Difference between C2D processors

[Phrantic]

Hi,

I too am building a new gaming pc, and I'm undecided which of the Core 2 Duo processors I should pick.

I was originally set for the wallet friendly E6300, but I've seen E6600's for a little $100 extra that have been looking pretty impressive in benchmarks. My problem is that I can't really find benchmarks where all the C2D processors are compared, from the 6300 to 6800.

Does the extra 2MB cache give a lot of extra performance in return? While I know that the CPUs certainly get better as their numbers go up, and it's not as if I can't afford them, but I'd rather invest those bucks in another part of my machine if the pay back is not worth mentioning.

The PC is going to be fairly durable and I don't know that much about CPUs but would the E6300 go along with its time well? Or do the extra cache and the higher frequencies of 6600+ make them last longer?

 

[Sora]

Depends on what you like and what your rig is going to be used for most.

If you plan on doing coding and encrypting stuff with it you probably will want the E6600.

But since you said a gaming PC the E6300 will be fine as the 2mb extra cache in gaming is minimal and not worth the extra 135 bucks unless you have the extra money to blow.

As far as the versions just buy the cheapest of each two lines meaning

if you get the 2mb for cheaper just get an e6300 and if you decide on the 4mb then get a E660. The reason being the cores are exactly the same thing. You could take an E6300 Overclock it VERY MINIMAL and it would be as fast as the E6400. Since there is no hardware difference really. BTW even with a cheap setup the Core 2 Duo can OC to 2.4 or so easily.

Same goes with the E6600...no difference in hardware over the 6700 or the X6800. Actully ALL C2D were manufactued to be the same thing as in, Intel basicly made all X6800 but only the ones that passed the highest quality inspection got to be them.
As each one was inspected the worse it was (usually heat wise) it was named a different name and sold cheaper with lower stock frequency. Also the E6300, and E6400 trully have 4mb cache in them, its just 2mb were locked by Intel to make them even more stable and alowed them to be sold cheap. In the end the difference between most is very minute.

The info I just said is from the stuff that i've read and remembered. Should be right but may not be 100% right.

 

[Phrantic]

Very useful information there Sora, I'm quite leaning towards the cheap 6300 now. Two questions I still have though;

- The E6300 is safely overclockable indeed, I've seen people reach clocks such as 2.55Mhz which is better than the E6400 stock clock, but can an E6400 overclock beyond that point, or is it limited to the same due to the similar technology?

- You're saying that Intel locked 2mb of cache. Would it be possible to like, unlock it, and if so, would it be worth the hassle? Or is this a modification on the outside?

 

[Sora]

First ill go for the unlock question:
I'm almost possitive Intel made it pretty **** hard with software to do.

You see, the E6400 is really almost the same quality in parts and as well made as the E6300. The E6300 probably ran a few degrees hotter or so, so they downclocked it some more to make it SUPER stable.

Thing is with the right Mobo, ram, and cooling the E6300 can reach Speeds of 3.4ghz+

If you were to say grab a pretty cheap mobo, and some DDR2-677 ram you could OC it to about 2.5ghz on stock cooling easily and the chip would be stable as long as you have just decent cooling in the case.

 

[dario03]

Compares the E6300, E6600, E6700, E6800 and AMD competitors.