• 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.

Any reason to get the 6700 over the 6600?

Magic Man

Magic Man

Magic Man

Associate
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Posts
571
As the topic says. Looking to run with a Tuniq Tower, 650/680 board, 8800GTX etc.

Is the 6700 able to give a higher overall speed when clocked or do they both clock to about the same?
 
Would get the 6600 because it is cheaper plus overclocks to 6700 speeds, has more headroom for clocking and has the same L2 cache, most people who have got the highest overclocks are using 6600's AFAIK.
 
Last edited:
There's nearly a £150 price difference for 2.67GHz v 2.4GHz. There are plenty of 6600 owners here clocking *way* over 2.67, even on air. So I'd say no, its not worth it. Save your money for something else. [edit] peripheral-wise [/edit]

Even if you don't overclock, you won't notice the extra 267Mhz deficit in general use.

hth.
 
Absolutely no point getting the 6700 with that spec. It'll clock to a similar level to the 6600 anyway. In fact I'd say that the 6600 is a waste, just get a 6300 and clock it to over 3GHz and you'd be hard pushed to notice any difference between it and an overclocked 6600.
 
Last edited:
Well I'd go for at least the 6600 because of the extra cache.

But you are saying that given everything else the same, a 6600 will likely clock to the same max as a 6700 even though a 6700 starts out faster anyway? I suppose it should since they are just speed binned from the same die and are effectively the same anyway - just the 6700 has a pre-clock over the 6600 when bought...
 
6600 over a 6700. I also thought the extra cache would be really noticable but it really doesnt equate to that much in everyday use and really heats the chips up, save youself some money and get a 6300/6400 :)
 
p4radox said:
Absolutely no point getting the 6700 with that spec. It's clock to a similar level to the 6600 anyway. In fact I'd say that the 6600 is a waste, just get a 6300 and clock it to over 3GHz and you'd be hard pushed to notice any difference between it and an overclocked 6600.
Click to expand...


Yes agreed
 
Magic Man said:
Well I'd go for at least the 6600 because of the extra cache.

But you are saying that given everything else the same, a 6600 will likely clock to the same max as a 6700 even though a 6700 starts out faster anyway? I suppose it should since they are just speed binned from the same die and are effectively the same anyway - just the 6700 has a pre-clock over the 6600 when bought...
Click to expand...

Do you have experience of both chips?

the cache means very little in real terms at the same clocks
 
easyrider said:
Do you have experience of both chips?

the cache means very little in real terms at the same clocks
Click to expand...

One thing the cache makes a big difference is when doing folding at home, a E6600 running at 3.2ghz does each frame almost 10% faster than a E6300 at 3.2ghz when running in a vmware client. Very few people doing FAH however, there is a slight improvment in speed doing audio/video encoding although thats under 5% improvement. In games and general use there would be really no noticeable difference between a clocked e6300 and e6600.
 
I've had 4 Core 2 Duos now and one was a 6700. It was sold on quite quickly, as it was identical to the 6600s. (apart from the 10x multi)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom