Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Q6600 v Q8200 v Q9400 - quickie

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 11, 2009 8:20:03 PM

Hey so I'm building a new rig and i was good to go on the Q6600... tigerdirect has a deal on the Q8200 and Q9400 that are still in my price range, but I'm think about OCing in the future...

Newegg Q6600 @ $190

TD Q6600@ $199 - G0 stepping, unlike Newegg who won't say :) 
TD Q8200@ $169 - M1
TD Q9400@ $229 - R0

Other post
February 11, 2009 8:35:22 PM

Q9400 is $180 @microcenter
m
0
l
February 11, 2009 8:48:58 PM

in store pickup only... i don't live near anything... literally... my closest electronics store is a radio shack 20 min. away
m
0
l
Related resources
February 11, 2009 11:00:25 PM

toss up between Q9400 and Q6600...

45nm vs 65nm
2.66ghz vs 2.4ghz
8x multi vs 9x multi
6mb cache vs 8mb cache

Keep in mind Q9400S will be round soon (TDP of 65w comared to the 95w of Q9400) and for a bit more you can get Q9450 but cant see it on the egg or tiger
m
0
l
February 11, 2009 11:16:29 PM

I'm going to notice huge changes with either from a personal standpoint (my current pc sucks), so i guess its just which one am I going to be happy with for a while... and and is a Q9400 worth $40 when I plan on bringing the Q6600 to around 3.0GHz... I only know that where I'm heading because of the massive amount of success I've heard from other in OCing the Q6600 to 3.0GHz easily
m
0
l
February 12, 2009 12:34:40 AM

Dont kid yourself that the Q9400 wont do the same sort of overclock.

also depends whats in your budget, depending on your use that $40 might be better spent on a higher GPU or more RAM
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2009 4:50:48 AM

I bought the Q9400 because
1) I didn't want to buy 65nm when newer processors are 45nm
2) I wanted the cpu with lower power consumption
I bought the Q9400 at microcenter for the same price as I could get the Q6600 for, I paid sales tax on the Q9400 vs. shipping on the Q6600
My goal for overclocking is somewhere between 3.2 and 3.6, which either chip should be capable of. The disadvantage of the Q9400 is that I have to push the ram and FSB a little higher for the same CPU speed.
m
0
l
February 12, 2009 5:04:08 AM

Another post in which ppl ignore the q8200... I don't know why people shun the q8200 soo much... Just cause it doesnt have VT and only 4mb of cache and a few things disabled doesn mean it should be shund from a new cpu build.

And yes the q6600 is still a beast but it is old and aging... they dont even make it anymore and stores are start to get low on them.

But down to the point i would say a 45nm processor... given how well the are made any will do.. but i say a 9000 series such as the 9400
m
0
l
February 12, 2009 5:25:56 AM

I did read great things about the 8200, but the few places I found it, it was either low stock or not even available... I think I'm going for the Q6600 only because of the great experiences I've been reading about... it almost feels that the Q6600 is a good beginners OC and thats what I am... thank you
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 143 à CPUs
February 12, 2009 4:14:57 PM

+1 @ cadder. I considered those same points when I chose my Q9450 last year. 3.2GHz was a simple OC, as much as I want for now. I chose Mushkin RAM, which will readily OC.
I've read that that Q8200 doesn't have comparable performance due to limited cache. It's the sort of CPU you might be initially happy to have, and then be pissed at yourself in a month or so that you went cheap. Get the Q9400.
Share
!