IMPATIENT -- E6400, E6420 or E6600 (POLL Added)

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater
I have a single core A64 3500+, so for me the upgrade is REALLY painful right now to wait. I can't even play the latest games anymore without some of them chugging down due to lack of dual core. (Supreme Commander comes to mind)

The lack of dual-core might not be the main problem with your performance in Supreme Commander. Benchmarks show that even an e6700 with a GTX chugs as well. And that's at 1280x1024!

They conclude with:

The more processing power you throw at this system the better, though I do not agree that multi-core processors ensure excellent performance. I ran a few tests using Core 2 Quad and Duo processors and noticed that the second, third or fourth cores did very little when compared to the first. In the most intense battles the first core would operate at around 90 ~ 100% where as additional cores worked between 20 ~ 50%. Of course this helps, but evidently Supreme Commander is not designed to fully utilize multi-core processors, or at least we have not seen it do so.

I wish they would've tested some single-core chips as well, though (and some higher-clocked C2Ds too).

 

[Jerry944T]

I've been having the same mental battle. I figure if I wait some really good deals will fall out of the sky on other components. SATA optical drives come to mind.
If I build now, which I don't have to, I'll hate myself for not having the latest technology for a lesser price. My boat may float differently than yours however

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Midnight Rambler
Let's see ...

A.) Wait at least 6 weeks and maybe save $50 on a 6600. And take the risk that RAM goes back up.

or

B.) Buy now and enjoy.


I'd choose B. Never know if the next rev OC's as well. Also, you can get the Bad Axe2 from MicroCenter right now for approx. $175.

oh crap i totally forgot about this!!

Ummmm better option, get the RAM now!! and wait on the cpu.

BTW TIA, i sold my QX because it was giving me more headaches then it was worth. I honestly dont see why i needed a QX to begin with, but then again, computers to me is a toy and not a tool

 

[AlgaeEater]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater
I have a single core A64 3500+, so for me the upgrade is REALLY painful right now to wait. I can't even play the latest games anymore without some of them chugging down due to lack of dual core. (Supreme Commander comes to mind)

The lack of dual-core might not be the main problem with your performance in Supreme Commander. Benchmarks show that even an e6700 with a GTX chugs as well. And that's at 1280x1024!

They conclude with:

The more processing power you throw at this system the better, though I do not agree that multi-core processors ensure excellent performance. I ran a few tests using Core 2 Quad and Duo processors and noticed that the second, third or fourth cores did very little when compared to the first. In the most intense battles the first core would operate at around 90 ~ 100% where as additional cores worked between 20 ~ 50%. Of course this helps, but evidently Supreme Commander is not designed to fully utilize multi-core processors, or at least we have not seen it do so.

I wish they would've tested some single-core chips as well, though (and some higher-clocked C2Ds too).

First of all, thanks for the informative reply! Doesn't make me feel so bad that my computer chugs on Supreme Commander, as it seems it's a demanding (or unoptimized game).

The reviewer still did mention however that those results were at maximum load, and he had a consistant 24 FPS average with 4-8 players on a large map with a lot of units. That's pretty good considering the massive amounts of units Supreme Commander has. With my computer, anything at or past 4 players and I'm down to the teens in fps, usually 12-16. (XP System, new formatted, 2 Gig Ram, Radeon 512MB 1900XT, No Anti-virus, office, or anything running background or even installed)

It really does help to have a dual core processor, because at least you can have consistant results. The AMD X2 cores, although poor in comparison to the Intel ones by a long shot, still provided consistant results on max load. But I think his video card pushed a lot more then he gives credit to.

 

[GamingDaemon]

Originally posted by: Midnight Rambler
Let's see ...

A.) Wait at least 6 weeks and maybe save $50 on a 6600. And take the risk that RAM goes back up.

or

B.) Buy now and enjoy.


I'd choose B. Never know if the next rev OC's as well. Also, you can get the Bad Axe2 from MicroCenter right now for approx. $175.

Good call Midnight Rambler! I think I will do that, buy the proc and memory now, and figure out which motherboard and case to buy later. Though, $175 for the BadAxe2 is very tempting.

Oh, aigomorla, I think you might be confusing TIA, a TLA (three-letter acronym ) meaning thanks in advance, as my initials.

