Forums > Off Topic > mobo recommendation for E6600?
D Michael (222) on 12/31/2006 6:42 PM · Permalink · Report
Hey folks, it has been awhile since I've messed with upgrading hardware so I'm out of the loop so to speak.
I'm going to build a system with the E6600 chip, and there are loads of mobo options out there, but I can't seem to find one that the end consumers seem to agree on.
I don't need for there to be SLI support, although that would be nice. I'm partial to Abit and Asus but would consider other options (especially since Asus boards mostly need to be flashed and certain models are having problems with raptor drives). I definitely will not consider a Biostar, MSI, or ECS board, I have my reasons. Looking at the $200 or below price range, and more than 1 PCI slot would be nice. Any ideas?
D Michael (222) on 1/1/2007 2:28 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'm pretty sure all boards that support E6600 have PCI-e and SATA.
I think I found my board though;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131028
onboard wifi too... groovy.
Here's the video card I'm putting in it; http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121033
Bet (473) on 1/2/2007 9:11 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm running that P5B Deluxe board with an E6400, and the combination thus far has been nothing short of spectacular. First time I'd gone all out with a motherboard, and now I'm wondering why I didn't save the headaches before.
Envying your 8800GTX :( Running Oblivion at 1680x1050 with eye candy way up DEMANDS one of those things. Biding the days until I can replace this 7900GT with something of that power without breaking the bank.
Riamus (8480) on 1/2/2007 11:08 PM · Permalink · Report
Be happy, I'm stuck on a 5500OC card. I'll be upgrading to the 7600GT soon, though. I can't see spending more than that on a card right now. Besides, I have AGP, so can't go any higher than that with GeForce anyhow. And because I'm happy running a game at 1024x768, if it runs at max graphics settings at that resolution, it's perfect for me.
D Michael (222) on 1/3/2007 8:02 AM · Permalink · Report
Will do.
Currently I have a 2800+ 2GB ram, 6600 GT, Abit NF7-S I'm not able to run much at maximum settings but it gets the job done.
The whole PCI-e thing to me is bogus, considering that the 8x AGP bandwidth wasn't being fully utilized when PCI-e came out. That means new mobo, chip, and RAM just to upgrade the video. I regret spending so much, but when I upgrade I go for a whole new system anyway.
I've heard through tomshardware.com that even the E6600 cannot fully utilize the capabilities of the 8800 GTX, that you need the Extreme... which is right at $1,000 just for the chip right now. It's kind of hard to convince the wife that that's a good investment right after bartering with her for a $600 video card. I'll get there though :)
Bet (473) on 1/3/2007 8:27 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] I've heard through tomshardware.com that even the E6600 cannot fully utilize the capabilities of the 8800 GTX, that you need the Extreme... which is right at $1,000 just for the chip right now. It's kind of hard to convince the wife that that's a good investment right after bartering with her for a $600 video card. I'll get there though :) [/Q --end D Michael wrote--] Or you could just use that P5B Deluxe's main advantage over other P965 boards which is in its excessive overclocking ability. The board overclocks like a stallion, and you can easily get the E6600 to the stock speed of an X6800, using the stock Intel fan and without tweaking anything except the FSB, and locking a few settings that want to overclock themselves along with the FSB change (like the PCI-E frequency).
I don't know of a person yet that can't get the E6600 to 3GHz without raising temps beyond 10 C, which is still well within the thermal envelope. I've got my E6400 past 2.8GHz and only stopped there since it was enough to run h.264-encoded 1080p video at full framerate with no third-party software assistance.
If you want to get goofy you could always go for the 3.4 GHz that people can get with aftermarket coolers and thermal paste. I feel like I'm living on the edge with a 25% overclock and stock Intel fan, but with >50% overclocks being commonplace, these Core 2's are just SCREAMING.
This is the first processor I've used that wasn't an Athlon in over 6 years. Athlons wished they could be overclocked even a tiny fraction as well...
D Michael (222) on 1/3/2007 4:51 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I had thought about the overclocking. I'm not very knowledgeable about it, but the few times I've tried it weren't met with success, of course that was a long time ago. A funny story; my father (back in 95 or 96?) bought an NEC computer through an American Express catalog. Pentium 75. Some time later he asked me if I could make it run faster. I opened the case and the chip had no fan on it, only a heatsink. Right above the chip there was a jumper with 3 settings clearly marked 60mhz, 75mhz, 90mhz. I moved the jumper over to 90 (still no fan). "WOW it's really fast now!", he says... LOL
Nevertheless, speed is of course a major factor. But other than speed, what does the extreme have over the E6600?
I used to be an AMD person myself. In the past the chips have been cheaper while performance was relatively the same as Intel. This is no longer the case.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/index.html
There's a link to the article, it's a pretty interesting read. Also shows the Intel chips having a major advantage over their comparable AMD counterparts.
