Which is better, Q6600 or Q8300???

As stated above, i would like to know which offers higher performance. Thanks.
6 answers Last reply
More about which better q6600 q8300
  1. 45nm Q8x00 quads are slightly faster clock per clock than 65nm Q6x00 quads, but there are situations where the Q6600 8mb of cache comes in handy over the Q8300s 4mb of cache.

    Q8300 is better at stock speeds and will run cooler/use less energy, but the Q6600 is more overclockable and will overclock to 3.6GHz without much effort. The Q8x00 are so-so at overclocking, maybe 500MHz or so.

    At stock = Q8300 wins
    Overclocked = Q6600 wins


    Here's a chart comparing the Q8200 to the Q600 (Q8200 is slightly worse than the Q8300)

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/52?vs=53

    And comparing the Q8200 to the Q8400.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/52?vs=89
  2. Bluescreendeath said:
    45nm Q8x00 quads are slightly faster clock per clock than 65nm Q6x00 quads, but there are situations where the Q6600 8mb of cache comes in handy over the Q8300s 4mb of cache.

    Q8300 is better at stock speeds and will run cooler/use less energy, but the Q6600 is more overclockable and will overclock to 3.6GHz without much effort. The Q8x00 are so-so at overclocking, maybe 500MHz or so.

    At stock = Q8300 wins
    Overclocked = Q6600 wins


    Here's a chart comparing the Q8200 to the Q600 (Q8200 is slightly worse than the Q8300)

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/52?vs=53

    And comparing the Q8200 to the Q8400.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/52?vs=89

    Awesome anser mate, thanks for the info. Can i just ask, the Cache...Does this affect gaming performance much?
  3. The difference is very small...maybe 5%? Clock speed (and architecture) is more important.
  4. Bluescreendeath said:
    45nm Q8x00 quads are slightly faster clock per clock than 65nm Q6x00 quads, but there are situations where the Q6600 8mb of cache comes in handy over the Q8300s 4mb of cache.

    Q8300 is better at stock speeds and will run cooler/use less energy, but the Q6600 is more overclockable and will overclock to 3.6GHz without much effort. The Q8x00 are so-so at overclocking, maybe 500MHz or so.

    At stock = Q8300 wins
    Overclocked = Q6600 wins


    Here's a chart comparing the Q8200 to the Q600 (Q8200 is slightly worse than the Q8300)

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/52?vs=53

    And comparing the Q8200 to the Q8400.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/52?vs=89


    You make it seem like its easy to make a Q6600 hit 3.6 when it is not. 3.2 is more realistic. 3.4 is doable. 3.6 and above is a good chip.
  5. werxen said:
    You make it seem like its easy to make a Q6600 hit 3.6 when it is not. 3.2 is more realistic. 3.4 is doable. 3.6 and above is a good chip.


    It really depends on the stepping. That is true for the older B3 models, but G0's are much more overclock-able and get hit 4.0GHz on good air cooling.

    If it's G0, an OC to 3.4-3.6GHz shouldn't be too difficult at all.
  6. Bluescreendeath said:
    ... but G0's are much more overclock-able and get hit 4.0GHz on good air cooling.

    That depends a lot on the individual chip and its VID. My G0 Q6600 has a VID of 1.2825 volts. It will run with stability (24 hour P95) at 3.6 GHz at 1.425 volts. Of course, that's with a good case and cooler.

    I'd say that 3.4 to 3.6 GHz is at the upper end of typical overclocking.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance