• 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.

E6600 VS E4300 Best value chip?

Marky67 said:
O.k decided the E4300 is out of the question now, down to either the E6300 0r the E6600, what would you guys go for if you where building a new rig? will I get the same performance for the £80 cheaper E6300 1.86GHz clock speed, 2MB L2 Cache over the E6600, with the right set up? or is it more "IDIOT" proofed just to go for the £197.39 E6600 with 2.40GHz stock clock speed & 4MB L2 Cache, as I said the p.c will mainly be used for video rendering and downloading, looking for the fastest possible speeds within a budget, i don't mind going for the more expensive chip and cut a few corners on the case etc, if it will give better performance r:confused:


Mark.
Click to expand...

Get the 6400 mate.

I have had:

QX6700
E6600
E6400
E6300
E4300

I now have a 6400 clocked to 3.8ghz and there is no difference between the 2mb cache conroes and the 4 mb at the same clock speed.

In fact the difference is so small I argue no one in general usage would notice.
 
Last edited:
The E6300 might clock better (if it does we’re not talking about much) but it asks much more of the other components. There are loads of people on here with E6300 who can't get to 3GHz due to RAM or MB not being able to run at ~430MHz. In my opinion the E4300 is the better chip as it doesn't ask so much from the rest of the system, you can run pretty much any MB and RAM and still get high speeds. My E4300 runs at 3.4GHz on 378FSB, 755MHz RAM – nothing’s too stressed, everything’s happy. To get 3.4GHz from an E6300 needs 486MHz FSB! Let’s be honest there aren’t many boards that’ll do that. That’s why I like the E4300 better than the E6300.

Anyway, this thread is about the E6600 vs E4300 and I think we all agree that the E4300 is the best value from those two.
 
Thanks easyrider, going with the amount of experience you have had with the various chips, I will go with your advice, what Board and ram would you recommend to go with the E6400?
 
clv101 said:
The E6300 might clock better (if it does we’re not talking about much) .
Click to expand...


Fact is when i clocked my E4300 the best I could do was 3.5ghz and this needed 1.575v

for 3.4ghz it needed 1.5v

The 6 series does not need these vcores to reach these speeds meaning lower temps etc...

My 6400 clocks to 3.6ghz on 1.45v
 
Marky67 said:
Thanks easyrider, going with the amount of experience you have had with the various chips, I will go with your advice, what Board and ram would you recommend to go with the E6400?
Click to expand...


No problem mate,

I would look at the DS3 and 650i.

Get the 650i if SLI is important to you.

Otherwise the DS3 is a fantastic mobo.

Ram the Geil 6400 is good seems to work well with the DS3 :)
 
easyrider said:
Get the 6400 mate.

I have had:

QX6700
E6600
E6400
E6300
E4300

I now have a 6400 clocked to 3.8ghz and there is no difference between the 2mb cache conroes and the 4 mb at the same clock speed.

In fact the difference is so small I argue no one in general usage would notice.
Click to expand...

You say theirs not much difference in between a clocked 6400 & a 6600 or it's very little which you would not notice.

I am @ the same crossroads - my old 6600 used to encode a 3 hour dvd in real time 3 hours @ stock, would I get the same results with a 6400 ? or is it worth getting another 6600 ?
 
Whenever i see a conroe argument thread, I just hope easyrider comes in to rescue it. This OCuk'er has tried and documented every version of the processor and thus its very easy to believe his answers as he is not biased and has proof.

I would take his advice very seriously. Overclock a 4300/6300 and enjoy the extra cash in which ever way you see fit :)
 
musx64 said:
You say theirs not much difference in between a clocked 6400 & a 6600 or it's very little which you would not notice.

I am @ the same crossroads - my old 6600 used to encode a 3 hour dvd in real time 3 hours @ stock, would I get the same results with a 6400 ? or is it worth getting another 6600 ?
Click to expand...

That cant be right. 3 hours to do a 3 hour DVD :confused:

My old X2 4200+ used to do it quicker than that

I did a 1.5 hour video the other day on the rig in my sig and it took about 30 mis, and that included the burning process
 
musx64 said:
You say theirs not much difference in between a clocked 6400 & a 6600 or it's very little which you would not notice.

I am @ the same crossroads - my old 6600 used to encode a 3 hour dvd in real time 3 hours @ stock, would I get the same results with a 6400 ? or is it worth getting another 6600 ?
Click to expand...

At the same clock speed there is little difference.

I had a 6600 @ 3.8ghz and a 6400 @ 3.8ghz and rendered the same DV clip in premier and the difference was a few seconds about 5 in fact.

Nothing to worry about at all.

super PI was around 14 seconds with the 6600 and around 16 with the 6400 at the same clock speed.

Nothing to worry about at all.
 
MeatLoaf said:
That cant be right. 3 hours to do a 3 hour DVD :confused:

My old X2 4200+ used to do it quicker than that

I did a 1.5 hour video the other day on the rig in my sig and it took about 30 mis, and that included the burning process
Click to expand...

I do not use DVD Shrink, or nero recode for dvd re-rendering, it's usually with adobe premier or tmpgenc express 4, my old x2 4800+ used to take 5 hours to re encode dvd in tmpgenc which was 3 hours long. Have you ever heard of "BollyWood Movies" . :D
 
musx64 said:
I do not use DVD Shrink, or nero recode for dvd re-rendering, it's usually with adobe premier or tmpgenc express 4, my old x2 4800+ used to take 5 hours to re encode dvd in tmpgenc which was 3 hours long. Have you ever heard of "BollyWood Movies" . :D
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you don't use DVD Shrink? I could do a 3hr movie including shrinking to 4.3GB (with deep analysis etc.) in about 30 - 35 mins on my x2 3800 @2.5Ghz. Haven't tried one yet in my new setup, but I expect it'll be a fair bit quicker!
 
spb251272 said:
Is there a reason why you don't use DVD Shrink? I could do a 3hr movie including shrinking to 4.3GB (with deep analysis etc.) in about 30 - 35 mins on my x2 3800 @2.5Ghz. Haven't tried one yet in my new setup, but I expect it'll be a fair bit quicker!
Click to expand...

Mainly because with tmpgenc you can enhance the audio playback volume level and I have been using it for ages, convert from many Video formats inc. Divx, xvid & WMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom