[Kirin]

First of all, you guys are just awesome. It's great to have a place where you can not only get good information, but also where you can see differing opinions without the posters flaming each other.

I actually have questions regarding a couple different issues. First off, my current rig is very much not VG friendly to the point where it's pretty much unplayable, so in the very near future, I'm gonna dust off the credit card and start from scratch. To that end, I've been doing some research and have a couple questions for you guys regarding some of the recomendations you've made.

I noticed that Foz is recommending the E6700 where Rabb1t is only recommending the E6600 until he goes to Quadcore. Just looking at the numbers, going from E6600 to E6700 seems like an 11% increase in clockspeed for almost 50% increase in price. Having read some of your threads where you discuss overclocking the CPU, I've seen it mentioned several times that even a 20-30% increase in clockspeed probably won't make that much of a difference to VG. So...

Is the difference between the E6600 and the E6700 CPU's only in the clockspeed?

Is the difference here more significant then it would be if someone were overclocking that same 11%?


(Actually have a couple other questions, but I think I'll stick to one topic per thread.)

Thanks bunches for any help you might have!!

[evilsofa]

Originally Posted by Kirin

Is the difference between the E6600 and the E6700 CPU's only in the clockspeed?

Is the difference here more significant then it would be if someone were overclocking that same 11%?

The E6600 has a locked multiplier of 9x. The E6700 has a locked multiplier of 10x. At the default FSB speed of 266Mhz, this makes the E6600 run at 2.4Ghz, and the E6700 run at 2.66Ghz.

As far as I know, the only difference between the two chips is the multiplier. The way you overclock these CPUs is by changing the FSB speed of your motherboard. To run the E6600 at 3.0Ghz, you increase the FSB from 266Mhz to 333Mhz (333 x 9 = 3000). To run the E6700 at 3.0Ghz, you increase the FSB to 300Mhz. (300 x 10 = 3000).

If you overclock the E6600 to only 2.66Ghz, the FSB speed will be 296Mhz. Since an unoverclocked E6700 would be running the FSB at 266Mhz, a system with an overclocked E6600 would actually be a bit faster - but I do not believe you would be able to detect that 30Mhz in FSB speed in ordinary use.

At higher overclocks, that difference in FSB speeds for the same CPU speed grows and may become noticable, but I'm not sure it would amount to much.

Earlier runs of the E6600 commonly went as high as 3.0Ghz or even 3.2Ghz with nothing but the stock air cooler, and as high as 3.6Ghz to 3.8Ghz with extreme air cooling or water cooling. Later runs are apparently not quite as spectacular and you can't count on anything over 3.2Ghz. There's not much talk about E6700 overclockability, probably because people intending to overclock got the E6600 and not the E6700.

It was leaked to the public last month that Intel's next price drop will happen on July 22, and that the price drop will be a doozy, with the quad-core Q6600 dropping to $266 and the E6750 becoming available at $183. Current prices are E6700 for $318, E6600 for $223 and Q6600 for $532.

So, check it out, if you buy an E6600 now and a Q6600 after July 22, that costs $43 less than the Q6600 does now. If you buy an E6320 now for $166 and an E6750 after July 22 for $183, that's $349, only $31 more than buying an E6700 now. So it's up to you whether to buy now and upgrade post-July 22, or just wait until the July 22 price drop kicks in.

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by Kirin

First off, my current rig is very much not VG friendly to the point where it's pretty much unplayable, so in the very near future, I'm gonna dust off the credit card and start from scratch.

Just a comment on what you said here – never ever ever upgrade an entire system core (or build a new system) for any single game. It’s just a bad idea. Do upgrade if you want better performance in said single game and other games, but don’t do it just for one single game.

And just to put the Ice_Hole disclaimer out here... ok go ahead and upgrade your entire system, or build a new system, for one single game if you totally absolutely love it and you have plenty of 'disposable income' to throw around everywhere.

Just looking at the numbers, going from E6600 to E6700 seems like an 11% increase in clockspeed for almost 50% increase in price.

It likely isn’t that much of an increase, which is why I kind of skip over it and go from the E6600 straight to quad core.

