It would be application dependent, but 660MHz is a large jump, larger than what the extra cache would typically help IMO.

st31276a wrote on 2023-10-18, 15:10:

It would be application dependent, but 660MHz is a large jump, larger than what the extra cache would typically help IMO.

So you think E6700 won't be faster than E4700 in that case. Will it be even slower than E4700?

Not sure why you should necessarily believe that site... the official MSI list doesn't seem to have any 1066FSB chips on it. https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/945GZM3_PCB_2.2/support#cpu

Isn't the E4700 going to be dramatically cheaper? If so, isn't that reason alone to get it? Cheaper and much likelier to perform faster on this board?

These chips practically have identical price now, because very small amount of people cares about performance of 15+ year garbage can CPUs.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-10-18, 22:22:

These chips practically have identical price now, because very small amount of people cares about performance of 15+ year garbage can CPUs.

Umm... in my (admittedly-limited-but-still) experience, the top of the line of any particular CPU generation tends to sell for a lot more than any of the other chips from that generation. Which makes sense because people who got the slowest of a generation may, 5-7 years later, go looking for a cheap upgrade and obviously they'd want the top option that fits in their board. The E6700 is the flagship of the dual-core 1066MHz first-generation C2D platform... (and probably relatively rare, too, that was an expensive CPU back in the day and most people got the E6600 which humiliated AMD's entire lineup just as much...)

That being said, unless you have a motherboard/system you're attached to that's limited to 1066FSB or 65nm, there are certainly better C2D/C2Q options out there, e.g. the 45nm chips such like the E8600 or Q9650. Or, if you just want a later XP-era system, you can go to a sandy/ivy bridge.

But if you inherit a random system from late 2006, possibly even one that combined its P965 chipset with a HotBurst Pentium 4/D (I believe Dell, at least, sold some machines with both Pentium D and C2D options on the same board), why wouldn't you want to upgrade its CPU to the fastest that can go on that board, at least if it's half-reasonably priced?

(Also, I'm not sure what makes these CPUs so 'garbage can'. They're probably the first CPUs in history to not be completely obsolete 10-15 years later... honestly, if you're bored, stick 8-16 gigs of RAM on a C2D/C2Q board, plug in an el-cheapo SSD and install Windows 11 unsupportedly. It's... strangely usable. Would I trade in my modern systems for it? No... but if the modern systems had a motherboard failure and I had nothing else for a week or two, I could most definitely make do with a C2D/C2Q. They'd probably outperform some super-el-cheapo laptops on sale at Worst Buy today, or at least two years ago, too. Try doing that with any other 15 year old motherboard/CPU in history. )

VivienM wrote on 2023-10-18, 22:18:

Isn't the E4700 going to be dramatically cheaper? If so, isn't that reason alone to get it? Cheaper and much likelier to perform faster on this board?

They are equally cheap. I can get them $2-$4 each shipping included in my country. There IS an expensive one, the C2D Extreme X6800, which according to the page I mentioned above is supported by this board. It costs about $23-$36 each. I didn't mention it because of the price.

I would've not care about the performance of that PC. I'd rather keep it as it was. It's an imprint of that specific time period of my life. However, I do want to upgrade the video card of my modern PC, which has a GTX 650 since 2014. The Xeon E3-1230 v2 of the machine could match a GTX 1070(correct me if I'm wrong). I don't want keep spare components around, so I think I could upgrade the CPU of the old XP box. With an E4700/E6700 being near 100% usage, the GTX 650 should achieve 60%-80% in GPU intensive games. That's acceptable to me. Yeah, by upgrading the CPU, I got a spare CPU, but it's way more smaller to keep. 😀 This way I could keep watching the price of a new generation GPU. Be it 1070 Ti or a newer entry-level rtx 3050.

GunKneeNeon wrote on 2023-10-19, 01:50:

The Xeon E3-1230 v2 of the machine could match a GTX 1070(correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm running a E3-1230 v3 / GTX 1660 Ti box which is basically 100% equivalent, I think it's well balanced but I did notice it's actually the GPU that starts to give in first with games like Dishonored 2 from 2016 and Prey 2017. I think the CPU could be mached with a little more powerful GPU if required, maybe around RTX 2060-2070.

