Processors: E6600 vs E6700 & E6850 vs Q6600

HVMDesign · Post by **HVMDesign** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:44 pm

I would like to know how much better the E6700 performs compared to the E6600 (Stock and Overclock).

Basically I am trying to figure out whether or not the extra $100 is worth it.

Thanks!

Atmosper · Post by **Atmosper** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:34 pm

You won't notice any difference. Definitely not worth a hundred bucks. The E6600 is a great overclocker, spend the extra money on better cooling instead.

cmthomson · Post by **cmthomson** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:42 pm

At stock, the 6700 runs 11% faster than a 6600 on some benchmarks, and much less than that on real workloads. Overclocked, it might run a bit faster or cooler than a 6600, but it's pretty much a crap shoot.

These two parts are exactly the same design, sorted after fabrication based on measurements of some test points on the chips. There is normally a surprisingly large variation among wafers built on the same fab on the same day...

angelkiller · Post by **angelkiller** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:12 pm

I wrote this in another thread:

angelkiller wrote:I would strongly advise you (the OP) NOT to get a E6700. Right now the performance difference between the E6600 and E6700 is negligible. In everyday uses, you will not notice the difference. Only benchmarks will show the slight edge the E6700 has at stock speeds. The E6600 is a much better deal especially when it comes to OC'ing. If you get the E6600, and raise the FSB by just 30MHz, your E6600 will preform equal to a E6700. But for $100 less!! And even using the stock cooler, at most the temperature difference at load will be 5C. Nowhere near dangerous. Now let's say you invest half of that $100 savings into a good heatsink. (Like a Ninja) Now you are able to OC your E6600 to 3GHz and beyond!! Your CPU is still kept (realitivly) cool, and you still have saved $50!! And at 3GHz, the E6600 will defiantly be noticeably faster than the E6700.

Hope this helps.

seemingly.random · Post by **seemingly.random** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:05 pm

On the other hand, if the decision can be postponed for a month, a 6700 will be close to today's 6600 price. The price of quads will be less stratospheric also. But you could still wait, get the 6600 and have money for other goodies.

HVMDesign · Post by **HVMDesign** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:38 am

Thanks for your replies, very helpful. I would go for the E6600 between those two.

I think I have decided to get the E6850 (3 GHz stock) when it is released ~$266 in July (ZipZoomFly is currently selling it as a preorder).

seemingly.random · Post by **seemingly.random** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:06 pm

HVMDesign wrote:Thanks for your replies, very helpful. I would go for the E6600 between those two.

I think I have decided to get the E6850 (3 GHz stock) when it is released ~$266 in July (ZipZoomFly is currently selling it as a preorder).

You might want to check out this thread first. Depending on usage, the Q6600 might be better.

HVMDesign · Post by **HVMDesign** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:49 pm

Interesting. For my purposes, the quad core would probably suit me better.

Would anybody else here take the Q6600 over E6850?

pyogenes · Post by **pyogenes** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:05 pm

I'd get the dual core over the quad core for my needs.

The only thing I do that stresses my CPU is playing Supreme Commander. For games higher clock speeds are more useful than more cores.

mexell · Post by **mexell** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:35 pm

The only thing I do that stresses my CPU is playing Supreme Commander. For games higher clock speeds are more useful than more cores.

Same here

I overclocked my 6420 yesterday to 3GHz, and SC works like a charm. Even better than before. The downside: During stresstesting, CPU temp goes up to ~61Â°C. But outdoors we have 32Â°C now, which results in ~26Â°C in my office/playground.

Back on topic: Shouldn't a 6420 oc'ed to 3GHz be as fast as a 6600 oc'ed to 3GHz? No, it should be even a bit faster in theory because of the slightly faster FSB, shouldn't it? Caches and architecture are the same...