E4300 vs E6600 for gaming rig

[rob4001]

Hi, I currently have an E4300 overclocked to 3.1 GHz. Its great for all my current needs and I will be upgaring to a 8800 gts soon. i currently squeezing last bit of life from my 7800gt.

My question is a lot of people seem to be opting for the e6600 as there choice for a gaming rig. Presuming both system have the same graphics card is there a massive fps difference if they are both overclocked to there max on air? I was wondering this as I will be wanting to play crysis when it comes out at as close to max settings as i can get.

[Flewis]

I doubt there will be that huge a difference, maybe 10% at a guess. The fact that the 6600 is double the price doesnt seem like its worth it imo.

[staffsMike]

e6600 is better if you don't want to rely on overclocking for a decent clock speed.

You'll be fine with 3.1GHz ..theres no gaurantee that an e6600 would get any higher than that..of course there is the chance that it will get to 3.6+Hz + ..

[Bluecube]

PC Pro compared the E4300 against the E6300 and there was little difference in speed. The E6600 has 4Mb of cache vs 2Mb for the E4300 but if they're both oc'd to the same speed I doubt the overall difference will be noticeable. The E4300 is also a very easy overclocker as it starts on a 800Mhz bus speed against the 1066Mhz of the E6xxx series. You'll see more out of getting the graphics card than upgrading the CPU.

[Flewis]

You would need serious cooling to get that high though. I would say it is best for you to stay as you are,much less hassle and much cheaper. The better graphics card will give you a significant boost.

[kungpo]

I can't say for the e6600, but I have a clocked e4300 (2.7Ghz) and a slightly clocked 6420 (2.4Ghz). As the e4300 clocks sooo easily, it kicks the 6420 quite easily. So the 2mb cache vs 4mb cache doesn's seem to make a massive difference. I have tried various combinations of both, with my 8800GTS and my 6600GT and still I would favour the 4300 machine. Of course with decent cooling you could potenitally clock the 6600 higher, but probably not significantly higher than the 4300 to warrant the price difference.

[merdat]

The E 4300 is a super chip for the money -it's about half the price of anE6600 so if you manage to cook it a bit by too much o/c -then just buy another one

[Dipar]

Theres absolutely no reason to get a 6600 since the 4300 is better in every aspect measured in price. If you are inexperienced with overclocking, getting the 4300 is a good start.

[staffsMike]

There's plenty of reason to get the 6600..

I just bought one which will be passively cooled..

If you've ever had to use an e4300 stock (the only real way you will get passive cooling to work) you would understand the need for the e6600.

[kungpo]

Don't know if I agree with that. Depends on how much bang for buck you are after. Passive cooling is fine if you need super-silent, but with most graphic cards having fans, the CPU fan is hardly the biggest issue. My 4300 with Intel cooler makes less noise than the 8800 gts, and that's pretty quiet anyway. In fact, the machine is quieter than my HTPC, which, whilst not super-silent, is acceptable to my ears.

IF passive cooling is key, then that surely depends on the application. For most users, active cooling is not going to be a big issue?