Looking to Upgrade from a E6600 to ??

By mstpaintball
Jun 24, 2007
  1. I currently have a E6600, and would like to move up. I'm not sure what would be the next step for me though.

    What I want is a pretty noticeable increase in performance, so a E6700 probably won't cut.

    I'm thinking X6800, or should I go with a Quad-Core like a Q6600?

    For awhile now I've been having overheating issues while the computer has been on load, for instance playing World Of Warcraft.

    I assume a X6800 is going to run even hotter than a E6600, but I plan on buying a much better heatsink and fan (and I just bought some Arctic Silver 5 to use) than the stock one. I would go ahead a do that for my E6600 since I believe that to be the problem with the heating issues, but I would like to just go ahead and upgrade anyways.
  2. raybay

    raybay TS Evangelist Posts: 7,241   +9

    I don't think you will see any significant operational differences with either the E6700 or the Q6600... but must admit I have not used a Q6600 in intensive gaming yet...
    If you use the X6800, I would add a case fan and a Zalman fan and heatsink... or better.
  3. kpo6969

    kpo6969 TS Maniac Posts: 710

    If I were you wait till July 22 when Intel is suppose to cut their prices 50% (I don't know about 50% but that is the word). AMD is to cut 20% also??
    What are you going to get anyway? The E6600 is the best cpu out now without the overkill factor. The cpu market changes almost as much as the gpu market (almost).
  4. MetalX

    MetalX TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,388

    If you want more performance, overclock. The fastest stock Core 2 is only 533Mhz faster than yours. But the highest air cooling Core 2 overclocks (around 3.9GHz) are about 1500Mhz faster than your CPU. So it would save you money and net more performance than buying even an X6800.

    Now, a 6600 might not reach 3.9GHz... but 3.4 or 3.6 should be within reach.

    As far as I know, the only Core 2s that can hit 3.9GHz are the (Q)X6800 and the E4400/4300.
  5. agi_shi

    agi_shi TS Rookie Posts: 385

    Heh, isn't it interesting how most of the time the low-end models can overclock much more than most of the high-end models :stickout: ?

    (other example is the X2 3800+ (Manchester it was, I think) hitting 3.5GHz, more than any other X2 at the time)
  6. raybay

    raybay TS Evangelist Posts: 7,241   +9

    "...are about 1500Mhz faster than your CPU."

    That is quite a stretch
  7. MetalX

    MetalX TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,388

    It's true though. X6800s and (believe it or not) E4300s can hit 3.9GHz, although they really can't do 4.0GHz without water cooling.

    And 3900 -2400 = 1500. So those overclocked beasts are 1500Mhz faster than a stock E6600.
  8. F1N3ST

    F1N3ST TS Rookie Posts: 596

    3.9Ghz is within reach of a 6600, they get 5ghz on liquid nitrogen so its basically cooling and the luck of the draw.
  9. CMH

    CMH TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,039   +9

    4.4ghz has been done on water....

    someone broke 5ghz, 8hour orthos stable with enough LN2, with screenies and validated CPUz.

    Also, although the E4300 can overclock higher than the E6600 (I say its the luck of the draw above anything else), it will perform significantly less due to the lower cache size.

    Quad core won't help in your work unless the programs you're running is optimized for multi-core use. Not just dual core, but multi-core.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...