Sign in to follow this  
Wandering Budoka

Thinking about buying a Core 2 Duo CPU

Recommended Posts

I've got a Pentium D 820 2.8 Ghz in my PC right now. I'm not really an Intel fan, but it's what came with a free PC. I've been looking at the Core 2 Duos and I've torn between the 6600 and the 6700. Anyone have some advice on deciding which one to buy? I don't really want to spend the regular price for one, so I'm looking on eBay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This belongs in the Tech Help forum.

2. I have no experience with Intels whatsoever. AMD fanboy here so as far as I'm concerned there's probably very little difference between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They go down in GHz but there are multiple cores in each, so in multithreaded/multitasked operations they're faster. Now granted, if what you're doing doesn't utilize them, you won't notice a difference in performance.

Plus it's important to note that if you're upgrading from a single-core processor and you aren't intent on reformatting your computer, you will have to install the multi-processor kernel (so it says ACPI Multiprocessor PC instead of ACPI Uniprocessor PC in device manager) to actually take advantage of the second core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got a Pentium D 820 2.8 Ghz in my PC right now. I'm not really an Intel fan, but it's what came with a free PC. I've been looking at the Core 2 Duos and I've torn between the 6600 and the 6700. Anyone have some advice on deciding which one to buy? I don't really want to spend the regular price for one, so I'm looking on eBay.

I think the 6600 is regarded as the best value with respect to power/price. And you can always overclock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why stop at just two cores? Get the quad-core offering and have a beast as blazingly fast as mine.

Otherwise, yes, 6600 is the better power/price ratio currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=431&chart=167

Tom's Hardware is awesome. Just try out different bench marks and check the difference.

From what I'm seeing, there seems to be about a 10% increase in performance in almost all areas between the E6600 and the E6700. On newegg.com, the E6600 costs $226 and the E6700 is going for $320. That's almost a 50% increase in price for only ~10% increase in performance which probably wouldn't be discernible anyway. So unless you find a really good deal on the E6700 on ebay, go with the E6600.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why stop at just two cores? Get the quad-core offering and have a beast as blazingly fast as mine.

Otherwise, yes, 6600 is the better power/price ratio currently.

Unless you use Vista, you wont be able to properly use more than 2 cores. Hell, XP barely knows how to utilize two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also heard some games get really confused when dealing with two cores (at least in XP). A lot of people I know who had a AMD X2 processor have to disable one core before playing BattleField 2. Something to check out. I still recommend a Core 2 Duo because it's an outstanding processor and you'll probably get your money out of it for a long time yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CHz, once I'm assured decent speeds in Oblivion on Vista, this baby is so Vista'd. I admit, XP occasionally muffs it with determining which core should be doing what - I mean, I'd dedicate a single core to System and leave one core dedicated entirely to foreground processes (ie, games, etc) but evidently XP doesn't think to do this.

Nekko, the only instance of having to disable multiple cores for games that I've found has been in games that use the Dark Engine or some variant thereof. This means Thief, Thief 2 and System Shock 2 are the only games I've encountered with that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've also heard some games get really confused when dealing with two cores (at least in XP). A lot of people I know who had a AMD X2 processor have to disable one core before playing BattleField 2. Something to check out. I still recommend a Core 2 Duo because it's an outstanding processor and you'll probably get your money out of it for a long time yet.

It depends on if the game was written to utilize more than one core in the first place. :P

Budoka: I'm an AMD fanboy, so all of my instincts are pointing towards telling you "DON'T BUY INTEL!!!!!11111oneeleven" but the Core 2 Duos are really the best processors currently on the market, so if you don't have a problem with Intel there's no reason why you shouldn't go for one. And I figure if you're gonna go for something like this, you might as well go all out, so grab yourself the 6700.

Gecko: The rated ghz number is per-core, so to get an accurate number on the capabilities of the processor, multiply that number by 2. :-P Overall ghz don't really matter anymore anyway as a way to make a comparison of processors, for reasons I'm about to tell Pyrion.

Pyrion: Actually, even if only a single core at a time is utilized by itself, dual cores are better performers than the old single core procs, because of the better architecture used by the dual cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be a per-game thing. Neverwinter Nights 2 runs entirely in a single thread, so while you can run it on a multi-core or multi-processor system, you'll only be using one core.

I don't understand that whole "dedicate a core to the system" notion because what the HELL is your system doing besides the foreground app that actually needs a whole core to itself?

It's probably better to set processor affinity for your foreground app and let everything else share the remaining core, but honestly I'd rather let Windows handle it automatically and only set processor affinity for single processes that don't support multicore processors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cubase manual suggests setting your computer to favour background processes instead of foreground apps. I don't fully understand why, but music could be one reason to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad thing is.. I've been an AMD fanboy for years, but I've been comtemplating buying an E6600. After the price drop on it a couple months ago the price is REALLY attractive. The only problem is I have to buy a new motherboard, RAM, and cpu cooler, in addition to the processor, of course.

Decisions, decisions..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come hell or high water, I'm sticking with AMD. See, I'm past the "fanboy" stage, well into "zealot." :D

I'd like to stick with AMD. They need to get Barcelona out soon, though. It looks as if Barcelona could be a really good chip, but they've gotta release it first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this