Heck, I thought it might even be better to go with the 8800 GTS as I'm guessing the performance (considering my other hardware) would be the same as with the GTX. But on the other hand, I plan to go to the X6800 sooner rather than later and I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a GTS then turn around and get a GTX.
Bet (473) on 1/4/2007 1:01 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] Nevertheless, speed is of course a major factor. But other than speed, what does the extreme have over the E6600?
Heck, I thought it might even be better to go with the 8800 GTS as I'm guessing the performance (considering my other hardware) would be the same as with the GTX. But on the other hand, I plan to go to the X6800 sooner rather than later and I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a GTS then turn around and get a GTX. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--] Other than stock speed, it has nothing. Same cache, same FSB, just a higher multiplier that lets it hit 2.93 GHz with its 266 FSB. But if you spend even a few hours browsing at the Anandtech CPU/Processors and Overclocking forum, you could find out just how easy overclocking these processors are. Overclocking the X6800 is an entirely different beast than one of its lower-clocked brethren, since it has less headroom to work with, it's at the top for a reason. Hitting 333MHz FSB x 9 multiplier with the E6600 is so common it's boring. That means it's 70 MHz higher clocked per core than the X6800 out of the box. And from what I can tell, the X6800 is 'overclocked' even out of the box since its TDP is 75W, as opposed to 65W out of the box for all the other Conroes.
Do yourself the favor of saving money on the processor and getting that 8800GTX. Even if you don't want to overclock the processor, you've still got one of the fastest processors money can buy, and the benchmarks are not going to be that much lower. Or overclock it past the E6700 and figure you saved a couple hundred bucks. Even the runts of the Core 2 Duo batch can do a 10% overclock.
But I haven't heard of a runt of a Core 2 Duo yet. When E6300s are getting past the X6800 with a $50 aftermarket cooler...yeah.
D Michael (222) on 1/4/2007 1:14 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Thx Bet, I'll keep that in mind and go with the E6600, 8800 GTX, and P5B.
I'm going with a Thermaltake fan. I don't care what anyone says I've had the best luck with them. I'm not overclocking on my 2800+, but I'm running 30C under load. Unbelievable. You can stress out the comp, shut it down, open it up, take off the fan, and the chip would feel barely warm to the touch.
Bet (473) on 1/4/2007 7:10 AM · Permalink · Report
Thermaltake has a good reputation, no problem there. The only recommendation I make besides the P5B Deluxe would be going with PC6400 RAM, specifically Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400 as that's what I've used with zero problems for overclocking. Some RAM had some annoying issues earlier with the motherboard, due to differing specs. Just make sure you research the RAM you decide to go with.
And when and if you overclock that combination you just listed, you'll probably want/need to go into BIOS and lock your PCI-E at a different-than-typical setting of 101 or 105 MHz, as apparently there's a weird issue that forces PCI-E to 1x when overclocking with the motherboard and Geforce 8800GTX. I'd expect a BIOS update to fix this, as they did with the Geforce 7950 back in August, but just in case you notice in CPU-Z that the link width isn't running at the full 16x.
And finally, the only thing left is to link everyone with interest in a P5B to go and check out this rather exhaustive tutorial on overclocking with the board over at the TechRepository. It covers everything I consider important and then some.
Riamus (8480) on 1/4/2007 11:17 PM · Permalink · Report
I should see what fan I have. I used to use Thermaltake, but my latest fan is something different and I can't remember what. It's a heavy fan (they don't recommend moving the computer with it attached), but it runs VERY silent -- even when set to maximum, I can barely hear it, and it keeps the cpu very cool. I had compared it to the Thermaltakes for what it could do and it was better than any of the Thermaltakes.
Riamus (8480) on 1/3/2007 5:49 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Here's what I have..
ASUS A7N8X-Deluxe Motherboard (nVidia2 chipset)
AMD 3200+
1GB PC3200 RAM
300GB + 250GB + 80GB + 80GB Maxtor Hard Drives
DVD-RW
CD-RW
GeForce FX 5500OC 128MB graphics card
--- Just ordered an XFX GeForce 7600GT 256MB 580MHz Core graphics card
Sound Blaster Audigy Gamer sound card
Logitech 4.1 (400Watt) speakers/subwoofer
AverTV FM98 TV Tuner card (old, but it works)
:D
D Michael (222) on 1/4/2007 1:11 AM · Permalink · Report
I can but it will mostly be apples an oranges. The new card will be in a new system as I'm currently using AGP and will be going to PCI-e. But, if you just want to see the performance difference between now and when my new setup is running, I'd be happy to oblige.
Riamus (8480) on 1/6/2007 1:22 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
My GeForce FX 5500OC card gave me these results on 3dMark05. Not too good. As a note, I got the same score with and without AA and AF turned on. Also, I left all apps running during the tests, so that may have lowered it as well.