Finally, I am running Supreme Commander under Vista on an AMD X2 4200+ with 2GB of memory, and an eVGA 7900 GT KO vide card, with no OC'ing on the proc or GPU, and I see no slowness at all, even in big battles. I just installed the nVidia 100.65 drivers and even added anti-aliasing 4 which makes it look stunning. The only slowness is the nuclear explosions, but then, I enjoy them in slow motion. I did turn the fidelity all the way down though, maybe that's the key.

Long live anandtech's forum posters. You are all awesome!!

~GamingDaemon

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater
It really does help to have a dual core processor, because at least you can have consistant results. The AMD X2 cores, although poor in comparison to the Intel ones by a long shot, still provided consistant results on max load. But I think his video card pushed a lot more then he gives credit to.

You bring up a good point here-- one which I am guilty of dismissing time and time again. Frames-per-second are not the end-all be-all measurement of playability. I remember not being much of an advocate for 2GB of ram. Benchmarks just didn't show any benefit whatsoever. Then, I got BF2 and played with 1GB of ram. It was choppy at max settings. I upgraded to 2GB and ALL of the choppiness went away.

This was something benchmarks would NOT show. Maybe things are similar with dual-core CPUs. I have used the support of benchmarks to show that dual-core doesn't benefit much for gaming performance (depending on settings, etc) much the same way I did with the 2GB ram issue. Maybe I'm wrong about the dual-core just as I was with the ram. I dunno. And I suppose I won't truly know until I get one myself.

I'll probably end up upgrading my s939 to X2 sometime. It's just that right now, I don't have any issues with gaming that I feel a dual-core chip would fix, for the settings I game at. Instead, I would rather put that $ into a faster video card. I may run that risk of not being able to find a s939 X2 when I'm ready, but I'm willing to take that risk at the moment.

 

[genab29]

Hello,

I know that you are probably going to think this is odd..... but you have a quote on your posting that says " I fooled you, I fooled you, I got Pig Iron... all Pig Iron" You wouldn't happen to know the exact name of that song and who sings it..... would you? I have been looking on line for hours and cannot find any iformation on it. My email address is
genab25@swat.coop Thank you for your time!! )

 

[Jodiuh]

Oops...didn't mean to reply. But this thread did convince me to go w/ a 6600 and sell the 6400 to my bro.

 

[imported_Smurf]

IMO, buy the e6400 NOW! (I mean, right now!)

You can snag the e6400 processor on eBay for less than $200 SHIPPED.

This 2.16ghz processor easily overclocks to north of 3ghz with descent ram/mobo
(Not on stock cooling, but I'm assuming you can buy your pimped out heatsink/fan/waterblock/whatever now, seems how you'll be using the same one on your 6420)

In 6 months, sell the thing on ebay for $180. Buy your 6420.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: tallman45
Wait, by then Vista will also have some bugs ironed out

Vista is a bug... I will never buy it.

Get the 6600 now if you have the money, otherwise wait.

I beg to differ.

Anyway, I'd wait for the price drop, if you can. And my 8800GTX with 100.65 is working fine on vista x64, besides coming out of hibernation.

 

[ineedaname]

Personally I would go for the E6600 just look at my sig. I'm confident that pretty much all E6600 can hit 3.6ghz with the right cooling. As for the 6400's and below i know many top out at 3.3ghz or so.

If you want RAM as cheap as possible ur not gonna believe me but buy Kingston PC-5400 value ram.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820134046

I did a review on this ram and I overclocked it to 900mhz 4-4-4 2t easily. It maxed out at just under 1000mhz but i've seen some people take it over 1000mhz.

 

[kmmatney]

The other option is to get the E4400 (with the 10x multiplier) and pin-mod it to default to 2.66 Ghz. Then you can start overclocking from there...

 

[secretanchitman]

E6650/E6550 whatever the model name is. 1333FSB for a cheap price FTW!

 

[KMKTEXAN]

I am rebuilding , too. I am going to wait for the E6600 price drop or get a E6420 when they are released. I'm pretty patient when it comes to saving a little money.

I have already bought this:

Patriot Ram

ASUS P5B Deluxe:

Rocket II

XFi

Antec P160W

Seagate 400gb

Lite-On 20x Sata

I will keep my Corsair 620HX power supply and Asus X1900XT video card (waiting for ATI to release DX10 cards before decide which DX10 card to get).

Sometimes it's kind of hard seeing all this stuff just sitting there.

