/ Sign-up
Your question

Q6600 vs Q8200

  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
November 12, 2008 1:30:51 PM

I'm thinking about doing a slight upgrade to my computer, and I'm not sure which of those two quad cores to get.

I see a lot of threads about the Q6600 vs Q9X00, but nothing about the Q8200.

The Q8200 only costs ~$15 more, so the price difference isn't a problem, but the Q9X00 series costs more than i want to spend (~$120 more).

Which of those two would you guys recommend?

I don't run any special cooling systems, and i probably won't OC (although i may OC it a little). My motherboard can support both of them.

Thanks in advanced!

More about : q6600 q8200

a b à CPUs
November 12, 2008 2:03:20 PM

But the Q6600 can easily run FSB1333, mine runs at 1600, but it depends on willing you are to OC and how far you'll push it.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 12, 2008 2:10:56 PM

Q6600 is the MOST popular Qs. mi1ez is right, with some good aircooling 6600 can hit nice speed, dont forget to have some air splashing the MOBO, the NB-SB gonna be hoter to ;) 
November 12, 2008 2:12:11 PM

I'd go for the Q6600 if you can't wait. It will probably give you most bang for the money. It really just depends on what you want to do with it and what you are willing to spend on it, if any.

They both will leave soon, but maybe there will be one more price cut before that happens. But the q6600 is a great proc everyone says.
November 12, 2008 2:15:53 PM

The Q6600 is more OC'able and will hit higher speeds.
The Q8200 runs much cooler and quiter.

Depending on your needs its a toss up.

I would take the Q8200 because I would not want the heat noise of a max OC'd Q6600. ( I have lots of PCs/Monitors running in my Pseudo Office/Lab)

Most folks go Q6600 and that was my last CPU of choice.
(The Q8200 was not yet born.)
November 12, 2008 2:27:54 PM

yea wait until Nehelam drops and get the price cuts bonus.
November 12, 2008 2:39:34 PM

Q6600 clocks easily. My Q6600 runs at 1800 FSB - 450x8...
November 12, 2008 9:47:47 PM

Q6600 use 9x multiplier. Q8200 use 7x multiplier. At 1600mhz fsb, q6600 runs at 3.6ghz. At the same 1600mhz fsb, q8200 runs at 2.8ghz. That's what accounts for the overclocking difference. Check your motherboard to see what fsb it can handle.
November 13, 2008 2:08:42 AM

Ur right, but mick told is not an OCer.
November 13, 2008 1:32:45 PM

+1 Hab i suggest a E8400 wich also OC good. or E8600 if price dont matter that much.
November 14, 2008 1:51:35 AM

nice review Dagger !
November 14, 2008 2:34:56 AM

habitat87 said:
From YOUR website link provided, I quote from this...

"And finally, we see pretty common picture in Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. The game itself by default creates two computational threads, however larger L2 cache of the quad-core processor grants its victory in overclocked mode. In nominal work mode Core 2 Duo E6850 wins the first prize as it boasts considerably higher working frequency."

And it scales as you clock it higher. Why not crank that dual core up? Yeah...

They cranked the dual up to 3.85ghz, but only 3.6ghz for the quad.
November 14, 2008 1:02:50 PM

+1 habitat, My E6850 is doing 3.6 and its like sleeping for him... I only have a MINItyphoon atm and my temp are 54c on full load and about 42c on gaming. Imagine whit a Better cooling !

I just read some reviews about the GEMIN II. seem to be awesome, cooling ALL the mobo at the same time look like a GREAT thing. i just raise a lil bit my 2 side case fan and the SB drop 6-7c, Imagine quit a Dual 120mm Righ over him !!! NB and SB gonna be cold !

December 29, 2008 3:13:44 AM

habitat87 said:
Didn't the dual series get better stock benchmark scores most of the time on tom's charts anyway?

Personally, I'm waiting for the e8600 to drop in prices. 4.5+ ghz is looking really good after that. There's regular people on newegg hitting these speeds. I can wait until i7 stables out, drops in prices, and when I hear all the horror stories get worked out.

