Most people are planing to buy the E6600 because of the extra 4 MB cache (in addition you get an extra multiplier), although many people will still buy E6300/E6400 because of the lower price.
I haven't decided which one I'm going to buy myself, so I took a closer look on which CPU got the best price per performance ratio. I browsed around on the internet and collected the already existing data of E6300, E6400 and E6600. I haven't been able to read and correct the whole post but If you see any mistakes or anything else feel free to correct me.
------------ 4 MB cache ------------
X6800 2.99ghz 1066FSB 4MB L2 11x multi $999
E6700 2.66ghz 1066FSB 4MB L2 10x multi $530
E6600 2.40ghz 1066FSB 4MB L2 9x multi $316
------------ 2 MB cache ------------
E6400 2.13ghz 1066FSB 2MB L2 8x multi $224
E6300 1.86ghz 1066FSB 2MB L2 7x multi $183
E6600 35.11$/multi 25% more expensive than E6400 and 34.62% than E6300
E6400 28.00$/multi 7.69% more expensive than E6300 but 20% cheaper than E6600
E6300 26.00$/multi -, 7.12% cheaper than E6400
////////////////////////////////////
// Superpi 1MB
////////////////////////////////////
Some results from 4 MB and 2 MB cache CPUs. These results are made with DIFFERENT setups, therefore these results
are not 100% correct. This is followed by a theoretical time on a 4 ghz frequency. Frequency/4000mhz * current time.
Conroe (4 MB cache)
---------------------
E6600 @ 4055 mhz = 13.02 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=106497
Time @ 4ghz: 13.02 s
E6600 @ 4414 mhz = 11.75 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=106873
Time @ 4ghz: 12.97 s
E6700 @ 4501 mhz = 11.36 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=103390
Time @ 4ghz: 12,78 s
X6800 @ 5201 mhz = 9.72 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=106697
Time @ 4ghz: 12,64 s
Average time at 4 ghz for Conroe: 12,85 s
Average time at 3 ghz for Conroe (approximately, based on the results above): 17,13 s
Allendale (2 MB cache)
------------------------
E6300 @ 2877 mhz = 18.95 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...106685&page=14
Time @ 4ghz: 13.64 s
E6300 @ 3381 mhz = 16.59 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...106685&page=13
Time @ 4ghz: 14.02 s
E6300 @ 3549 mhz = 16.74 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...106685&page=14
Time @ 4ghz: 14.85 s
E6400 @ 3904 mhz = 15.75 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...106685&page=14
Time @ 4ghz: 15.37 s
Average time at 4 ghz for Allendale: 14,47 s
Average time at 3 ghz for Allendale (approximately, based on the results above): 19.29 s
////////////////////////////////////
// Superpi 32MB
////////////////////////////////////
I didn't find so many results on 32 MB superpi (feel free to post them if you have any) but so far I use these two.
Conroe (4 MB cache)
---------------------
E6600 @ 3744 mhz = 13m 56.20 s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=106285
Time @ 4ghz: 13m 02.40 s
Average time at 3 ghz for Conroe (approximately, based on the results above): 17m 23.04 s
Allendale (2 MB cache)
---------------------
E6400 @ 3409 mhz = 20m 21.31 s
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...87x7-32mx2.jpg
Time @ 4ghz: 17m 21.00 s
Average time at 3 ghz for Allendale (approximately, based on the results above): 23m 07.80 s
Since these results are based on different rigs with different motherboards and memory it's not possible to give an exactly result on how the CPU will perform. Anyway, here's the average result on the tested CPU's.
SuperPi 1MB
===========
Conroe @ 4ghz: 12,85 s
Allendale @ 4ghz: 14,47 s
Conroe @ 3ghz: 17,13 s
Allendale @ 3 ghz: 19.29 s
Difference: Conroe 12.6% faster
SuperPi 32MB
===========
Conroe @ 4ghz: 13m 02.40 s
Allendale @ 4ghz: 17m 21.00 s
Conroe @ 3ghz: 17m 23.04 s
Allendale @ 3 ghz: 23m 07.80 s
Difference: Conroe 33.1% faster
////////////////////////////////////
// Applications and games results
////////////////////////////////////
Here's some results I got from Anandtech.com, Hardware.fr, Bit-tech.net and Xbitlabs, which all compared the two L2 caches.
