is E6600 worth twice as much as E6300?

[Digital Punk]

I went for the E6600.

It was £80 more than the 6300 when I bought, but as I'm not a hardcore overclocker, I wanted a guaranteed overclock of at least 3.0Ghz (3.2 atm ) and the 2mb extra cache is useful as well.

I prefer the higher multiplier of the 6600 as it gives me more headroom and also money wasn't an object either.

Each to their own though.

 

[Socaddict]

will a E6300 hit 2.8ghz easily?

yes.

I'm almost wishing that had stuck with my E6300 rather than upgrading to a E6600. Still, we'll see what happenes once I slap some WCing on it all in the next month or so.

 

[marscay]

another thing to remember is due to the low multis on the 6300 needing high FSB to hit high clocks basically means using a 965 board which really suffers once the 1066 strap finishes at 400+fsb.

a 6300 at 3.5 with 1333 strap is more akin to a 6600 at 3.3 on 1066..... so a 6600 @ 3.6/3.7+ghz really is throwing around a chunk more power compared to a 6300 over 3ghz on the slower strap, also considering that your chances of having a orthos/prime stable 6300 @ 3.5 is a lottery, current 6600 steps are almost guaranteed 3.5 and further.

i don't know if a lot of ppl aren't aware of this or forget or don't care but which ever way you look at it ...a 6660 @ 3.6+ with the benefit of staying within the 1066 strap and 4mb cache can't be denied for the extra £80 it costs.

 

[Margaret]

i don't know if a lot of ppl aren't aware of this or forget or don't care but which ever way you look at it ...a 6660 @ 3.6+ with the benefit of staying within the 1066 strap and 4mb cache can't be denied for the extra £80 it costs.

I've not seen many charts on this but a 3.6 Ghz 6600 beats my SuperPI time @ 3.3 Ghz 6300 by about 3-4 seconds, now I doubt gaming is much faster, encoding maybe but I'm still willing to bet it's not a huge increase. I'd rather spend the £80 towards a Graphics card or other.

 

[marscay]

depends if the bottleneck is cpu or gfx card.

the extra performance is there, is it worth £80?? depends on the users needs.

like most things in technology it's all relative to the individual, like the difference between a £100k versus a £300k sports car ...the latter is a little faster for sure but is it worth £200k more?? ppl who buy them think so.

 

[Margaret]

depends if the bottleneck is cpu or gfx card.

the extra performance is there, is it worth £80?? depends on the users needs.

like most things in technology it's all relative to the individual, like the difference between a £100k versus a £300k sports car ...the latter is a little faster for sure but is it worth £200k more?? ppl who buy them think so.

You can't really compare selecting a car to buy to selecting a 6600 against a 6300

 

[marscay]

it's the best analogy i could come up with right now

 

[Kaiju]

If you take FPS as a bench, it seems a Conroe will get you around 5FPS more for every 100MHz. Or so i'm told.

 

[Corasik]

All depends what you wanna to do with it. I wanted a BadAxe '975' motherboard, and a chip which wouldnt need overclocking at all, so I went for the E6700 (X6800 was just too expensive).

Really happy with it, at stock 2.67 it's performance is stunning, my Geforce 7900GTX is more of a limitation than the processor at the moment. Can get 3.1Ghz @1.2V, havent bothered to do the debug enable mod on my badaxe so I cant enable the enhanced power management which eliminates vdroop on the badaxe, or change the default vcore, and my E6700 has a fairly low VID, hence 1.2V default.

Im confident though if I need more power in the future, I can use a conductive ink to enable the debug / overclocking bios options, and likely get 3.4ghz+ with ease.

For now.. Everything's stock, and its a sweet system. Well worth the money. (Not to mention that I got a special deal through work, and got TWO complete systems for the price of one all parts bought from OcUK!)

 

[easyrider]

I dont think the 6600 is worth the extra 100 after testing.

The 4300 is a great cpu for just over 100 quid.

People are running them at 2.7ghz on 30 quid asrock mobo's beating FX 62 into the bargain.

I tested the 4300 and 6300 both at same speeds and TBH there was nothing between the two.

Only thing were the 6600 pulls ahead at the same clock speeds is apps that like cache.But even then would you notice it in the real world? I doubt it.

At the same clock speed the 6600 backed up a dvd 20 secs faster than the 6300 and 4300 running at 2.4ghz.No biggy I think you will agree.

TBH now having had a 4300,6300 and 6600 and QX6700 the only one that I noticed a huge gain in was the QX6700 and that was only in encoding.

It really did thrash the other chips.

I have come to the conclusion that 3ghz C2D is plenty for games etc...

Anything else is just a bonus.