Q8200 or E8400

the Q8200 has low cache. The Q6600 @ 2.4 is much better. It has twice the cache and is a better overclocker. Even if you dont over clock the Q6600 is a better cpu. The Q6600 is about the same price as teh Q8200.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115017

If you really want a 45nm cpu go with a Q9400 or Q9550. They are a good bit more expensive.

I own a e8400 and im pretty happy with it. Are you also going to be upgrading your mboard? or is this just a cpu swap. If your just swaping your cpu out of your current mboard see if it can even support 45nm cpus. If not then theres not much of a need in going to the 45nm cpus. Sounds to me as if you need a good cpu and good gfx card. I havent played crysis (yet) but i have a E8400@3ghz with 4gb DDR2 800 memory with an 8800 GT and so far its played every game ive tried with it. World in Conflict and Company of Heroes being the most demanding games I own.

mm not really.

The 8200 has a 4mb L2 Cache the 6600 has a 8mb L2 Cache, while back in the day this diffrence was nothing recently there has been performance increases due to a larger Cache.

SSE4 isn't used that much actually, mainly only video editing and high end calculations. However who knows when games are going to need it or benfit from it Thats all a guessing game.

In real life testing not Synthetic Benchmarks they both stand even neck and neck (+ 1-2fps in games) ..in Synthetic Benchmarks (Mainly because of the SSE4) the Q8200 has a small benefit.

The BIGGEST thing in my opinion and most others is the Overclock ability of the Q6600..

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. 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.That's what accounts for the overclocking difference.

That being said i would recommend the Q6600 if your looking into Overclocking and best performance per clock, however if your looking into saving a few watts and having your CPU run cooler the go for the 8200..

Yes, your opinion. And I see you're only running your G0 Q6600 at 3.0ghz...

Again, any of the newer P45 chipsets (Gigabyte UD3-series, Asus PQ5-series, etc.) will easily handle high FSB's with minimum voltage increases.

Best performance per clock for the 65nm Q6600? I think you're mistaken.

q6600 is better than q8200 in every imaginable way. Deal with it.

FatFunkey gave you all the reasons, read what he wrote or dont speak.

personaly i would not go for a Q6600 because it's not 45nm meaning it uses alot more power. and where i come from the power bill already costs an arm and a leg. at stock speads the Q8200 is the replace ment for the Q6600 and performs the same (no matter what anyone else says) but if your into overclocking it's an whole other ballgame, then the Q6600 would be te better processor it just overclocks alot better but it would make the cpu use up alot of power something i personaly dont like

between the Q8200 and E8400 I would go fo the E8400 it's the better cpu with it's higher clock speed and cache making it the better cpu for most of the games. you might also want to look at the E8500 since this cpu took over the E8400 price point it might only cost 10-15 bucks more and give you a little extra boost.

are you on glue, or do your parents pay your bills?

the q8200 vs q6600 in power bills ok lets run the numbers

q6600 runs idle at 180 watts
q8200 runs idle at 155 watts

prime 95 full load
q6600 = 282 watts
q8200 = 196 watts

if you were to run you computer for 8 hours a day every day for a month under FULL LOAD it would cost you $ 2.04 extra every month.

86 watts * 240 hours based on $0.10120 per KWH


dont hump the energy bill as a reason to buy a crappy processor. change over to CFS bulbs and you will save alot more then $ 2.04 like the q8200 will.