I wouldnt hold your breath on that i7 chip if your a gamer, The benchmark charts for the i7s were getting beat out in gaming apps hands down by both the Dual and the newer versions of them. on the other hand, If your a real world app user then the i7 is definitely the way to go, It was destroying all cpus in that department, including the Core 2 Extremes. I almost purchased the i7 chip new mobo and ram till I looked at the benches on it.
February 1, 2009 1:50:43 PM

i think that 65nm to 45nm has a lot diffence in use.So i prefer the q8200 than q6600 much better fsb and 45nm they have almost same price but who cares about little more cache and 2.4ghz for 2.3ghz .thats my opinion and plz reply if i am wrong
February 1, 2009 2:33:46 PM

Q8200 will run cooler. i personnaly wait to get a q9550 or q9650 when there price drop a lil more. 12mb cache ... OC well ...
February 2, 2009 7:53:50 AM

that little drop u waiting for bouleard83 may be next year and so after all the topic is about q6600 vs q8200 and nobody sayd clearly which is better so i vote for q8200
February 2, 2009 2:03:56 PM

I scored for the Q8200 me too ;)  runs cooler for about the same perf ...
February 9, 2009 3:14:36 AM

I dont have Q82 but i do have Q6600 and for the money i paid for it - it worth it :) 
with stock fan i run 3ghz, i am not much of a OCer but i luv this cpu.
Dont have a heat problem either, 14 hours torture test passed :D 
I vote Q6600, kuz i have it lol
"own sh*t doesn't stink" they say :kaola:  :kaola: 
February 27, 2009 8:28:01 PM

I upgraded to the i7 from an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400. The main reasons I made the upgrade were:

1. Low power consumption (significantly lower than a Q6600 which is about $100 cheaper than the i7)
2. 8 logical cores available (quad core + hyper threading)
3. The ability to play cutting edge games that take advantage of all 8 cores.
4. The potential ability to load share between CPU & GPU once Windows 7 is released.

The upgrade might have been a bit premature, as the primary reason to buy an I7 processor won't be possible until Windows 7 is released. Windows 7 will allow load sharing between GPU (graphics card) and CPU. This will enable some really nice performance gains in games, or other graphic intensive applications like video editing software. Allegedly, games like Crysis will get a 20-30 percent performance increase. However, I heard that before when Windows stated that Vista would provide significant performance gains for DirectX10 games, which has not proved to be the case.

Regardless, the i7 920 is truly an amazing CPU. I've yet to experiment with overclocking much, but I do have it running at 3.12ghz stable and with a core temperature of 41C at idle and around 60C under load. I'll likely push things further in the coming weeks, and I'll give updates on temperatures and performance when I do.

Combining this card with two 4870hd 512mb graphics cards in Crossfire mode produced a 3DMark06 score of just over 19,000! That is a 5,000 point gain from my previous rig, and is in about the top 4% of all systems out there. That is pretty phenomenal performance. In Crysis with all settings at very high and DX10, I average over 50 frames at 1980x1200. This CPU is a gaming beast.

If you plan to overclock this card even a little, invest in an aftermarket heat sink and some Arctic Silver thermal compound. The heatsink provided with the retail package is small and ineffective at cooling an overclocked card. I recommend this Zalman Cpu Cooler for moderate overclocking. It is a very quite and very effective fan.

If your in the market for a 'future-proof' processor, this is a great option at a reasonable price point. The ceiling speed of processors is growing increasingly unimportant as multi-thread programing become the norm in both games and applications. You could spend a lot more for a higher GHZ CPU, but you're not really gaining as much performance as the jump from 2 to 4 cores, and then quad core to octo core. This processor will eat anything you throw at it and come back for more. Just make sure your mother board supports i7 chips before you buy one.

One can see from your Amazon Associates referral link why you spent so much time laying out the case for getting this almost-$300 processor. However, to stay within the policies of Tom's Hardware, I recommend that people avoid the above revenue link (constructed to make money for Mr. Hurteau) and head straight over to, then search for the product Intel i7.
February 27, 2009 10:31:30 PM

mick said:
I'm thinking about doing a slight upgrade to my computer, and I'm not sure which of those two quad cores to get.

I see a lot of threads about the Q6600 vs Q9X00, but nothing about the Q8200.

The Q8200 only costs ~$15 more, so the price difference isn't a problem, but the Q9X00 series costs more than i want to spend (~$120 more).

Which of those two would you guys recommend?

I don't run any special cooling systems, and i probably won't OC (although i may OC it a little). My motherboard can support both of them.

Thanks in advanced!

Its an old thread i see but the questions worth an answer: The q6600 period. Miles better than a q8200. The q9400 is only worth it if youve got a non 965 chipset mobo (i.e. later than this chipset) but then again its more expensive and harder to oc. So still the q6600. If you like gaming and money then it wins hands down.
March 9, 2009 4:24:37 PM

Can I bring this thread up again? *Originally started 11-12-08* with a LOT of "when the i7 comes out"... Well it's out and the prices seem to have dropped on both processors... The OP stated that the q8200 was $15 more than the q6600 and as of today it is $30 cheaper than the q6600... Figure that one out...