And here are the results for 3DMark06... even worse.
The new 7600GT card's results from 3DMark05 are here ... about 23 times higher.
And, here is the 3DMark06 results about 38 times higher.
My CPU seems to be what's holding the numbers down some. It shouldn't, but it seems like it is if you check the CPU ratings on the tests.
Riamus (8480) on 1/7/2007 5:45 AM · Permalink · Report
On 05 or 06?
Anyhow, if you look at my CPU tests, they are all under 1000. I'm not sure what they should be, but I'm sure it should be more than that.
Of course, like I mentioned, I didn't close things before running the tests. I hare the same things open for all tests on both cards, though. Anyhow, I had something like 54 processes running at the same time. I may do another test at some point with everything closed and see what I get for results.
Bet (473) on 1/7/2007 7:20 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]On 05 or 06?
Anyhow, if you look at my CPU tests, they are all under 1000. I'm not sure what they should be, but I'm sure it should be more than that.
Of course, like I mentioned, I didn't close things before running the tests. I hare the same things open for all tests on both cards, though. Anyhow, I had something like 54 processes running at the same time. I may do another test at some point with everything closed and see what I get for results. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Background processes can affect the score, but I've only noticed a small (1-2%) impact from when I forgot to shut some bigger things off. For 3dmark 06 at least, under 1000 CPU would be spot on for your processor. Check out this CPU benchmark at X-Bit Labs. Particularly notice the strong advantage dual-core has for that benchmark over single-core processors. The Tech Report's benchmark lineup when testing the Core 2 Duo produce nearly the same results as well, which is the strength of the CPU benchmark - its precision of results across the user spectrum regardless power quality, weather that day, alignment of the stars, etc. How 'accurate' it is best left up to programmers that can critique it.
Aside from that tangent, Riamus, your processor is definitely holding back that video card, probably by quite a bit. Wish I had some easy upgrade advice for you like I had for D Michael, but upgrading a socket 939 platform economically is becoming trickier by the day. AMD is making it harder due to phasing 939 out in favor of AM2, and with keeping their processor prices high compared to the equivalent Core 2 lineup. I love AMD, and I hope they know what they're doing, but I cannot recommend them for anyone except people in your situation, where the whole system is there, and it just needs a boost in the form of a newer 939 processor. I'd do that sooner rather than later, as the restricted supply of 939 processors boost the price even further. I think your board should do that just fine, as that's the one I'm running in my secondary system right now, though I didn't investigate the possibility fully.
As a last note, if D Michael does like the Core 2 Duos practically demand in overclocking the E6600 to the X6800-level 3 GHz, he'll be about 600 points above the FX-60 on that same X-Bit benchmark. A stock E6600 performs almost the same as an FX-60 on that test, for 75% the price for the processor. And a 25% overclocked E6600 performs the same as the stock X6800 for 33% the cost.
But as always there's an annoying rumor, and East Asian rumor says Intel is slated to drop the Q6600 (quadcore) on us next week, so who knows if the percentages that have held true since September will hold out. AMD seems strangely resistant to the pressure Intel keeps putting on them, keeping their prices high. Dell must be treating them good.
Riamus (8480) on 1/8/2007 10:18 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm not sure what else I can upgrade to with this board for a CPU. I think the max is 3400+, but I don't really remember and don't feel like looking. I think I'll just hold out on that until I save up to get a new mobo. Of course, when I do that, I'll probably have to change the video card again because I'll probably get a PCI-e mobo next.
In either case, everything runs smoothly with just a couple of stutters on certain parts in certain games (campaign intro video on X2: The Threat stutters just enough to notice when the camera pans over a complex part of the station, for example). Actual gameplay has no stutters, so it seems fine to me for now.
D Michael (222) on 1/8/2007 1:38 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
mine was on 06.
I know some background things can really hamper performance depending on what they are. I had a tiny java app running in firefox (minimized) and playing an old 3d game that should get 120fps was getting like 25 with lots of studder. On the other hand, I can have say, Ventrilo running in the background while playing an FPS and there is absolutely no performance hit even though CPU usage is actually higher.
I think it depends on what is running in the background. Generally speaking this machine has almost nothing running that isn't directly associated to winXP or the application I'm running. For example, I have not a single icon in my tray next to the clock. Not one.
If you ctrl alt del you'll see that the only running processes I have running are those necessary for winxp and the hardware I have installed. At idle I have 16 processes running, 17 if java kicks up while I'm surfing (oops make that 18 because firefox would be running as well). However, the only thing I'd have running during the test were 16 processes + 1 for the software.
My notebook is a different story, but I only play older (but not vintage) games on that. I probably have about 60 processes running at idle on there.
Also, windows firewall will lower your fps. Don't believe me, try it out.