A local store prices the E6600 CPU at $317 and the E6700 at $518. I'm
going to be building a new computer soon and am wondering why there is
such a big difference in the prices of these two chips as the only
difference I can see is 0.23 ghz of speed. Is there some reason worth
$200 to chose the 6700 over the 6600 other than a 10% difference in
speed?
Also, I heard that the prices of these chips will come down
significantly soon. True?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:34:28 -0700, Dave Smith
<sally@cox.net> wrote:
>A local store prices the E6600 CPU at $317 and the E6700 at $518.
Then get the 6600, the price difference is crazy.
>I'm
>going to be building a new computer soon and am wondering why there is
>such a big difference in the prices of these two chips as the only
>difference I can see is 0.23 ghz of speed.
That's always the way it is, certain top % of guaranteed
chips fetch a price premium. It doesn't even matter if ALL
the chips can run that fast stabily, it's just a
market-tiering kinda thing, they feel if you want faster you
must pay substantially more.
Now ponder if the 6600 is even worth more than the 6400.
Again the answer is probably not what they're asking.
Unless you have a very good system spec, the $ is probably
better spend on other areas, or even put aside then you
upgrade next time, sooner. However, certain price indexes
like Pricewatch.com do indicate the 6600 has dropped while
the 6700 rose, at least *for today*.
>Is there some reason worth
>$200 to chose the 6700 over the 6600 other than a 10% difference in
>speed?
No and there never will be. Buying in the upper-low-end is
always the best value. Each step above that is always a
disproportionately higher price jump. You will pay a
premium to feel you are running a faster system than the guy
next door, and spend several hundred more to do so... but
it's your money and your values, if you want bragging rights
you have to pay, or be good enough at overclocking to get it
higher than average o'c.
>
>Also, I heard that the prices of these chips will come down
>significantly soon. True?
When they're displaced in value by the faster speeds. Same
thing different day, you aren't buying a finite product, you
are buying a tier on a performance gerbil wheel. Next time
the price drops and something else displaces it you would be
looking at a larger number instead of 6700.
Looking past all this, yes the 6600 is a far better value
than the 6700. If the saving$ would end up burning a hole
in your pocket, buy a nice quiet aftermarket heatsink for
it.
On Apr 20, 3:25 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:34:28 -0700, Dave Smith
> Now ponder if the 6600 is even worth more than the 6400.
In some cases,the extra cache makes a significant difference. However,
the 6600 and 6700 have the same amount of cache, so this isn't an
issue for the original question.
>
> Looking past all this, yes the 6600 is a far better value
> than the 6700. If the saving$ would end up burning a hole
> in your pocket, buy a nice quiet aftermarket heatsink for
> it.
Or more memory. Too often people skimp on the memory and wonder why
their fast processor is so slow. At stock speeds, the included heat
sink is more than adequate. If you want to OC, then by all means, get
a good heat sink.
Price has dropped. I just ordered a E6600 from ZipZoomFly for $234 free
shipping.
"Dave Smith" <sally@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v1uh23ts57o82ckj7vaqrae74h9ntvln2o@4ax.com...
>A local store prices the E6600 CPU at $317 and the E6700 at $518. I'm
> going to be building a new computer soon and am wondering why there is
> such a big difference in the prices of these two chips as the only
> difference I can see is 0.23 ghz of speed. Is there some reason worth
> $200 to chose the 6700 over the 6600 other than a 10% difference in
> speed?
>
> Also, I heard that the prices of these chips will come down
> significantly soon. True?
>
> Thanks very much.
??>> Now ponder if the 6600 is even worth more than the 6400.
DG> In some cases,the extra cache makes a significant difference. However,
DG> the 6600 and 6700 have the same amount of cache, so this isn't an
DG> issue for the original question.
afaik they are starting selling E6420 instead of E6400, it has 4MB cache,
costs aprox same as E6400, and can be overclocked upto 3.7 GHz. well, that's
extreme case, but i suspect many of them is easily overclockable to the
speed of E6600 and E6800.
overclockers.ru site reports that they have overclocked E6420 to 2.96 GHz
with default voltage, and to 3.7 GHz with 1.6 V voltage).
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"I am everything you want and I am everything you need")
On 20 Apr 2007 15:54:36 -0700, "Dean G."
<dguttadauro@4ecp.com> wrote:
>> If the saving$ would end up burning a hole
>> in your pocket, buy a nice quiet aftermarket heatsink for
>> it.
>
>Or more memory. Too often people skimp on the memory and wonder why
>their fast processor is so slow. At stock speeds, the included heat
>sink is more than adequate. If you want to OC, then by all means, get
>a good heat sink.
>
Yes the stock sink is adequate but see above, "quiet". The
question is not one of how high you could o'c, necessarily,
but rather to have lowest noise reasonably possible even at
stock speeds, and often it also means years longer service
from the fan before the bearings start degrading and makes a
more objectionable higher pitched noise.
While a better heatsink might seem excessive on a low-end,
budget built system, it becomes a reasonable % of budget on
a more expensive system.
"Dave Smith" <sally@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v1uh23ts57o82ckj7vaqrae74h9ntvln2o@4ax.com...
>A local store prices the E6600 CPU at $317 and the E6700 at $518. I'm
> going to be building a new computer soon and am wondering why there is
> such a big difference in the prices of these two chips as the only
> difference I can see is 0.23 ghz of speed. Is there some reason worth
> $200 to chose the 6700 over the 6600 other than a 10% difference in
> speed?
>
> Also, I heard that the prices of these chips will come down
> significantly soon. True?
The quad core parts are about to push down the prices of the dual core
parts. However, we will all want quad core processors then and won't be
interested in the lower e6600 and e6700, so you will have the same question
with 2 quad core chips instead if you wait!
E6600 or E6700? 
n '(20 Apr 2007 15:54:36 -0700))
Linear Mode
