Hi, I am just about to buy my new cpu from Oc and wondered if I bought the E6400 would there be much difference to the E6600 with the 2 extra mb and would I notice it in games and such, or should I just save money and buy the E6300 lol ?....
-
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.
Difference between 2 or 4 mb on duo
- Thread starter wnm0
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 1,908
- Location
- Stafford
Shouldn't see a diff in games. at all They are usually graphics driven anyway. Are u going with the S3 mb or upgrading as well?
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,379
- Location
- Leeds
The smaller cache chips overclock further apparently.
I remember reading that some where, possibly on here.
I remember reading that some where, possibly on here.
From the moment the Duo was announced I was always going to go for one of the CPU's with the 4MB cache.
For the only reason that I hadn't done a major upgrade for a while so I was going to go for the slowest of what I considered the "Fully featured" chips - 4MB over 2MB.
The actual real-world difference?
Not a great deal.
There are benchmarks around where people have underclocked a X6800 (4MB cahce) chip so it runs at the same speed as a 2MB based one.
The results showed somewhere in the region of a 3% - 4% performance increase in general everyday stuff.
Sure there are cache intensive programs out there that will make real use of it.
I'm building a new machine for my Fiancee at the moment and she'll be having a 2MB chip.
For the only reason that I hadn't done a major upgrade for a while so I was going to go for the slowest of what I considered the "Fully featured" chips - 4MB over 2MB.
The actual real-world difference?
Not a great deal.
There are benchmarks around where people have underclocked a X6800 (4MB cahce) chip so it runs at the same speed as a 2MB based one.
The results showed somewhere in the region of a 3% - 4% performance increase in general everyday stuff.
Sure there are cache intensive programs out there that will make real use of it.
I'm building a new machine for my Fiancee at the moment and she'll be having a 2MB chip.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 2,676
two ways of looking at it yes the lower cache'd chips are giving greater overclocks but not always higher! most are clocking to around the same speeds 3.8-3.9 on air it's only considered higher as the lower cache'd chips have a lower starting speed!
i personally couldn't justify the cost of a 6600 when the 6400's and 6300's are clocking as they do! all you gain is benchmark results but at the end of the day you don't play and benchmarks do you
as a note my 6400 is proving a very good clocker currently at 3.2ghz on the stock 1.35v and my ram is running 1:1 so it's a very usefull oc on the ram too!
i personally couldn't justify the cost of a 6600 when the 6400's and 6300's are clocking as they do! all you gain is benchmark results but at the end of the day you don't play and benchmarks do you
as a note my 6400 is proving a very good clocker currently at 3.2ghz on the stock 1.35v and my ram is running 1:1 so it's a very usefull oc on the ram too!
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 2,702
- Location
- Leicester
I would go for the e6300, thats what i did! But if you do you want to overclock it to get the most value from it, so you want a good clocking motherboard.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 4,886
- Location
- Blackburn
well the e6400 has a higher multiplyer which can make overclocking easier