E6300 or E6600 peoples thoughts...

LanceCrossfire · 9 Aug 2006 at 08:34

at the end of the week i will be making an order for some upgrades, probably CPU, memory, new TFT and maybe a small pc also...

but for my main machine (see sig) I am undecided as to what CPU to get to help reduce the bottleneck I have at the moment.

I have seen good overclocking results from both CPU's but cant really decide which is worth my money, bearing in mind I will be upgrading to kentsfield CPU when there available (thats taking into account that there priced decently). So as per title says I would like people opinions and experiences shared as to help me decide.

Datamonkey · 9 Aug 2006 at 08:38

if clocking bang for buck says 6300,

i bought a 6400 as i got fed up of waiting on my 6600.

i now have it running at 3.35ghz and its flying

pleasently surprised, and as such i am going to keep it until the quad cores come out.

Socaddict · 9 Aug 2006 at 11:53

6300 OEM.

best £135 cpu on the market.

Elric · 9 Aug 2006 at 12:31

Socaddict said:
6300 OEM.

best £135 cpu on the market.

***.

Edit: why does Q.F.T. get filtered?

trojan698 · 9 Aug 2006 at 13:07

E6300

Stephen B · 9 Aug 2006 at 13:08

my retail 6600 arrived earlier in week and I set it up last night, not impressive compared to my oem 6300

can barely get 400 fsb with a large increase in vcore, whereas my 6300 does 435 fsb and takes just 1.4v for stability

get a 6300 for the moment then a quad core when they come out IMO

afterthought, nearly 400 fsb isn't bad its the extra volts required that worries me

Warbie · 9 Aug 2006 at 13:34

Stephen B said:
my retail 6600 arrived earlier in week and I set it up last night, not impressive compared to my oem 6300

can barely get 400 fsb with a large increase in vcore, whereas my 6300 does 435 fsb and takes just 1.4v for stability

get a 6300 for the moment then a quad core when they come out IMO

afterthought, nearly 400 fsb isn't bad its the extra volts required that worries me

That's worrying. I was all set for a 6600 before, but may go for a 6300 now.

Neken · 9 Aug 2006 at 22:18

can barely get 400 fsb with a large increase in vcore, whereas my 6300 does 435 fsb and takes just 1.4v for stability

But...
6600 => 9x Multi therefore 400x9 = 3.6GHz
6300 => 7x Multi therefore 435x7 = 3.0GHz

The 6300 needs to hit a FSB of 514 to get to the same speed as a 6600 at 400 FSB. Then there's the difference in cache (2 vs 4MB)

R5D4 · 9 Aug 2006 at 22:25

6300 for me- the gfx is the bottleneck.
I then plan to upgrade the cpu in 18 months, assuming of course that my mobo will be compatible :rolleyes:

mi9tchy · 9 Aug 2006 at 23:00

the 6300 bangs a lot of bucks

Iraklis F.C. · 9 Aug 2006 at 23:01

Stephen B · 9 Aug 2006 at 23:04

Neken said:
But...
6600 => 9x Multi therefore 400x9 = 3.6GHz
6300 => 7x Multi therefore 435x7 = 3.0GHz

The 6300 needs to hit a FSB of 514 to get to the same speed as a 6600 at 400 FSB. Then there's the difference in cache (2 vs 4MB)

6600 requires 1.6v
6300 requires 1.4v

as stated earlier, too much for my liking thanks, and with a ds3/ds4 board the 6300 should get to almost 500 fsb

original poster was asking for opinions, so hopefully my response is more appreciated than your arithmetic lesson

FrankJH · 9 Aug 2006 at 23:11

I am letting my E6300 settle at 3.2GHZ, but believe its still got a lot of headroom left personally I cant see why the E6600 is so sought after myself (I only have a £20 akasa cooler )

While the cache may be worth the extra for the people who do encoding for the rest of us, the benefits will be minimal (not sure about Intel, but larger cache's on AMD were supposedly meant to restrict overclocks - evne though I saw little evidence of this)

-Ad- · 9 Aug 2006 at 23:25

Stephen B said:
6600 requires 1.6v
6300 requires 1.4v

as stated earlier, too much for my liking thanks, and with a ds3/ds4 board the 6300 should get to almost 500 fsb

original poster was asking for opinions, so hopefully my response is more appreciated than your arithmetic lesson

so do the DS3 and DS4 boards easily go over 400fsb as if they did one of those paird with a 300 would easily be better value than an E6600 and more expensive asus or badaxe board ??????

But what ram will work well with the gigabite boards, as im looking at the

-2gb OCZ DDR2 PC2-6400 (5-5-5-12) Special OPS Edition Dual Channel Kit
or
-TeamGroup 2GB Team Xtreem Series DDR2 PC2-5300 3-4-4-8 Dual Channel kit (seems to be liked over at XS).

I just can't decide wether to wait for the LANPARTY R600 and better boards or just go DS3,DS4 now with E6300. Surely the difference between the two in real world speeds will be minimal?

Socaddict · 10 Aug 2006 at 07:25

ram of choice for *** DS3/4 boards seems to be the G Skill HZ DDR2 6400 stuff.

Its what I've got coming based on loads of recommendations, at least.

Rex-Kramer · 10 Aug 2006 at 09:37

Why does 1.6v worry you ?

Do we really keep these chips long enough that running 1.6v through them damages them ?

Most of us get a new chip every 3 months or so, imo no problem.

div0 · 10 Aug 2006 at 10:35

Rex-Kramer said:
Most of us get a new chip every 3 months or so, imo no problem.

we do?

CatMangler · 10 Aug 2006 at 10:48

Blimmey its almost taken me 3 months to decide what my next upgrade sould be, then Conroe came out.

If've got to start all over again :confused:

Socaddict · 10 Aug 2006 at 10:48

Rex-Kramer said:
Why does 1.6v worry you ?

Do we really keep these chips long enough that running 1.6v through them damages them ?

Most of us get a new chip every 3 months or so, imo no problem.

speak for yourself, mate.

FirebarUK · 10 Aug 2006 at 10:55

The E6300 is awesome value for money. I'm overclocking mine bit by bit on my Asus P5W-DH, currently on 2.6Ghz rock solid stock volts. Hoping for 2.9-3Ghz.