VivienM wrote on 2023-10-18, 23:45:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-10-18, 22:22:

These chips practically have identical price now, because very small amount of people cares about performance of 15+ year garbage can CPUs.

The E6700 is the flagship of the dual-core 1066MHz first-generation C2D platform.

Not really. https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/core-2- … reme-x6800.c369
Everything else is just an old junk.

GunKneeNeon wrote on 2023-10-18, 12:54:

2.0Ghz + 4M L2 vs 2.6Ghz + 2M L2.

2.6GHz will be better in this case.
Reason is, this : Even if you can OC FSB on 4MB to get higher, the same applies to E4700 (ie. going to 3GHz or beyond that way).
4MB can help in some cases though (3DMark 01SE for example), but it's limited to situation.
2MB is "good enough" for slower stuff, unless you want to play CPU intensive games (which will get less drops on 4MB vs. 2MB CPU even if overall performance will be slower/similar between them).

Side note : Getting 1066MHz work on a nugget 775 chipset is a mission though (often requiring PCI-e to work at increased clock too).

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-10-19, 17:01:

VivienM wrote on 2023-10-18, 23:45:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-10-18, 22:22:

These chips practically have identical price now, because very small amount of people cares about performance of 15+ year garbage can CPUs.

The E6700 is the flagship of the dual-core 1066MHz first-generation C2D platform.

Not really. https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/core-2- … reme-x6800.c369
Everything else is just an old junk.

Okay, fineish, but... the X6800 was $999 USD at launch and didn't sell that well. Unless you get really lucky, you're not going to find one. And if you do, it's at a price that doesn't make any sense unless you're a YouTuber. So practically speaking, the E6700 is the flagship that you can actually find/afford.

Worth noting - looking at eBay sold items, the only listing I can find for one sold for CAD$150 from China. E6700s are selling for $20CAD from China, more from North American sellers. E6600s (which I had back in the day) seem to sell for $2-10 from China. I suspect the rest of the lineup sells for barely more than postage.

Why oh why would you spend that kind of money on an X6800 when you can buy a sandy bridge board and CPU for $150CAD that will crush the X6800? You have to be really, really, really attached to your first-gen C2D board to put an X6800 in it in 2023...

So practically speaking, the E6700 is the flagship that you can actually find/afford.

You might as well grab Core 2 Q6600 for a similar or identical price. As I said, practically nobody cares about "flagships", unless it's the absolute best or offerings for specific socket are too uncommon, which is clearly not the case with LGA775.

Sombrero wrote on 2023-10-19, 03:49:

I'm running a E3-1230 v3 / GTX 1660 Ti box which is basically 100% equivalent, I think it's well balanced but I did notice it's actually the GPU that starts to give in first with games like Dishonored 2 from 2016 and Prey 2017. I think the CPU could be mached with a little more powerful GPU if required, maybe around RTX 2060-2070.

RTX2060 Ti is too strong for the CPU. GTX 1660 is a little weaker. I find that the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is the perfect match for it. It even faster than a RTX 3050 with lower core clock.

E3-1230 v2 + RX 5600 XT
RTX 3050 vs GTX 1660 Ti vs RX 5600 XT

agent_x007 wrote on 2023-10-19, 17:29:

2.6GHz will be better in this case. Reason is, this : Even if you can OC FSB on 4MB to get higher, the same applies to E4700 (i […]
Show full quote

2.6GHz will be better in this case.
Reason is, this : Even if you can OC FSB on 4MB to get higher, the same applies to E4700 (ie. going to 3GHz or beyond that way).
4MB can help in some cases though (3DMark 01SE for example), but it's limited to situation.
2MB is "good enough" for slower stuff, unless you want to play CPU intensive games (which will get less drops on 4MB vs. 2MB CPU even if overall performance will be slower/similar between them).

Side note : Getting 1066MHz work on a nugget 775 chipset is a mission though (often requiring PCI-e to work at increased clock too).

I've decided to go for an E4700, thanks.