• 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.

Intel Core 2 DUO E6300 or E6600 can't decide

Matrix

Matrix

Matrix

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,071
Location
Earth
Hi upgrading to a new system and as mine is 3/5 years old. I'm wondering which cpu to get.
I'm not i will be overclocking though i was looking at getting a 6300 but i'm wondering if it worth the extra and get a E6600.
Will i notice the extra speed and the 4MB L2 Cache
of the E6600?

I will be doing normal stuff on the pc surfing ,downloading, some video work, and playing games. Though i'm not a huge game fan i can't run anything on my 5 year old radeon 64mb card :p . So i would like to get back into games.


Can't decide what to do so i'm hoping you can help me.

Thank you.
 
dark4orz said:
you will notice the difference in using the 6600 for encoding due to the 4mb cache, otherwise everything is the same.
Click to expand...

errr.. everything is not the same. Standard clock speed is 2.4gig vs 1.86gig (assuming he is not overclocking... op is a bit difficult to understand around that issue ;) ).

Richie.
 
Last edited:
i have a 6600 and personally i would get a 6300 i had tested these babies and they kick but overclock better and keep a lower tem. As the cashe heats more on the E6600.

thats my honest Opinion from someone has used them both.
 
Alfie786 said:
i have a 6600 and personally i would get a 6300 i had tested these babies and they kick but overclock better and keep a lower tem. As the cashe heats more on the E6600.

thats my honest Opinion from someone has used them both.
Click to expand...


I don't really think i'll be doing much video encoding. Though i do use Photoshop etc..

I'm not really planning to overclock so thats one reason i was looking at the E6600 instead of the E6300.
 
Alfie786 said:
i have a 6600 and personally i would get a 6300 i had tested these babies and they kick but overclock better and keep a lower tem. As the cashe heats more on the E6600.

thats my honest Opinion from someone has used them both.
Click to expand...

E6600 will overclock higher... usually 3.4-3.8ghz. E6300 is usually ~3.1ghz.
 
ramdor said:
errr.. everything is not the same. Standard clock speed is 2.4gig vs 1.86gig (assuming he is not overclocking... op is a bit difficult to understand around that issue ;) ).

Richie.
Click to expand...

OOOOHHHH ! Why do people not understand the context of the reply, the only difference for what he wants to do is the main cache, for just playing games, internet browsing the 6300/6400 is adequate otherwise for overclocking or encoding pay the extra premium and get the 6600.
 
to be honest, for what you do - yes there will be a tiny difference - but odds are you will keep the cpu for the same length of time over all either way - i would just go for e6300 if I in your boots, money you dont need to spend and probably dont want to either. The power of any core 2 duo is amazing and both will suffice.

just my 2 cent

money saved can go towards treating yourself in other areas that you will notice / effect you more.. nice new monitor (for example) anyone?

anyway either way you wont be disapointed so just go for whatever you gut tells you!
 
allllec said:
:rolleyes: duuude! why oh why, read his post pleeeease

*crys*
Click to expand...


I'm worried that when it's clocked something will go wrong plus i'm not 100% sure what to do and i don't want to blow it up :confused:

And i didn't think the cpu being hot all the time would do it if it's left on for a couple days running?
 
nonnoonon, i ment please why didnt the guy read the fact that your not overclocking - i agree with you - if your in any doubt then not overclocking is definatly the way to go :) sorry mis understanding lol
 
allllec said:
nonnoonon, i ment please why didnt the guy read the fact that your not overclocking - i agree with you - if your in any doubt then not overclocking is definatly the way to go :) sorry mis understanding lol
Click to expand...

lol sorry dude I thought you were asking the guy to read the OP and see that he wasn't overclocking. Apologies. :D
 
allllec said:
nonnoonon, i ment please why didnt the guy read the fact that your not overclocking - i agree with you - if your in any doubt then not overclocking is definatly the way to go :) sorry mis understanding lol
Click to expand...

I read the 'not overclocking' part but chose to discount it. Overclocking is perfectly safe if you know what you're doing and to know what you're doing involves taking a couple of hours of your time (if that) and will save you some cash in the process. The CPU in my sig is running @ a 68% overclock, is perfectly safe and stable

See this thread - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17643358

and this (ignore the big WARNING sign lol) - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17612922
 
lets not get mixed up, personally i have no worries ocing my rig - i choose not to because well i have no need what so ever and i just cba lol

but he did say he wasn't overclocking, well that's what i made of that sentence anyway - and if that's what he says that's what goes - his thread - his "rules" if you like

i dunno mate, but just seems common forum etiquette to go by what the poster wants over everything else

*shrugs*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom