Q6600 or Q8200 ?

[gregor30]

I am just buying a new computer, an I`am asking witch of these two CPU-s will preform better in overalll usage?

Q6600 or Q8200 ?

Please let me know the difference between them.
Thanks to all!!!

 

[zenmaster]

Not OC'd, the Q6600 will perform very slightly better in most tasks.
The Q8200 will use significantly less power under load.

If you are building a custom computer, the Q6600 will OC slightly higher, but the power usage difference grows even greater.

If it was me, I would go for the Q8200 for the same price because it would run cooler and quieter. I value quiet over miniscule performance differences.

 

[gregor30]

Not OC'd, the Q6600 will perform very slightly better in most tasks.
The Q8200 will use significantly less power under load.

If you are building a custom computer, the Q6600 will OC slightly higher, but the power usage difference grows even greater.

If it was me, I would go for the Q8200 for the same price because it would run cooler and quieter. I value quiet over miniscule performance differences.

Thanks for the answer, but I dont wont to overclockinging the system. I am asking for the difference at stock clocks and voltages.

 

[br3nd064]

I'd get the q6600 because of the slightly higher speed, and larger cache.

 

[bobbknight]

The Q6600 is still a great bang for buck chip I would go for it.

 

[zenmaster]

Thanks for the answer, but I dont wont to overclockinging the system. I am asking for the difference at stock clocks and voltages.

Not OC'd, the will perform very slightly better in most tasks.
The Q8200 will use significantly less power under load.

If it was me, I would go for the Q8200 for the same price because it would run cooler and quieter. I value quiet over miniscule performance differences.

 

[dagger]

Q6600 can be overclocked to outperform a $1.5k "extreme" quad on air cooling. Q8200... is just a q8200. That's the real difference. In term of stock performance, q6600's slight edge means nothing, since it's too small to be noticeable anyway.

As for power consumption, Intel's official TDP for both are 95w. Although they rounded off, and q8200's power consumption is lower, the difference is small. Given that typical home computer users don't keep their machine on 24 hours a day, and even when it's on they're rarely at 100% load that the TDP is supposed to represent, it's a matter of maybe one dollar per year savings in electricity bill. Meaningless.

Another factor is price. Q6600 is cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115018
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115055&Tpk=Q8200

 

[JuiceJones]

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9400.html

Perfect article to answer your questions.

They basically trade benchmarks back and forth depending on whether the bigger cache or architectural improvements matter more for a given application, but for all intents and purposes, they perform the same.

For overclocking, the Q6600 would definitely be the way to go, but since you're not doing that, the only edge for the Q8200 is 25 less watts idle consumption and 48 less under load. Which is not even the difference of a measly light bulb, so I would go by price.

 

[zenmaster]

Actually, the power difference under load is quite large between the Q6600 and Q8200. Upwards of 45watts! The TDP rating is not meant to reflect the actual power usage of a particular model though a given model would never exceed that at stock.

Power: (25watts dif Idle - 45 diff load)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9400_11.html#sect0

Performance: (Give and take with slight Q6600 Lead)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9400_9.html#sect0


If we assume the Q6600 is using 90 watts under load, the Q8200 would only be using about 45 watts. This means it will be generating significantly less heat and run operate much more quiet.

 

[epsilon84]

Hmm, the Q8200 did better than I expected in overclocking:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9400_15.html#sect0

I know a lot is said about the low 7x multi limiting overclocking (and it does) but even so at 3.4GHz its not that far off a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz, and one can assume with a massive saving in power consumption since it shouldn't take much (if any) overvolting to reach 3.4GHz, unlike the Q6600 which usually needs ~1.4V to hit 3.6GHz.

 

[dagger]

Hmm, the Q8200 did better than I expected in overclocking:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9400_15.html#sect0

I know a lot is said about the low 7x multi limiting overclocking (and it does) but even so at 3.4GHz its not that far off a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz, and one can assume with a massive saving in power consumption since it shouldn't take much (if any) overvolting to reach 3.4GHz, unlike the Q6600 which usually needs ~1.4V to hit 3.6GHz.

Not this again. Do the calculations, at 3.4ghz with 7x multiplier, you'll need near 2000mhz fsb. It'll require significant motherboard chipset overvolting. And then even the best motherboards will struggle with it. Older motherboards are not usable. Not to mention having to buy higher clocked ram that can handle the clock speed even at 1:1 ratio. Speed records set in a lab is one thing, doing those at home is another.

At 3.6ghz with 9x multiplier, you need 1600mhz fsb, which is the native speed for new motherboards (no motherboard overclocking at all), is reachable through by older motherboards, and use the common cheap stock 800mhz ram at 1:1 ratio.

