Let me know whether a E5200 will beat E6600?

[furious_gamer]

Yes guys, i am about to buy a E6600(used) from TE and just want to know whether a E5200 will able to beat E6600?

Even though E5200 has half-of-cache of E6600, some guys told me that it easily beats E6600? How come this possible? Will the use of extra 2MB of cache's shown in games? Please clear me guys. I am going to make the payment by today evening.. Plz lemme know guys...

 

[desiibond]

E6600:

FSB: 1066MHz
Cache: 4MB

E5200:

FSB: 800MHz
Cache: 2MB


on stock speed E6600 is faste than E5200. But once you start overclocking, E5200 zips past E6600. E5200 can touch 4GHz mark effortlessly. MOreover, it is 45nm SOI and hence it will faster clock per clock when compared to E6600.

My vote: E5200.

What is the pricing of E5200 and E6600 that you were offered.

 

[The Sorcerer]

Clock for clock performance in wolfdales are a better performer than conroe. But if you will not be overclocking, the e6600 will do you well. You are actually comparing 65nm processor with a 45nm processor- 2 different processors with 2 different architecture. So it depends what are you planning to do with the processor in the first place.

 

[furious_gamer]

E6600:

FSB: 1066MHz
Cache: 4MB

E5200:

FSB: 800MHz
Cache: 2MB


on stock speed E6600 is faste than E5200. But once you start overclocking, E5200 zips past E6600. E5200 can touch 4GHz mark effortlessly. MOreover, it is 45nm SOI and hence it will faster clock per clock when compared to E6600.

My vote: E5200.

What is the pricing of E5200 and E6600 that you were offered.

Both for 3.5k...

Clock for clock performance in wolfdales are a better performer than conroe. But if you will not be overclocking, the e6600 will do you well. You are actually comparing 65nm processor with a 45nm processor- 2 different processors with 2 different architecture. So it depends what are you planning to do with the processor in the first place.

I am pure gamer and Rooky Game Developer...
Will a 2MB of additional cache wont make any difference?

 

[desiibond]

for same price go for e5200

 

[MetalheadGautham]

For same price ?

Hmm... E5200 will OC much better, but on stock it will be faster in ordinary apps (2.5GHz > 2.4GHz) but in gaming I think E6600 @ 2.4GHz will be faster due to 4MB cache. How old is the E6600 and does it still have warranty ? How many years ? Is your source of buying reliable ? If its a friend, go ahead and buy E6600. Otherwise get E5200.

And if you plan to overclock, then again E5200 is better.

 

[The Sorcerer]

I am pure gamer and Rooky Game Developer...[/quote]
Dont know much about that- but if you are a game developer- what kind of games are you talking about? Or are you into that Maya/3d max thing.

 

[comp@ddict]

E5200 will OC much better, and also won't cause much problem to RAM, even if u have value ram, u'll be able to OC at least to 3.6GHz, and also Power Consumption and all will be better(lower).

Best is that if u run at resolutions abobe 1280x1024, the extra cache won't make any much of a difference.

 

[The Sorcerer]

When you are saying game developer, mind being more specific? Is it something like rendering or one of those flash games thing?

 

[infra_red_dude]

Yes guys, i am about to buy a E6600(used) from TE and just want to know whether a E5200 will able to beat E6600?

It is not a fair comparison.

Even though E5200 has half-of-cache of E6600, some guys told me that it easily beats E6600? How come this possible?

That will be only in pure clock frequency. Also considering the fact that it operates at a higher bus speed. Thus, this comparison is not correct.

Will the use of extra 2MB of cache's shown in games?

Definitely, yes.

MOreover, it is 45nm SOI and hence it will faster clock per clock when compared to E6600.

Faster clock per what..???

You are actually comparing 65nm processor with a 45nm processor..

..- 2 different processors with 2 different architecture.

Nope, both are based on the same architecture but its only some extra frills (like bus speed, cache etc.) thats different.

I am pure gamer and Rooky Game Developer...

I'd strongly suggest you AGAINST any of these processor and would rather suggest a C2Q (if you haf the budget) or at least one of the C2D E8000 series processor released recently.

E5200 will OC much better....
....and also Power Consumption and all will be better(lower).

Correct!

Best is that if u run at resolutions abobe 1280x1024, the extra cache won't make any much of a difference.

Err.. I disagree. At high resolutions a 'strong' CPU and a similarly powered GPU (with their respective RAMs) make a LOT LOT LOT of difference.

 

[Crossfire]

I know you can hit the 4GHz barrier with e5200 easily with a good motherboard..it is a good VFM solution...

 

[comp@ddict]

At high resolutions a 'strong' CPU and a similarly powered GPU (with their respective RAMs) make a LOT LOT LOT of difference.

