The usual question - E4300 or E6600?

[Hades]

I've decided on motherboard and RAM:

Asus P5N-E SLI
Team Extreme 6400

So that just leaves the decision on which CPU. This will be in a watercooled and overclocked system. I was previously going to get the E6600 but the E4300 looks extremely tempting. I've tried to see how far each are clocking but there obviously arent many results for E4300 yet.

Is the E6600 likely to clock much further than the E4300? For gaming will the extra cache be useful?

To be honest I'm now leaning towards the E4300 and saving the £90 difference for a future upgrade.

 

[Hades]

Thanks for the replies so far. Still undecided. The E4300 is clearly the best value but if I could guarantee the E6600 getting a significantly better overclock then I'd spend the extra.

Currently it's looking like best value to stick with the E4300 as it's only looks like a small difference in speed (if any) and there doesn't seem to be any compelling evidence that the extra cache benefits games that much.

But I'm still open for opinions

Oh and I already have a custom water setup. It's going to be a PITA rebuilding it all:

http://www.ajb.nildram.co.uk/pictures/atcs_s4000/watercooled/closeup_rad.jpg

 

[Hades]

Really nice looking setup btw!

Thanks. The rad is inside the case and also helps blow air across the whole motherboard. I need to move the res to the drive bays to neaten it up but with two kids I never have the time to do that. I didn't have the right res when I built it. So perhaps I'll do it when I upgrade.

http://www.ajb.nildram.co.uk/pictures/atcs_s4000/watercooled/side_open.jpg
http://www.ajb.nildram.co.uk/pictures/atcs_s4000/watercooled/front_angle.jpg
http://www.ajb.nildram.co.uk/pictures/atcs_s4000/watercooled/front_open.jpg

I'm a bit fanatical about having a plain looking case and making it just about silent even when overclocked. Water gets a bit addictive but it is a pain to upgrade components

 

[Hades]

why are the E4300's so slow compared to there E6*** cousins, i mean 3.38Ghz barely beating a E6600 at 2.4Ghz, like an old netburst at 3.6Ghz just beating and AMD athlon 64 at 2.4Ghz, something went wrong or something? cause thats horrid trade off, that would mean you'd be better off getting E6400 or something (higher multiplier than E6300 while substancially cheaper than 6600) cause they'll demolish a E6600 at 3.38Ghz right?

They are not slower An E4300 @ 2.4ghz will be faster than an E6600 @ 2.4ghz because it will have an FSB advantage. An E4300 @ 3.38ghz will be significantly faster than an E6600 @ 2.4ghz.

Admittedly you could drop the multi on the E6600 and therefore raise the FSB and get the same results as the E4300.. and probably overclock it further. But an overclocked E4300 will definitely beat an E6600 at stock even with less cache.

 

[Hades]

Ah, fair enough. I didn't actually see the benchmark before. Somehow missed it. I have to admit I was talking pants I suspect it must be the extra cache because there doesn't seem any obvious reason the E4300 should behave like that. Any other benchies around?

 

[Hades]

Is the E6600 multi unlocked downwards?