e6400 > e6600?

I was reading that the extra cache on the e6600 actually can hold back overclocking performance, for minimal performance benefits. (Corsair System Build Reports, last page http://tools.corsairmemory.com/systembuild/report.aspx?report_id=78237&sid=13) The author of that article seemed to think that you might get better performance with a slower clock speed but a higher cache on the e6600, but that it was sort of trial and error.

On sort of a random side note, how important is it to have your cpu and ram running at 1:1 frequencies? Also am I correct that a 1:1 ratio with ddr2 800 ram would mean a cpu fsb of 400, multiplied by 8 for the e6400 and 9 for the e6600 to get the final clock speed?

Basically I'm just trying to figure out ultimately what kind of performance I can get from different processors, I've come up a little short on my expected PC budget, so I'm looking for a place to cut costs, but if I can get equal or better performance from a processor thats $100 cheaper, then that would be an obvious choice.

I heard that the E6420 is better at OCing than the regular E6400.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_11.html

Since when larger cache holds back in OCing? That guy must be drunk.

Lets put it this way, running an E6400 at 3.7ghz and competing it with an E6600 at 3.7ghz... the obvious winner will be the E6600. Both basically can reach the same speed. So larger cache doesn't hold you back in OCing.

Yes you can get E6600 performance with an E6400 with a simple OC from stock.

I heard that the E6420 is better at OCing than the regular E6400.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_11.html

AARONRULZ1

GooDness DUDE!!! i want to be able to do that. what Motherboard are you using, and what type of cooling, power supply. And was that picture from a e6400 or the e6420 you wr talking about. I know the pic says "E6400" but just making sure.

I suppose another factor for me is that with the extra $100 I could possibly afford an 8800gtx over the gts assuming my budget crisis gets worked out. What do you all think of that? Does a larger cache actually give you significantly increased performance?

Thanks for the feedback up til now by the way 

[QUOTE="AARONRULZ1"]

I heard that the E6420 is better at OCing than the regular E6400.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_11.html

00al2003

GooDness DUDE!!! i want to be able to do that. what Motherboard are you using, and what type of cooling, power supply. And was that picture from a e6400 or the e6420 you wr talking about. I know the pic says "E6400" but just making sure.

how do you get to the CPU-Z?--JpR--

 Download it from here.

Since when larger cache holds back in OCing? That guy must be drunk.

Lets put it this way, running an E6400 at 3.7ghz and competing it with an E6600 at 3.7ghz... the obvious winner will be the E6600. Both basically can reach the same speed. So larger cache doesn't hold you back in OCing.

Yes you can get E6600 performance with an E6400 with a simple OC from stock.

SSJBen

Technically larger cache should hold back OCing, since more current flows through the extra cache, generating more heat. However, it shouldn't make enough of a difference to back off to an e6400 if the e6600 is in your budget. 

[QUOTE="SSJBen"]

Since when larger cache holds back in OCing? That guy must be drunk.

Lets put it this way, running an E6400 at 3.7ghz and competing it with an E6600 at 3.7ghz... the obvious winner will be the E6600. Both basically can reach the same speed. So larger cache doesn't hold you back in OCing.

Yes you can get E6600 performance with an E6400 with a simple OC from stock.

Baselerd

Technically larger cache should hold back OCing, since more current flows through the extra cache, generating more heat. However, it shouldn't make enough of a difference to back off to an e6400 if the e6600 is in your budget.

[QUOTE="SSJBen"]

Since when larger cache holds back in OCing? That guy must be drunk.

Lets put it this way, running an E6400 at 3.7ghz and competing it with an E6600 at 3.7ghz... the obvious winner will be the E6600. Both basically can reach the same speed. So larger cache doesn't hold you back in OCing.

Yes you can get E6600 performance with an E6400 with a simple OC from stock.

Baselerd

Technically larger cache should hold back OCing, since more current flows through the extra cache, generating more heat. However, it shouldn't make enough of a difference to back off to an e6400 if the e6600 is in your budget.

More current isn't flowing through the extra cache though...

I also believe that more cache = greater overclocking. I made that statement in a thread in the OCU and someone stated that it would be more likely to cause instability since there are more transistors but that is also wrong, since the transistors of the cache aren't going to be "clocked" any higher. 

[QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="SSJBen"]

Since when larger cache holds back in OCing? That guy must be drunk.

Lets put it this way, running an E6400 at 3.7ghz and competing it with an E6600 at 3.7ghz... the obvious winner will be the E6600. Both basically can reach the same speed. So larger cache doesn't hold you back in OCing.

Yes you can get E6600 performance with an E6400 with a simple OC from stock.

LordEC911

Technically larger cache should hold back OCing, since more current flows through the extra cache, generating more heat. However, it shouldn't make enough of a difference to back off to an e6400 if the e6600 is in your budget.

More current isn't flowing through the extra cache though...