Anandtech.com
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=2795&p=4
Comment: The extra cache mostly effect media apps such as DivX, WME9, iTunes and some games. The average game performance boost is 2,8%, but as you see it varies pretty much depending on what game.
Average results: 3,5% on everything, 2.8% on games.
Hardware.fr
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/623-...o-dossier.html
Comment: 7.2% performance boost for WinRAR.
Average results: 2.9% performance increase overall, 5,5% on games (there was only two games though).
Bit-tech.net
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...cessors/5.html
Comment: I believe this says it all:Average Results: 2D Benchmarks 2.7%; Multi-tasking 2.6%; Gaming Benchmarks 1.7%.The amount of L2 cache does appear to make a difference - virtually
across the board - but the difference isn't as big as some were making it out to be. In the application benchmarks,
we found that there was a difference of around 2-3% on average. Both the large and small file compression and
encryption tests really benefited from the additional cache, yielding performance improvements of between 6-9%.
In our two multitasking tests, we found that the 4MB L2 cache-equipped Core 2 Duo was around 2.5% faster, depending
on the background task running. With MP3 encoding running in the background, we fond that the 4MB L2 cache Core 2
Duo was nearly 4% faster than it's 2MB L2 equipped sibling.
At low resolution, we saw varied improvements. Call Of Duty 2 yielded virtually no performance improvements at
either 1024x768 or 1600x1200 with high details, while both Quake 4 and Half-Life 2: Episode One displayed larger
performance improvements at 1024x768. However, when resolution was increased, only Half-Life 2: Episode One showed
any kind of performance advantage on the Core 2 Duo with 4MB of L2 cache.
Overall, the Core 2 Duo with 4MB of L2 cache is quicker than the 2MB Core 2 Duos at the same clock speed, but there
are several instances where there is little-to-no difference in performance.
Xbitlabs.com
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...o-e6300_2.html
Comments: SuperPi 0.9%?
Average results: 2.2% is average performance boost, 3,9% in games.
////////////////////////////////////
// Conclusion
////////////////////////////////////
I would say Anandtech had a nice summary of what I think describes the advantage/disadvantage with the extra
cache.This is basically confirmed by the results from different sources.The 4MB L2 cache can increase performance by as much as 10% in some situations. Such a performance
improvement is definitely tangible, and as applications grow larger in their working data sets then the advantage ofa larger cache will only become more visible. Unfortunately, you do pay a price premium for this added performance and future proofing as the cheapest 4MB L2 part is the E6600 priced at $316.
The average performance gain on all tests here is 2.2% (this means Allendale is 97.8% of the Conroe's speed) for the 4 MB cache Conroe, in games round 4.1%. You get a few FPS more which means you won't see any difference at all. I don't think it's worth paying $100 more (E6400 vs E6600) for 4 MB cache since the performance difference is so small. I would rather recommend you to save the money for a better video card or something else that would boost the performance more than a few percent.If you're the type to upgrade often, then the extra cache is not worth it as you're not getting enough of a present day increase in performance to justify the added cost. However, if this processor will be the basis for your system for the next several years, we'd strongly recommend picking a 4MB flavor of Core 2.
I'm not excluding that the cache may have some affect on future apps and operating systems such as Vista, but there's still a long time until the releases of these apps. My guess is that apps will be more optimized for dual core CPUs in the future and the extra cache may have some affect then, but not now. If you'r planning to have that CPU for a longer time, I think it's worth paying for extra cache, otherwise, no.
4 MB cache vs. 2 MB cache
=====================
+ Gives a small performance gain in media apps, some games and a few desktop apps such as WinRAR
+ If you are in need of every performance you can get, 4 MB cache is for you
+ A good choice if you are planning to run a server or something else that would require background apps with high memory need
- There's almost no performance gain
- The cheapest Conroe is more $100 expensive than Allendale, which means that if you'r tight on budget you may want to save that money for something else.
- If you plan to change your CPU the coming year you will probably not need that 4 MB cache since for todays apps it only gives a small performance boost. There will be many other options soon when Kentsfield and the new AMD 65 nm CPUs arrives, so there's always a reason to save $100.
Your comments and thoughts?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks