Originally Posted by Nasgul
I've run my Conroe CPU with a 450fsb x7 for a 3.15ghz and now I'm runing it at 333fsb x9 and the difference in performance is......well not noticeable at all.
The only part where I can see the difference is in Super PI 1.5xs whic was a second or less than a second slower but otherwise is pretty much the same, at least from what I can see.
But I know there's a big difference between Allendale and Conroe when overclocked, Conroe always wins of course. Is it worth it? Every penny of it.
I agree with nasgul, the 6600 is a sweet cpu, IMO very worth every penny too. It seems faster to me than my 6400. They're both really
fast, but I just like the 6600 more. I also agree about the fsb with you, it does help performance some, but it's not nearly the whole shibang, and won't make a 6400 the better cpu at the same clock. And you're right about once OC'd too, my 6600 at 3.6ghz is so fast it blows my mind. I can hit 3.6ghz with the 6400 too, but it's just not quite the same as my 6600, unless you're just clicking around or doing little stuff, but dang my p4 prescott is even quick for the little stuff. I like the 6600 cause it's gotta big brain
, and it will be faster for things like video encoding or other intensive tasks.
You will get the 6400 to higher fsb's, maybe even clock it a little higher, but the 6600 will still be faster (for many things). If you want the 4mb cache and
high fsb's, get a mobo that can lower multis and pump up the fsb on the 6600 some more
. I know it depends on what you're doing on you're pc, but for alot of things the 6600 is faster, even at slower clocks than 6400. The 4mb cache is deffinitely more futureproof as well, if that matters to you, and eventually it will help performance more than now. I don't wanna shoot down the 6400 though, like I said it's quick too, not far behind the 6600 really, and at it's price I can't begin to call it a bad buy. It's an awesome cpu too.