:
Getting high clocks on lower end chips is far more enjoyable and satisfying

Yet you bought an E6600 and Quad Core so the saving you would normally get from overclocking the E6400 is errr gone.. Funny that.

easyrider · 12 Mar 2007 at 18:17

Shocky-FM said:
Yet you bought an E6600 and Quad Core so the saving you would normally get from overclocking the E6400 is errr gone.. Funny that.

Its fun clocking lower end chips.

I had 6600 before C2D was actually released.6600 was the easiest to clock.

I like trying different chips.

QX6700
E6600
E6400
E6300
E4300

The 6300 and 4300 were for builds for people fun testing different chips

Shocky-FM · 12 Mar 2007 at 18:30

easyrider said:
Its fun clocking lower end chips.

I had 6600 before C2D was actually released.6600 was the easiest to clock.

I like trying different chips.

QX6700
E6600
E6400
E6300
E4300

The 6300 and 4300 were for builds for people fun testing different chips

So thats how you justify buying new CPU's to try and get a higher clocks...

easyrider · 12 Mar 2007 at 18:36

Shocky-FM said:
So thats how you justify buying new CPU's to try and get a higher clocks...

No,

Haven't got a clue what you mean,

I have only bought one 6400 just happened to be a golden chip

I'm not biting either to your trolling

geff_r · 12 Mar 2007 at 19:56

I've noticed easyrider and this is not a personal attack
that in almost every post you write you have
"I currently have a 6400 running at 3.8ghz"
Well i think we all know that by now.
This is funny though seeing you guys argue over the 6400 vs 6600
and all the i had an evga 680i that would hit a wall at 320 fsb.
I think you should have got a 4300 / 6300 and stuck to 3.2 ghz
until the price cuts/ new chips come along.You may have got a golden
6300 too.

easyrider · 12 Mar 2007 at 20:09

geff_r said:
I've noticed easyrider and this is not a personal attack
that in almost every post you write you have
"I currently have a 6400 running at 3.8ghz"
Well i think we all know that by now.
This is funny though seeing you guys argue over the 6400 vs 6600
and all the i had an evga 680i that would hit a wall at 320 fsb.
I think you should have got a 4300 / 6300 and stuck to 3.2 ghz
until the price cuts/ new chips come along.You may have got a golden
6300 too.

If people are asking about what cpu to get....Its relevant