Greetings all, i was wondering if the performance difference between the E6400 and E6600 is really significant?i'm looking to build a new gaming rig and was wondering if it's worth the extra cost?
If you're not going to be overclocking, or are planning on buying a pre-built system, get the E6600. If you're planning on overclocking, get the E6400.
Yeah the E6600 runs good and stable at stock speed but doesn't overclock as well as its younger brothers.
The E6300 and E6400 have a much higher headroom to support better overclocking.
They can also both be overclocked to E6600 speed, the only difference then would be the size of the cache (2MB vs 4MB).
I noticed that you're planning on buying a DS3. If you are planning on overclocking, you'll definitely want a different motherboard. The Conroes (C2D's with 4MB of L2 cache) overclock horribly on the P965 chipset, compared to the 975x chipset. You'd either want an E6400 with that motherboard, or an E6600 with an Asus 975x chipset motherboard.
If you're really trying to squeeze pennies, go with the cheapest CPU. The 6300. This shows why. Depending on what resolution you play at, the difference in performance between these processors is almost nil. Even when overclocked. Granted, it depends on how CPU-limited the game is, but, for example, see how COD2 gets pretty much the exact same fps at 800x600 whether the 6400 is at 2.1ghz or 3.4ghz? I'm assuming you'll be playing at a res higher than that where it will matter even less. Go cheap if you're mainly interested in gaming.
Sheesh. These arguments are getting so stale. You will be very happy with the E6600. And the DS3 is a great MB, you'll like it even if you decide to OC later. Your system specs will give you many months (maybe even years) of pleasure. Good luck.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.