I have to assume it's due to threads such as these placing the q6600 on a throne so demand goes through the roof and the egg always capitalizes on new recommendations from tech support sites.

From the little I understand... The q6600 has twice cache and +.07ghz difference and a better multiplier, but is 65nm not 45nm and lower FSB (which is arbitary). So I guess I'm on the opposite side of the river from the OP should I pony up the extra $30 for the higher cache?

OP (Mick) - What did you decide???
March 22, 2009 5:00:42 PM

The one thing that matters at all is your motherboard. Vista till this day is still having problems; however here is a quick setup of my pc and I love it.

1. NO OC
2. Windows XP 32bit
Reason: No garbage programs, not really that many fancy graphics (wish I could run 98) Can upgrade later when windows 7 comes out
3. Quad 8200
Reason: Extremely quiet, inexpensive, and upgradable in the future to keep up with i7 Can oc a bit and you dont run the risk of burning out your cpu
3. EVGA 790i Ultra SLI ready motherboard
Reason: Cheaper than the Asus motherboard, compatible with nvidia sli video cards top of the line
4. 9800gt sli x2 1280x1024 3d mark score 13000+ a great score for xp or u can get the 260 I just hate the bulky looking thing.
5. 4 gb ddr3 epp 2.0 ram

Overall its a great gaming machine for less than 800usd dollars. If your smart buy your pc components at small pop computer stores they always lower their prices.
March 22, 2009 10:48:19 PM

Sorry but

pcwiz1983 said:
Vista till this day is still having problems

it is??? how do you know if you are not using it?

pcwiz1983 said:
Reason: Extremely quiet

Do you mind explaining how the hell a cpu is quiet or loud???

pcwiz1983 said:
compatible with nvidia sli video cards top of the line

What does this have to do with anything? ATI doesn't make top of the line cards?

pcwiz1983 said:
If your smart buy your pc components at small pop computer stores they always lower their prices.

Yes, but they still can't compete with Newegg. Although I am all for supporting the local economy and especially the mom and pop stores.
March 23, 2009 3:06:40 PM

Some Correction from my post:

1. Extremely quiet because your not using a gigantic fan to cool the pc.

2. I had vista an returned it when I bought it back at the beginning of March with ep3 update HATED IT

3. Yeah I enjoy supporting the local economy good karma

4. Its a great machine, havent had any problems at all and I dont have to worry about heating issues while playing games.

5. Let me correct myself while ATI has quality it doesnt have the quantity. Processors are decent I prefer my intel.
June 16, 2009 8:49:58 PM

Price changed since the start of this thread, i would no go Q9400 ;) 
June 16, 2009 9:49:57 PM

My PC has an Q8200 and I just pushed it to 2.8GHz the day before yesterday. It runs on 400x7 (1600MHz FSB) on stock voltage. So if you don't want to OC a lot, you might aswell go for an Q8200.
June 17, 2009 1:07:16 PM

I have a q8200 sitting @ 3.5ghz on the stock fan - no testing yet, I'm installing x64 Vista - not too bright I admit but after installing OS's for 20 years, I like to live dangerously :D  This Gigabyte ep45-ud3l is running like a champ

I had the Q6600 in the past a few times actually, had one cpu running @ 3.8 on water - that will become one of the classics - a true champion CPU

quads are not the greatest overclocker but contrary to what I'm hearing this Q8200 is overclocked 1.2ghz on the stock fan @ 1.4volts - once I get the OS installed, I'll start the Orthos drill on it and post back
June 17, 2009 2:43:20 PM

1.4 volts on stock fan? Intel has specified a max of 1.365V, which is too hot for a stock cooler.

I wouldn't be suprised if your PC shuts down due to thermal throttle.
June 17, 2009 3:28:22 PM

when you overclock, don't give too much weight on Intel's guidelines ;) 

If you cherish your $200 cpu - don't overclock - at least not to the full extent

Voltage is one thing but don't be too concerned about that - it's the heat - if I'm 20ºC under tj. max running full Orthos load (2 instances with affinity set properly) - hey, I'm fine - I haven't fried a cpu in my entire life - which is strange - I should have killed at least one over the years :D  (they are stronger than you think) - if you want your cpu to last 5+ years (who does), I'd recommend keeping the heat low then
June 17, 2009 3:32:57 PM

Meh, my CPU reaches tops of 70c now, with a Scythe Mugen.

My sensors are probably broken.

a b à CPUs
June 18, 2009 11:10:15 AM