Which is the best? I have heard of people OCing the 6400 to 3.1GHz and more... so which one would I get more out of?
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
Poll
Biggest bang for my buck
| E6600 | 75% | 75% - 24 | ||||
| E6400 | 12% | 12% - 4 | ||||
| E6300 | 12% | 12% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 32 | ||||||
Technically you could OC any of them to like double there original value, however lots of implications come into place. The E6600 is the best choice as it has double the L2 cache of the cheaper two, never mind the fact it can be Oc'd well past the E6800 extreme's stock value and wont show up any issue's atall.
Buy an E6600 Oc to about the value of a E6800 and not have an issue I feel would be best bang for the buck, infact I am considering getting the E6600 rather than the 6800 for the simple reason that it can easily cope with the stock 6800 speed's. E6800 oc'd can run stable at 5ghz but who need's that 8-)
E6600 is by far the best bang for buck chip on the market.
Martyn
Buy an E6600 Oc to about the value of a E6800 and not have an issue I feel would be best bang for the buck, infact I am considering getting the E6600 rather than the 6800 for the simple reason that it can easily cope with the stock 6800 speed's. E6800 oc'd can run stable at 5ghz but who need's that 8-)
E6600 is by far the best bang for buck chip on the market.
Martyn
For your choises I would go to E6600.
id go for the 6600
but if your tight on cash 6300
but if your tight on cash 6300
The 6600, simply because of the cache issue.
It's true, you can easily oc the 6400 to more than 3,1GHz, but always keep in mind that the 6600 will do this aswell, and even further...
Hell, the 6600 is the biggest bang for buck nowadays anyway ;-)
It's true, you can easily oc the 6400 to more than 3,1GHz, but always keep in mind that the 6600 will do this aswell, and even further...
Hell, the 6600 is the biggest bang for buck nowadays anyway ;-)
how much can the cache do for it? i mean.... alot?
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
yeah...cache is a huge part of the processor. for instance, two of my friends have pentium d processors, but one has the 2x2mb L2 and the other 2x1mb L2. the bigger cache gives my friend an extra 100 3dmark06's score on processor.
Well, it's just - double the amount of data that can be stored within the cpu and does not have to be taken form external RAM, I think you also quite get the idea of 2GB RAM instad of 1...
If strapped for cash, and are cumfy overclocking, the E6300 WILL goto 3.1 without problems. But if money is no object, a 6600 is a good choice. Im cheap, and poor right now so i just ordered a 6300 and a board, Ill deal with some DDR2 after Xmas LOL.
... but PLEASE not with some crappy DDR2-533 or 667 but with 800 and CL4 at LEAST!<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Im cheap, and poor right now so i just ordered a 6300 and a board, Ill deal with some DDR2 after Xmas LOL.
(I hate my 533CL4, though, it's one year old...)
E6300
what im thinking now is the 6400 the double cache is ONLY a 7% increase in performace when clocked to the same speed. as a matter of fact, im 90% sure i am. unless someone can convince me otherwise.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
Then clock it to the same speed! You'll suffer from a higher power loss, meaning the CPU will overheat easier. The key detail is, that the same oc'ing level of the 6400 and 6600 are not the same speed.Des.Kmal wrote:
what im thinking now is the 6400 the double cache is ONLY a 7% increase in performace when clocked to the same speed. as a matter of fact, im 90% sure i am. unless someone can convince me otherwise.