U shud check some reviews.

At 1280x1024, say with a GTX295 and 4GB/6GB memory, if you compare Phenom II 940 and Core i7 i940, the i7 940 wins.

But at 1680x1050, the gap is of 1-2 fps, and at 1920x1080, there's practically no difference.

Some games do matter(CRYSIS) but rest is that, at higher reso, it's the GPU which comes under the scanner.

 

[furious_gamer]

Sorry for such late replies guys... TD is damn slow to work with....

For same price ?

Hmm... E5200 will OC much better, but on stock it will be faster in ordinary apps (2.5GHz > 2.4GHz) but in gaming I think E6600 @ 2.4GHz will be faster due to 4MB cache. How old is the E6600 and does it still have warranty ? How many years ? Is your source of buying reliable ? If its a friend, go ahead and buy E6600. Otherwise get E5200.

And if you plan to overclock, then again E5200 is better.

Ofcourse a friend of mine.... I paid him yesterday and will take the processor by tomorrow or by monday... so i hope the debate have to come to an end....

When you are saying game developer, mind being more specific? Is it something like rendering or one of those flash games thing?

I use blender 3d,anima8or and DirectX SDK along with XNA Game Studio 3.0.. Coding in both C++ and C# too...

It is not a fair comparison.


That will be only in pure clock frequency. Also considering the fact that it operates at a higher bus speed. Thus, this comparison is not correct.


Definitely, yes.


Faster clock per what..???




Nope, both are based on the same architecture but its only some extra frills (like bus speed, cache etc.) thats different.


I'd strongly suggest you AGAINST any of these processor and would rather suggest a C2Q (if you haf the budget) or at least one of the C2D E8000 series processor released recently.


Correct!


Err.. I disagree. At high resolutions a 'strong' CPU and a similarly powered GPU (with their respective RAMs) make a LOT LOT LOT of difference.

I hope no one will explain more than you do..

I know you can hit the 4GHz barrier with e5200 easily with a good motherboard..it is a good VFM solution...

But i have Artic Silver 5 and CM Vortex CPU Cooler..So i think i'll push it to 3.5GHz w/o any stability issues...

 

[dOm1naTOr]

itll be the mobo that ll heatup in case such OCs.

 

[infra_red_dude]

U shud check some reviews.

At 1280x1024, say with a GTX295 and 4GB/6GB memory, if you compare Phenom II 940 and Core i7 i940, the i7 940 wins.

But at 1680x1050, the gap is of 1-2 fps, and at 1920x1080, there's practically no difference.

Some games do matter(CRYSIS) but rest is that, at higher reso, it's the GPU which comes under the scanner.

Quite a few games employ the PhysX implemented through CUDA (and other physics processing techniques). For non-nVidia cards all this processing has to be done by the CPU and not the GPU. I still say that both the CPU subsystem and the GPU matter a lot. The memory sub-system is a bottleneck in most of the cases.

 

[acewin]

anyhow if not OCed and little overhead of more heat which wont be as much noticeable, e6600 is better than e5200

 

[comp@ddict]

Quite a few games employ the PhysX implemented through CUDA (and other physics processing techniques).

Not many, not few too.

Name one. All are tech demo, yet to come, blah blah.

In UT3, with PhysX, hail begins to occur, which causes distraction plus bullet sways in the wrong way.
In Mirror's Edge, PhysX actually makes the game go nuts some place, try it.

Elsewhere, there are 100 games which go with ATi's Havok(Physics) and 100 more are coming. That's some figure indeed.


In short, PhysX is non-existent now, and will be for a long time from now.

 

[infra_red_dude]

In short, PhysX is non-existent now...

I agree with that...

 

[deathvirus_me]

In UT3, with PhysX, hail begins to occur, which causes distraction plus bullet sways in the wrong way.
In Mirror's Edge, PhysX actually makes the game go nuts some place, try it.

Elsewhere, there are 100 games which go with ATi's Havok(Physics) and 100 more are coming. That's some figure indeed.

100 games which use ATi Havok's hardware implementation ?? Name one plz ..

Anyway, PhysX is here to stay .. OpenCL is here to stay . .. and incase u didn't know, Havok is being implemented via OpenCL ..

Also, most games hardly take a perf. hit with PhysX enabled .. so its basically a free feature u get to use with most nvidia mid-range and high end cards ,,.. Havok has yet to be seen in some actuall implementation (driven by an ATi card i.e.) ...

 

[comp@ddict]

100 games which use ATi Havok's hardware implementation ?? Name one plz ..

You asked one, you get one.
-Fallout 3

No wonder a 160 Shader(800SPs) HD4870 beats the 216 Shader GTX260 in this game.