As for voltage, different cpus have different tolerance. Intel's official recommended voltage for q6600 is 1.5v.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR
So the 1.4v you cited is well within safe limits for q6600. Q8200 may require lower voltage for 3.4ghz, but it's beyond that particular chip's safe limits.

 

[Reynod]

Good answer Dagger.

 

[epsilon84]

Not this again. Do the calculations, at 3.4ghz with 7x multiplier, you'll need near 2000mhz fsb. It'll require significant motherboard chipset overvolting. And then even the best motherboards will struggle with it. Older motherboards are not usable. Not to mention having to buy higher clocked ram that can handle the clock speed even at 1:1 ratio. Speed records set in a lab is one thing, doing those at home is another.

It was achieved with a mid range DFI P45 mobo, so its not like a top end X48 mobo was used. It was stable and benchmarkable.

As for voltage, different cpus have different tolerance. Intel's official recommended voltage for q6600 is 1.5v.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR
So the 1.4v you cited is well within safe limits for q6600. Q8200 may require lower voltage for 3.4ghz, but it's beyond that particular chip's safe limits.

My point is that it takes a significantly lower voltage to get a Q8200 to 3.4GHz than it does to get a Q6600 to 3.6GHz. The end result is slightly lower performance but a big saving in power consumption.

 

[cjl]

A P45 should do the required 480FSB just fine.

 

[gregor30]

What about E8500? Will it preform better then Q6600 in games ?

 

[Reynod]

Depends on whether you run it stock or not.

Read the posts carefully.

Actually Intel dual cores running up around 3.2 Ghz are plenty for most games with a decent single card ... the q6600 boots straight to 333 / 3Ghz usually without a voltage increase too.

Unless your really prepared to handle the heat this is a good safe bet.

I would not recommend running a quad above 3.4 (which seems where you start needing to push more votage into the cpu) unless your careful with your cooling, case, etc.

Expecially in the hotter regions.

Obviously the 45nm chips run a bit cooler too.

I am talking the casual users here ... people who set and forget and are not tinkering a lot.

I am a bit coservative after smoking up a few dies and mobo voltage regulators, capacitors and graphics cards and drowning a few components too.

Gets expensive ...

Play it safe unless its the parents PC ... then clock the bajeezus out of it !!!

 

[speedbird]

If we're talking about Power Consumption then yes the Q8200 will consume a little less, but a Q6600 Go is still a great power efficient chip. My Q6600 went to 3Ghz on stock voltages and according to my Watt meter, my system isn't actually consuming that much more than it was at the default 2.4Ghz.

Here in the UK the Q8200 is typically more expensive, approximately £20 more, I don't know about the rest of the world though. I would personally buy the Q6600 since it's the best bank for buck with a higher multiplier.

 

[the_maun]

hi ppl.

i'm new here but i'm actually interested in this topic since i'm building a system in wich i intend to use one of the processors mentioned above.

i'm from Portugal and at this time both q6600 and q8200 are at the same price. (about 175€)

i do intend to OC so i guess the lower FSB of the q6600 makes possible of a much cheaper system on the whole.

but the power consumption made me wonder...
i'm not considering to change my power suply and i think its a 400w to 500w (although i'm not sure).

do you think this power suply can handle the q6600 OC'ed?
if not, would it handle the q8200 also OC'ed?

i think is an interesting point to compare the 2 CPUs

thanks in advance

 

[aesmith]

Thanks for the answer, but I dont wont to overclockinging the system. I am asking for the difference at stock clocks and voltages.

Hi. I asked the same question on "another bbs" and they pointed me to this web site with some quick comparisions ...

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=62&ma1=342&mo1=41&p1=4040&ma2=342&mo2=40&p2=4039&ph=5


Tony S

 

[rik02rik02]

Not this again. Do the calculations, at 3.4ghz with 7x multiplier, you'll need near 2000mhz fsb. It'll require significant motherboard chipset overvolting. And then even the best motherboards will struggle with it. Older motherboards are not usable. Not to mention having to buy higher clocked ram that can handle the clock speed even at 1:1 ratio. Speed records set in a lab is one thing, doing those at home is another.

At 3.6ghz with 9x multiplier, you need 1600mhz fsb, which is the native speed for new motherboards (no motherboard overclocking at all), is reachable through by older motherboards, and use the common cheap stock 800mhz ram at 1:1 ratio.

As for voltage, different cpus have different tolerance. Intel's official recommended voltage for q6600 is 1.5v.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR
So the 1.4v you cited is well within safe limits for q6600. Q8200 may require lower voltage for 3.4ghz, but it's beyond that particular chip's safe limits.

hey dude i was wondering wich motherboad would be the right one to over clock a q6600? can this one do the job? G31-M7 TE Biostar