Intel Core2 Quad: Q6600 vs Q8200 - Which is better?

[Panarchy]

Hello

I am trying to figure out which I should get, the Q6600 or the Q8200?

The Q6600 is over a year older than the Q8200, but from most of the specs, it seems that the Q6600 is better.

There is a $20 difference in price.

I will be using the CPU for virtualisation and other Server tasks.

Please tell me which CPU is best.

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

 

[Proximon]

Well, the Q8200 will use less power and operates on a higher FSB at stock speeds.

Q6600: 266mhz x 9 = 2.4Ghz
Q8200: 333mhz x 7 = 2.33Ghz

If you are not planning to overclock, I would think that the Q6600 is the better choice. You probably can't beat it for performance without going to a Q9400:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115131&Tpk=Q9400

Or of course an AMD Phenom II:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471
Hmm it's dropped to 200 bucks... that makes it a very good buy if you have the board to run it.

 

[Panarchy]

Thanks

 

[The Third Level]

The Phenom IIs are sick, you should check them out.

 

[cadder]

I got the Q9400, partly because it was on sale at microcenter and because it seemed to have the lowest multiplier for a good overclock. The Q6600 is probably easiest to get a speed increase with. Because of the lower multiplier, a Q9400 and especially a Q8200 will take more work. It will require much better memory and a board that will allow a high FSB.

 

[Panarchy]

So confirming, you would like me to get the Q6600?

 

[cjl]

I would say the 8200 is the way to go actually. It's cheaper, and overclocks just fine. It also uses less power and produces less heat.

 

[Proximon]

But if you aren't overclocking, the 6600 benchmarks faster.

 

[Panarchy]

Would I need a special heatsink and power supply in order to have a successful safe OverClock?

 

[cjl]

But if you aren't overclocking, the 6600 benchmarks faster.

Not by enough to matter.

Its clock speed is nearly the same, and it is slightly faster per clock due to the 45nm process.

 

[Proximon]

You can overclock a little bit if your case is adequately ventilated and you use the stock cooler as long as your board allows it. Beyond that, you'll want a well cooled case and a decent cooler.

 

[Panarchy]

Not by enough to matter.

Its clock speed is nearly the same, and it is slightly faster per clock due to the 45nm process.

What about the L2 cache?

 

[cjl]

Not hugely significant. It does make a bit of a difference, but not a lot for most apps.

 

[cjl]

The 8200 actually runs slower (2.33GHz). It just isn't enough of a speed difference to matter.

 

[Panarchy]

Hello

Thanks for all the replies. Since the answer to my question is still disputed, I have decided to add a poll (see 1st post).

Please participate in the poll, I think I included all options needed to make an educated poll on the aforementioned CPUs.

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

PS: cjl, I need the GHz, for Virtualisation. Also, I read in the specs that the Q6600 supports Intel Virtualisation, whilst the Q8200 doesn't. Does this make much of a difference, or is it just a marketting ploy?

 

[Devastator_uk]

I think the Q6600, mainly since it has the extra cache. Although the difference between a CPU with 8megs and one with 4megs is much less than if you compared a CPU with 512K with one with 256K. Basically only having 4megs isn't really going to bottleneck anything, but you can never have too much of the stuff.

 

[exit2dos]

I read in the specs that the Q6600 supports Intel Virtualisation, whilst the Q8200 doesn't. Does this make much of a difference, or is it just a marketting ploy?

Anymore, VM software is optimized for VT (and AMD-V). I would definately get a CPU that supports it in your case. Unless you're running old VM software with no plans of upgrading it.

 

[Panarchy]

If your paying $200 for a 2.4ghz processor, why dont you just go with the Phenom 2 940 at 3ghz and overclock it. You can get a P2 940, 4gb of ram and a 790GX mobo with newegg combos for the same price as the i7 920 processor alone (about $290). Which is less than your going to pay for a Q6600/8200, mobo, and 4gb of ram. Besides, a s775 system is non-upgradeable because Intel is not going to make any more s775 quads.

Your saying you need the ghz, then go with something faster and more modern and more upgradeable for less money. Make sense?

Hello

Thanks for your reply.

Been reading the review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-2.html

It has 6MB L3 cache...

What does this signify?;

Anyways, I'm happy with the guide, since it compares to the exact model (Q6600).

Performance Analysis;

The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is about 9% slower on average

The price analysis is different for me since I'm not in America, here is what I have worked out;

Intel;

AMD;

I'd like to get the price a lot cheaper... so if there are any ideas, I'd really appreciate them.

Also, I'd like to continue the discussion on whether Q6600 is better then the Q8200 (Q8200 is $20 cheaper), and the discussion on Phenom II vs Intel Core2 Quad.

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

PS: The main price difference is due to the GFX Card

 

[The Third Level]

Phenom II X3 720 - $150
Asus M4A78T-E - $140
G.Skill DDR3-1600 6GB (3x2gb) - $100

Your three main components are about 400 bucks.

For your Q6600 setup, you're at 300 for the processor alone, plus DDR2.
Your call.

 

[The Third Level]

Also, if you wanna go the AM2+ Phenom II X4 940 BE, it's about the same price.

CPU - $200
Mobo - $130
RAM - Two 2x2gb sets, 50 bucks each = $100

 

[geofelt]

Hello

Thanks for all the replies. Since the answer to my question is still disputed, I have decided to add a poll (see 1st post).

Please participate in the poll, I think I included all options needed to make an educated poll on the aforementioned CPUs.

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

PS: cjl, I need the GHz, for Virtualisation. Also, I read in the specs that the Q6600 supports Intel Virtualisation, whilst the Q8200 doesn't. Does this make much of a difference, or is it just a marketting ploy?

You need the GHZ, but do you need the quad? A faster clocked E8400 might serve you better.

 

[Shadow703793]

^True that.

Also OP; don't buy that PSU. Get a high quality PSU from PC Power & Cooling, Corsair, OCZ, Antec. This will power your build well:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005
Corsair 650TX, $80 after MIR. (WAY over kill; I know)

Or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139008
Corsair 400CX, $50 after MIR. (Too bad it's out of stock)

 

[Proximon]

I was able to do some reading last night and I guess cjl is correct.

Q8200 does make more sense over all. I was under the impression that the higher multiplier of the Q6600 would outweigh the benefits of the Q8200, and it is indeed a factor in overclocking, but the newer production process and lower voltages should make for a better CPU overall.

If you were using an OLDER motherboard, the Q6600 might be a better choice. Why? Because the FSB might not go too high, and so you would not get as much out of an overclock with a Q8200. A modern P45 board can hit a 500+ FSB. I know mine will, on air.

Agree on the case/PSU. You should look for an Antec case that has a 380W PSU included. This will be an EA380, a good stable unit.

 

[cjl]

Actually, for virtualization, I'll have to retract my earlier statement. The 6600 supports special virtualization features that make it faster than the 8200 for that specific application. Therefore, specifically for virtualization, go for the 6600 over the 8200. If it is available, the Q9400 would also be a good choice.

 

[gfg]

The phenom II 920 / 940 are faster than the q6600 on stock speed.