RobP4P
09-13-2006, 01:32 PM
It seems like the latest batches may go contrary to this idea, but I just wanted to throw this out and see what everyone thinks.
I'm debating between e6400 and e6600 like many others, and I can't help but think that there is a logical reason why e6400s would clock higher than e6600s given sufficient FSB. If you think about the binning process that CPU's would have to go through before being labeled e6xxx there would be two major considerations; yield of the cache, and yield at a given speed grade.
It also seems that the cache yield would necessarily take precedence over speed rating when binning a CPU (i.e. even if a given wafer has yield at >3GHZ, it could not be sold as conroe if all 4mb cache was not working). So in theory, you could have wafers coming out that Intel knows will clock WAY over 2.13GHz, but they have no choice but to sell them as allendales if the cache isn't all there.
So, it would then appear that the e6400s would be taken from the highest yielding wafers that dont pass the cache tests, and the e6600 (as the slowest conroe) would be taken from the wafers with the lowest speed yields that have all 4mb cache.
Now, this all becomes moot if the avg yield is 3.6-4.0Ghz range, but I think the idea would still hold that e6400s could be taken from a higher speed wafer than the e6600s!
What do you think?
btw 1st post here!!!!
------------------------
Barton 2500+@2.4ghz
Asus A7N8X dlx
Thermalright SK-7
1 gig DDR Corsair value RAM
9500pro@9700pro
250Gb Maxtor DM10
(used to be high end!)
Doing my homework for conroe upgrade...
I'm debating between e6400 and e6600 like many others, and I can't help but think that there is a logical reason why e6400s would clock higher than e6600s given sufficient FSB. If you think about the binning process that CPU's would have to go through before being labeled e6xxx there would be two major considerations; yield of the cache, and yield at a given speed grade.
It also seems that the cache yield would necessarily take precedence over speed rating when binning a CPU (i.e. even if a given wafer has yield at >3GHZ, it could not be sold as conroe if all 4mb cache was not working). So in theory, you could have wafers coming out that Intel knows will clock WAY over 2.13GHz, but they have no choice but to sell them as allendales if the cache isn't all there.
So, it would then appear that the e6400s would be taken from the highest yielding wafers that dont pass the cache tests, and the e6600 (as the slowest conroe) would be taken from the wafers with the lowest speed yields that have all 4mb cache.
Now, this all becomes moot if the avg yield is 3.6-4.0Ghz range, but I think the idea would still hold that e6400s could be taken from a higher speed wafer than the e6600s!
What do you think?
btw 1st post here!!!!
------------------------
Barton 2500+@2.4ghz
Asus A7N8X dlx
Thermalright SK-7
1 gig DDR Corsair value RAM
9500pro@9700pro
250Gb Maxtor DM10
(used to be high end!)
Doing my homework for conroe upgrade...