I've been searching, and reading, repeat process multiple times, and still can't find a good enough answer for me. So, here's the info and the question: I am currently running the latter CPU (Intel® Pentium® D Processor 925, sSpec SL9KA), and have in my possesion the former (Intel® Core™2 Duo Desktop Processor E6400, sSpec SL9S9). (In case anyone wants to know, I got the CPU for free when a client upgraded their system with a Q9300 CPU, and asked me if I "...could use the CPU, otherwise they were going to put it in a drawer somewhere." Of course I said I could "use" it! LOL)
The 925 is a 3.0GHz; the E6400 is 2.13GHz. The 925 has 4mb (2 x 2mb) L2 cache; the E6400 has 2mb cache (total.) Both appear to be comparable temp-wise. I'm ignoring the fact that the E6400 is up to 1066 FSB vs the 925's 800MHz FSB, since my mobo is only 800MHz FSB max, and only supports DDR2-667 (which is what I'm running.) I'm also not overclocking the CPU (either of them), so that's not a concern either.
I've been in computing for years, heck I've been around since the 8086 and earlier days, and we old-timers have a (bad?) habit of "higher clock speed + more L2 cache = better". But is that really true any longer?
The PC is mostly used for email, and as my main file server to feed videos over my local LAN to my modded Xbox running XBMC. Some gaming happens when my kids play on the computer. Not sure if any of that will factor in to the decision.
So, the real questions are: Should I swap out the 925 for the E6400? Will I really see any type of performance gain, given that the E6400 has a lower clock speed and less L2 cache? If the answer is yes, how much performance gain (roughly, of course) would I be looking at?
The 925 is a 3.0GHz; the E6400 is 2.13GHz. The 925 has 4mb (2 x 2mb) L2 cache; the E6400 has 2mb cache (total.) Both appear to be comparable temp-wise. I'm ignoring the fact that the E6400 is up to 1066 FSB vs the 925's 800MHz FSB, since my mobo is only 800MHz FSB max, and only supports DDR2-667 (which is what I'm running.) I'm also not overclocking the CPU (either of them), so that's not a concern either.
I've been in computing for years, heck I've been around since the 8086 and earlier days, and we old-timers have a (bad?) habit of "higher clock speed + more L2 cache = better". But is that really true any longer?
The PC is mostly used for email, and as my main file server to feed videos over my local LAN to my modded Xbox running XBMC. Some gaming happens when my kids play on the computer. Not sure if any of that will factor in to the decision.
So, the real questions are: Should I swap out the 925 for the E6400? Will I really see any type of performance gain, given that the E6400 has a lower clock speed and less L2 cache? If the answer is yes, how much performance gain (roughly, of course) would I be looking at?