 

[8 bit barbarian]

When does the Vista Upgrade Coupon deal end for Windows?

I've got a nice cart full @ Newegg with an e6600 but I need to pick up an XP Pro OEM disc, too and if that mail in upgrade deal ends before the Aprill 22 price cut then waiting for a e6700 would be a wash based on that. I'd really like to dual boot XP Pro and Vista to get ramped up into Vista casually.

That and RAM prices and plus I'm just really ready for a new box.

 

[Xvys]

I would want a 4mb cache cpu, the E6420. That's the one to get. It will be replaced in Q3 by the E6540 with 1333FSB ($163). But you could easily crank up the E6420 to 1333FSB, or probably 2000FSB and more! Intel is just cacheing in by overclocking the FSB like everyone else does

 

[hawksballer]

I am waiting myself I figure I can last without a fast computer for a few weeks, I just hope I can get the 6420 or 6600 after the price cut...they are going to be in short supply IMO for the first few weeks

 

[ineedaname]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
E6650/E6550 whatever the model name is. 1333FSB for a cheap price FTW!

That 1333FSB comes at a cost of losing 2x multi.

If you ask me that's a load of crap.

 

[superbooga]

If you're impatient, just snag the E6400 right now.

I was also in a similar position. However at the end I ended up buying an E6400. Why? Because if you think about it, all C2D's are really, really, fast... and especially so when you overclock them to 3.0+ GHz.

 

[MADMAX23]

If you want to OC your C2D to 3.2 Ghz on air cooling with a FSB of 400 Mhz....and DDR2 800 memory I think the answer is pretty clear, get an E6400 and you'll be very happy for a loooong time....until Quad cores are affordable (autumn-winter 2007)

If you buy an E6600 now or 6 weeks later....you may not be able to get 3.2Ghz as easily as with an E6400 (4MB cache C2Ds tend to overclock lower, less headroom)

You'll probably need more voltage than with an E6400....and I wouldn't give a C2D more than 1.5v for a 24/7 basis.

Also, take into account that many "regular" people have "only" (not enough?) been able to get their E6600 to 3.00Ghz with solid stability for an everyday reliable use....If you aim for 3.2Ghz....take the easy and pleasant way, you won't be dissapointed.

I have had my E6400 since August (I paid then 240$), it's a great performer at 3.2 Ghz, a complete beast for such a low price compared to the much more expensive X6800 (2.93 Ghz). What I am going to do: I plan to keep it until Intel quad core CPU prices drop considerably....I mean, I do not have any headache because of the upcoming 4Mb cache E6420....or the lower E6600 price in 6 weeks....make a choice, a clever choice, a choice that fits what you want that chip for and for how long....

Your safest bet: get an E6400 now and enjoy, because that's what all this is about....and after 6 months get a quad core Cpu if you need/want one. Simplify things....that's all.

Your alternative: Wait 6 weeks until E6420s hit the streets and 2 more weeks until people report their "retail" OC experiences with those chips, that's 8 weeks = 2 months waiting!! Too much for some bucks...

 

[Squyd]

Earlier in the thread I voted to go with an E6300 and now I have some results to show: with P5B deluxe board, Patriot PC6400 memory and Scythe Infinity HS, the thing is running 3.36GHz stable with 1.475 Vcore. I'm impressed.

I had thought long and hard about which Conroe to get. With my new rig, it looks my next CPU has to be a quad core at the E6300 price

 

[Xvys]

The E6300 or any e6xxx series are all the processor anyone will ever really need. But as Bill Gates once said, 16mb of ram is all anyone would ever need...or whatever.

Say Squyd, I have the E6300 and P5B also. It runs fine at 520FSB but gets too hot at that speed. Its sweet spot seems to be 470FSB = 3290MHz with the bios vCore set to 1.3875v (1.32v actual). Is your 1.475v your bios setting or actual? (...as mine would catch fire with that much juice

 

[Squyd]

I agree 470-480FSB appears to be the sweet spot. 520FSB is too high for me (can't even go into windows). I suspect my Vcore can be lower but haven't done this systematically (1.475v in bios, 1.426v in speedfan reading)

 

[adapa]

Another option not written about is to get a e4300 now & upgrade to a Quad in Q3 after the prices come down.

E4300 on 4.22 for $113 + Quad6600 in Q3 for $266 =$379

But & this is huge, I don't game so the e4300 will be ok for my needs.