I also believe that more cache = greater overclocking. I made that statement in a thread in the OCU and someone stated that it would be more likely to cause instability since there are more transistors but that is also wrong, since the transistors of the cache aren't going to be "clocked" any higher.

they're there, generating more heat at least. i really don't know the specifics of why, but i tend to deal in the practical applications of computer hardware as opposed to the theory, and it's pretty much always worked out that way for me.. when you have two processors of otherwise the same architecture side by side, the one with less cache tends to be able to clock higher. maybe it's similar to single-core vs dual-core or something - the opty 14x's could make it up to higher clocks relatively easily compared to their dual-core brothers. TBH i don't have any idea how the e6400 vs e6600 is going right now with that, but i wouldn't be surprised if it followed the pattern set in the past. the difference probably isn't so large in performance in the end, either way.Makari

The single vs dualcore can't be compared here, for that is due to one core lacking and keeping the other one back.

Overclocking, without separate volts/clocks for each core, linearly gets harder with each additional core.

[QUOTE="Makari"]they're there, generating more heat at least. i really don't know the specifics of why, but i tend to deal in the practical applications of computer hardware as opposed to the theory, and it's pretty much always worked out that way for me.. when you have two processors of otherwise the same architecture side by side, the one with less cache tends to be able to clock higher. maybe it's similar to single-core vs dual-core or something - the opty 14x's could make it up to higher clocks relatively easily compared to their dual-core brothers. TBH i don't have any idea how the e6400 vs e6600 is going right now with that, but i wouldn't be surprised if it followed the pattern set in the past. the difference probably isn't so large in performance in the end, either way.LordEC911

The single vs dualcore can't be compared here, for that is due to one core lacking and keeping the other one back.

Overclocking, without separate volts/clocks for each core, linearly gets harder with each additional core.

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

[QUOTE="Makari"]they're there, generating more heat at least. i really don't know the specifics of why, but i tend to deal in the practical applications of computer hardware as opposed to the theory, and it's pretty much always worked out that way for me.. when you have two processors of otherwise the same architecture side by side, the one with less cache tends to be able to clock higher. maybe it's similar to single-core vs dual-core or something - the opty 14x's could make it up to higher clocks relatively easily compared to their dual-core brothers. TBH i don't have any idea how the e6400 vs e6600 is going right now with that, but i wouldn't be surprised if it followed the pattern set in the past. the difference probably isn't so large in performance in the end, either way.Makari

The single vs dualcore can't be compared here, for that is due to one core lacking and keeping the other one back.

Overclocking, without separate volts/clocks for each core, linearly gets harder with each additional core.

One core is going to be lacking and holding the other core back, since they are currently linked together.  No matter the quality of the silicon, one will still be lacking, in comparison to the other. That is just the way it is with any manufacturing process.

One core is going to be lacking and holding the other core back, since they are currently linked together. No matter the quality of the silicon, one will still be lacking, in comparison to the other. That is just the way it is with any manufacturing process.LordEC911

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]One core is going to be lacking and holding the other core back, since they are currently linked together. No matter the quality of the silicon, one will still be lacking, in comparison to the other. That is just the way it is with any manufacturing process.Makari

How so?

It is mainly due to the added heat of the near double number of transistors...

Which singlecore vs dualcore are you talking about? 

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="LordEC911"]One core is going to be lacking and holding the other core back, since they are currently linked together. No matter the quality of the silicon, one will still be lacking, in comparison to the other. That is just the way it is with any manufacturing process.LordEC911

How so?

It is mainly due to the added heat of the near double number of transistors...

Which singlecore vs dualcore are you talking about?

Since when larger cache holds back in OCing? That guy must be drunk.

Lets put it this way, running an E6400 at 3.7ghz and competing it with an E6600 at 3.7ghz... the obvious winner will be the E6600. Both basically can reach the same speed. So larger cache doesn't hold you back in OCing.

Yes you can get E6600 performance with an E6400 with a simple OC from stock.

SSJBen

Well...maybe.  But the E6600 has a larger multiplier, of 9x instead of the E6400s 8x.  That means at 3.7 ghz, the FSB of the E6600 would be 411 mhz, while the E6400 would be 462 mhz.  The faster FSB might be enough to overcome the approximately 3% performance gain that the E6600 has from the doubled cache size.  

[QUOTE="SSJBen"]

Since when larger cache holds back in OCing? That guy must be drunk.

Lets put it this way, running an E6400 at 3.7ghz and competing it with an E6600 at 3.7ghz... the obvious winner will be the E6600. Both basically can reach the same speed. So larger cache doesn't hold you back in OCing.

Yes you can get E6600 performance with an E6400 with a simple OC from stock.

jjjhsmith

Well...maybe. But the E6600 has a larger multiplier, of 9x instead of the E6400s 8x. That means at 3.7 ghz, the FSB of the E6600 would be 411 mhz, while the E6400 would be 462 mhz. The faster FSB might be enough to overcome the approximately 3% performance gain that the E6600 has from the doubled cache size.

Good luck finding an E6400 that can clock that high... 

Back to the extra cache vs. half cache. Think about this. You have current flowing through more cache area on the chip, thus more heat is generated. Simple really. On the e6400, the extra cache is still there, just deactivated (cut with a laser even if my memory serves right.) That would technically cool the processor, giving it a higher heat generated per heat capacity ratio, thus dispersing the heat across the die more. However, this difference is so small it's negligible.Baselerd

Also, it doesn't exactly work into the equation when you take the heat/temps out of the picture with a phase changer. The E6600 is still going to overclock higher on suicide runs then the E6400, about 800mhz higher.