e6600 vs e6400 @ Overclocking

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by KillerBunny, Aug 21, 2006.

  1. KillerBunny

    KillerBunny Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    773
    Now I am about to buy one of these chips but I have heard rumours...

    The rumour is that e6400's are overclocking further then e6600's because the extra cache could possibly be holding them back. Accross a lot of forums the e6400 is being recommended as a better overclocker as apparently a lot of 6600's cannot reach fsb 400 and run 1:1 ram but 6400's can quiet easily get 400fsb and run 1:1 ram @ 3.2ghz (8x400).

    Basically, can anyone confirm or deny these results with evidence? If the 6400 is a better overclocker, i can see NO reason to buy a 6600, as the cache does not make a sizeable difference in todays applications and ill just get a quad core in a year anyway :p

    Cheers.
     
  2. Saiyan_Overlord

    Saiyan_Overlord Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,999
    Location:
    Sydney 2074
    If you plan on getting a Conroe chip, it would probably be wise to get a E6400 and oc it and then put the money you save (in price comparision to the E6600) towards a Kentsfield chip.
     
  3. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    102,972
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I would not understand THAT advice. Why should somebody who is considering a 6400 or a 6600 buy the upcoming Kentsfield based XE processor? That processor is in terms of purpose and cost a very much different animal.

    And with the money he saves by getting a 6400 instead of a 6600, which would be around 100$, he would have to go a very long way to get a 1,500$ Kentsfield.

    In terms of overclocking value a 6400 is probably better value than a 6600. However keep in mind, that depending on the application you lose up to 5% of performance due the much smaller L2 cache. Furthermore the 6600 multiplier is (if you ask me) the slightly better choice for FSB overclocking.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  4. OP
    OP
    KillerBunny

    KillerBunny Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    773
    Nice reply chainbolt :)

    I would have thought the same also, but it seems most 6600's and 6400's have the same juice in them and can get to about the same speed. This speed happens to be around 400fsb for the 6400 and between 350-400 for the 6600's. If this is/was the case then the 6400 is a much better choice because its cheaper and your ram can run 1:1 @ 400fsb :)

    From reading around this is the impression I have gathered.

    Someone correct me if im wrong!
     
  5. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    102,972
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Your impression is correct, however again:

    (a) You lose up to around 5% of performance with a 6400 due to the 50% smaller L2 cache
    (b) I think the 6600 multiplier is better for stable and long term overclocking than the 6400, because you do not have to stress the FSB / MCH that much to max out the CPU.
     
  6. The OC

    The OC Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    Melbourne
    (a) True, but the E6400 has the faster FSB at the same clockspeed, which makes up that deficit somewhat.

    (b) Is 400FSB really *that* bad considering boards like the Gigabyte DS3 can do up to 500MHz comfortablybut
     
  7. DAVID CLEM

    DAVID CLEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    372
    I agree with chainbolt and add that my E6600 is running easily at 3.0Ghz undervolted to 1.248 volts, 39-42C @ idle. I can't see the E6400/965 combination lasting long term, only because of the stress on the MCH (which gets extremely hot) .
     
  8. Akimbo

    Akimbo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Perth W.A.
    ah, just in the nick of time...

    Can the 6300/6400 drop its multiplier by 1 (from 7 - 6 for 6300 or 8 - 7 for 6400)

    just reading about the true asus 8 phase pdf and the overclocking screen has the e6300 dropped to 6* multiplier (6* 535Mhz fsb = 3214Mhz overclock)
     
  9. OP
    OP
    KillerBunny

    KillerBunny Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    773
    Im still getting an asus p5w dh deluxe regardless of cpu so that chipset heat issue may not be as apparent possibly?
     
  10. RAiMA

    RAiMA (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    379
    Seems a bit weird to keep hearing the limits of the cpu is around 3.2Ghz.

    Wondering if ram has anything to do with it. Currently on the 2.97Ghz setup, I'm running the ram at 990Mhz frequency.

    When I ran the 3.2Ghz setup, the ram was running at a 957.6Mhz frequency, but had stablilty issues for WoW which I play a lot.

    Would PC8500??? (1066Mhz) memory increase the Ghz cap on the CPU, if so, how much? Anyone tested it out yet? Am I on the right track or is this something totally irrelevant?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  11. OP
    OP
    KillerBunny

    KillerBunny Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    773
    RAIMA run a ram divider so your ram runs at its rated speed (assuming ddr800 in this case btw)
     
  12. tan50

    tan50 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    190
    Location:
    Melb
    Whats the answer?

    Im not really worried about long term health, since ill change pcs at least every 2 years. But if both cpus are capping out at the same speed (ignoring the 5% cache hit) the 6400 does seem the better purchase. for $100 ill gladly put it into a better gpu for a better return on fps.

    cause at the end of the day fps are what im after

    Not to mention the 6400 is in stock at MSY.
     
  13. DAVID CLEM

    DAVID CLEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    372
    The E6400 does seem to be the better overclocker, I havn't seen many retail E6600's come close to the 64's yet. But remember the 64's have had a 2 week headstart so things may change.
     
  14. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    102,972
    Location:
    Tokyo
    That has nothing to do with Asus. All C2D are dropping their multi to 6x AND lower the voltage dynamically when EIST is engaged. It's an inherent CPU feature.
     
  15. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    102,972
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I highly doubt that.

    To make a credible statement here you would have to compare at least a dozen randomly selected 6400 and 6600 samples on the same board, same RAM, and identical test conditions. Do you have such data?

    And even if that were true:

    - You still have the performance penalty with the 6400
    - And the 6600 has the "better" multiplier for long term stable overclocking
     
  16. Catalyst2211

    Catalyst2211 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    146
    Most people with E6600 max out at about 3.2-3.4 ghz with reasonable volts. To go higher is possible but it requires an insane amount of volts.
     
  17. DAVID CLEM

    DAVID CLEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    372
    As I said " But remember the 64's have had a 2 week headstart so things may change."

    I own a 66 and wouldn't swap it for a higher clocking 64 for the reasons you've stated.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  18. R3xx

    R3xx (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,453
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I have both! The 6600 clocks higher, simple as that.

    [​IMG]

    The 6400 would do 3.2 on stock volts whereas the 6600 does 3.3 on stock volts. And the 6400 topped out at 3.5GHz.
     
  19. DAVID CLEM

    DAVID CLEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    372
    Good to see this is the highest i've seen a retail 66 clock, what is is the week and batch number of your 66?
     
  20. R3xx

    R3xx (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,453
    Location:
    Melbourne
    It's exactly the same batch as Rodney's: L626A195

    And that's at 1.5V VCORE, she's probably got a little more left in her.
     

Share This Page