Of course one could counter that quad core really isn't a gain over dual core right now, but I'm pretty sure quad core will be a gain later on, while the faster E6700 speeds will only prolong how long the core survives. It won't do things like give you better performance in multithreaded games like the quad cores eventually will.

Having read some of your threads where you discuss overclocking the CPU, I've seen it mentioned several times that even a 20-30% increase in clockspeed probably won't make that much of a difference to VG.

I’m not sure if the ‘1/3 OC speed = actual gain’ formula would work in raw speed. I think ‘raw / true power’ is more gain. Um… I don’t know if Tom’s has a chart for that… Hum, if this is accurate, that 1/3 formula does appear to hold true for raw core speed in gaming. Guess it doesn’t matter where the speed comes from then. Though, the CPU test does translate to a ‘marks = raw speed difference’, so I’m not totally sure.

(Actually have a couple other questions, but I think I'll stick to one topic per thread.)

I can change the thread name to something like ‘Kirin’s zillion PC questions’, so you could ask whatever, but then peeps may actually expect you to have a zillion questions.

Originally Posted by evilsofa

As far as I know, the only difference between the two chips is the multiplier.

Eeemmm well there ya go. Do that mathy stuff and there’s your difference.

There's not much talk about E6700 overclockability, probably because people intending to overclock got the E6600 and not the E6700.

They do that. I think because it’s a bigger deal to brag about OC on a mainstream priced core than there is with a higher cost / high end core (since hardly anyone can afford it and there isn’t anyone around to compare to. )

E6750 becoming available at $183

Where’d ya see that one? I only recall a reference for the quad core pricing.

So, check it out, if you buy an E6600 now and a Q6600 after July 22, that costs $43 less than the Q6600 does now.

Not counting the fact that you could dump the E6600 onto the secondary market (ebay) quite easily at probably 85% of its new value at the time to recover more cash. (So, like at least +$130 recovery there. Though I recommend you start the bid at 60% current new value. )

So it's up to you whether to buy now and upgrade post-July 22

I’d recommend to everyone looking at an E6600 today to simply wait till the end of July and go for a Q6600 instead. Sure, the quad core won’t be all that much of a gain over dual core for a while yet, but heck, at the difference in price between dual core and quad core at that time there would be no point in not going quad core. (If we ignore any Vista weirdness type bugs. )

Sure, you could go E6600 “today” and then wait on a faster/better quad core, but I’d really just recommend waiting the ~1.25 months and going straight to quad core now and then leaving your ‘better’ quad core upgrade to be based on a DDR3 / PCIe v2 motherboard sometime in late 2008.

[Fozzik]

I don't consider overclocking as one of the criteria in picking out my recommended systems.

I picked the E6700 right now because it's on average about 10-15% faster than the E6600 in actual benchmarks (bit less in games, more in other things) and is about 30% more money (current $74 dollars more on Newegg).

The E6700 falls right in the price range I'm looking at, and does provide a decent performance hike for the price increase. *shrug* That's it.

And rabb1t's right... prices are about to change very drastically...If at all possible it's probably a good time to wait on buying a CPU.

[Jefe Maton]

I was just about to go wild and start my new build, I think my best bet is go get the RAM now and wait for the mobo. Ram prices seem really cheap too.

[Giftmacher]

Originally Posted by Jefe Maton

I was just about to go wild and start my new build, I think my best bet is go get the RAM now and wait for the mobo. Ram prices seem really cheap too.

You could do that, but I usually wait. If you have a bad component and have to wait a month or so to find out then that usually means an RMA with the manufacturer (which takes longer that returning to the vendor in my experience).

Gift.

[rabb1t]

As Gift mentions it is a very bad idea to buy parts separately. Remember, any part you buy has its coverage and RMA time clocks ticking the minute it gets into your home. So, particularly with a completely new build, you don't want to have parts on your floor waiting for other parts.

Ram prices shouldn't spike back up until around the end of the year when more peeps are building again.

[Kirin]

Thanks for the replies. I not only got my answer, but also learned a couple things I didn't even know that I didn't even know =)