Which Conroe for Gaming - 6300 or 6600

AFK_Matrix · 25 Feb 2007 at 00:50

Ok just wanted to know for my upgrade if I really need a 6600 conroe or a 6300? The machine is only used for gaming and I will be clocking the chip and its gonna be on water.

Thanks

easyrider · 25 Feb 2007 at 01:05

Why not use the search function.

This thread is bland.

mp260767 · 25 Feb 2007 at 01:38

simple answer is whichever one you can afford, both clock pretty decent.

Funkadelic · 25 Feb 2007 at 05:12

If you have Artic Silver 5, I'm running the e6300 at 2.96Ghz and it's running cool. Haven't seen it go into the 50s. The HSF has a crappy paste on it, so wipe it off and put on AS5. Oh and I didn't remember the water part, so the e6300 could go even higher. But if you have the budget for the 6600 I would go for it.

quantumisation · 25 Feb 2007 at 10:35

my understanding is the only difference between them is that the e6600 is better quality and capable of reaching a higher level of overclocking so thats the 1 im going for. I would imagine if on a budget the e6300 would be closely matched enough to the point that you wouldnt notice a difference using the computer although thats a guess

Socaddict · 25 Feb 2007 at 10:51

E6300. cheaper, cache difference has no effect on gaming, and they should clock to similar levels, assuming you get good clocking memory and mobo, especially on water.

Participant · 25 Feb 2007 at 11:16

E6600, assuming price isn't a factor as you haven't mentioned a budget.

At the end of the day the E6600 is faster so if you can afford it, go for it.

"Cache difference has no effect on gaming" - must disagree with this statement.

jaykay · 25 Feb 2007 at 11:32

But it doesnt have any effect
easyrider tested it and there was bearly any difference

Nitram · 25 Feb 2007 at 12:13

Most games coding is well behind current processor levels and the C2D cores won't be fully utilised for a while yet but,I think by the Autumn we will see some improvements happening. The extra cache will be useful in the long run
For now the 6300 is adequate.

carlazai · 25 Feb 2007 at 13:34

E6400 F.T.W but this same question is alomost answered on a daily basis

p4radox · 25 Feb 2007 at 13:36

6300. No point getting the 6600 as the 6300 will probably clock to well over 3GHz anyway, at which point the graphics card will be the limiting factor.

Participant · 25 Feb 2007 at 17:14

carlazai said:
E6400 F.T.W but this same question is alomost answered on a daily basis

Why is 6400 > 6300? Because you have one?

Seriously though I wonder if people tend to get much higher overclocks with the 6400 compared to the 6300.

marscay · 25 Feb 2007 at 17:17

a good stepping 6600 will get as high as 3.6-3.7+ on stock or very low volts and not as many 6300's will do this on similar volts....YMMV.

if you can handle the heatload of a 6300 with high'ish volts, assuming you dont get a great stepping, and want upto 3.6ghz or more then go for the 6300 and save some cash. or pay a little more for the 6600 and give yourself more chance of that high clock.

the extra cache of the 6600 helps with video encoding a lot but thats about it, for gaming is pretty redundant.

there's a lot is misinformation in this thread i have to say....like usual.

Participant · 25 Feb 2007 at 17:36

marscay said:
there's a lot is misinformation in this thread i have to say....like usual.

It's more than a bit useless saying that without explaining your view on what is and is not "misinformation".

smsmasters · 26 Feb 2007 at 00:47

AFK_Matrix said:
Ok just wanted to know for my upgrade if I really need a 6600 conroe or a 6300? The machine is only used for gaming and I will be clocking the chip and its gonna be on water.

Thanks

Go with the e6600. I have my e6600 overclocked to 3.6ghz (400x9) on air @ 1.43V. With water you could easily oc it to 4ghz.

Shocky-FM · 26 Feb 2007 at 02:25

E6600

carlazai · 26 Feb 2007 at 03:41

Robbie G said:
Why is 6400 > 6300? Because you have one?

Seriously though I wonder if people tend to get much higher overclocks with the 6400 compared to the 6300.

OFC

But no i just like my e6400 for the extra £5 it cost me at the time (oem vs retail 6300). Stick it with my artic freezer and its a winning combination.

My mate has a 6300 against my advice, can only reach 2.8ghz

marscay · 26 Feb 2007 at 13:16

Robbie G said:
It's more than a bit useless saying that without explaining your view on what is and is not "misinformation".

it's funny that you should be the one to mention that

Robbie G said:
"Cache difference has no effect on gaming" - must disagree with this statement.

i think a lot would disagree with your disagreement.

Proc · 26 Feb 2007 at 18:20

Well i bought a E6600 as it was on offer over the weekend for £185. I know the cache won't add much in games etc but i thought sod it, for that price i may as well go for it.

They must have some early stock though as the fpo of mine is L632A884, hopefully i'll still be able to get a decent overclock out of it.

Hades · 26 Feb 2007 at 18:28

Most games don't show much difference with the extra E6600 cache but there is a benchie out there showing that the Doom3/Quake4 engine loves the extra cache.