E6600 vs E6400

[excalibur2]

Please don't mention not overclocking Core2Duo chips again. I have a nervous headache from that

Agreed about overclocking------Intel, board manufacturers (and coolers) are putting it all on a plate to taste, so why not enjoy.

[Barrichello]

90 dollars[/i]

I thought most people talked in £'s here?

[Psychotic Emu]

I would have to agree that with the price of RAM as it is the 6600 is looking increasingly good.

Personally I have a 6400, with turned out well since I bought my RAM for a very good price (£130 for ram that'll do DDR2 950, from the dreaded OCUK )

I happen to think that the average 6400 and 6600 will clock to very similar levels (with the 6600 perhaps just nudging the 6400).

It was a simple matter of economics in my case.
The 6600 will be quicker but it will cost more.

[Kumagoro]

When they first came out, C2D that is,there was a nice chart
where someone had tested the difference between the cache sizes on different apps. I think the only significant benefit was
on DIVX encoding which was at 10% games was the lowest lower than 1%. Other things were between 1 and 3%.

This has always been the way as far back as I can remember big caches never made much of a difference only very small ones
crippled the things. Same as with low latency ram only a few % and only worth getting if everything else is top of the range.

Personally I would spend the money else where.

[BlindMelon7]

I cant remember why, but having a large cache is supposed to be good for music recording. It cuts out hard drive clicks apparently.