# Q6600 or Q8200?



## swimdude0614 (Nov 9, 2008)

i'm building my database of parts for my website and i don't see the point in adding both of these processors, but i'm not sure which to add.

quick specs if you're unfamiliar with them:

Q6600:
2.4 GHz
1066 FSB
4 x Conroe cores (65nm)
2 x 4MB L2 cache

Q8200
2.33 GHz
1333FSB
4 x Wolfdale cores (45nm)       (they're the same as the E8XXX right?)
4 MB L2 cache

same cost. which one do think is faster? will the extra cache in the q6600 add much speed? that's pretty much the only thing it's got going for it


----------



## ShadowFold (Nov 9, 2008)

Q6600 is alot faster but a E8500 would be miles better for the price.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 9, 2008)

Q6600 is the better quad, which is the question you asked. its not just hte cache, but the multiplier too - the Q66 will be a lot easier to OC.


----------



## Squirrely (Nov 9, 2008)

The main difference between the two is that one is 45nm (the Q8200), and the other the older process, 65nm. The Q6600 will consume more power if that is an issue, but it is also cheaper usually. They are similar in performance, but the Q6600 pulls ahead because of the extra cache and clock speed.

Another difference, if it affects you, is that the Q8200 does not have Virtualization Technology, so you will be unable to run VMWare for example, as it will be unable to run virtual PC's.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Nov 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Q6600 is the better quad, which is the question you asked. its not just hte cache, but the multiplier too - the Q66 will be a lot easier to OC.



but the other one is 45nm so it may clock higher if you have a good board that will get high FSB.

but i would get the q66 because of the price and they have been proven to be a good CPU for everyday use to benchmarking/overclocking and this is coming from someone that likes AMD better


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 9, 2008)

q6600 for teh cache alone


----------



## Mussels (Nov 9, 2008)

with a 7x multiplier vs a 9x multiplier, you're talking 400x9 for 3.6GHz or 514FSB on the 8200.

Since the 8200 has lower cache, its performance will be less... so you're talking a board that can do 400FSB or a board that does 550. (not to mention ram that can clock that high, 1:1 on intel boards)


----------



## DOM (Nov 9, 2008)

what mobo is this going in ? 

the one in your specs ?


----------



## JC316 (Nov 9, 2008)

Q6600 hands down. I hear that the Q8200 isn't that great.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Nov 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> with a 7x multiplier vs a 9x multiplier, you're talking 400x9 for 3.6GHz or 514FSB on the 8200.
> 
> Since the 8200 has lower cache, its performance will be less... so you're talking a board that can do 400FSB or a board that does 550. (not to mention ram that can clock that high, 1:1 on intel boards)



your right i didn't even think of that buzzed alittle too much right now. I am just going to go to bed before i confuse or mislead anyone.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 9, 2008)

putting the cache into context: the wolfdales have 6MB between two cores, while this has 4MB between 4 cores. thats 1MB each core (Q8200), as opposed to 3MB per core(wolfdale E8xx0) or 2MB per core (Q6600)


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Nov 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> putting the cache into context: the wolfdales have 6MB between two cores, while this has 4MB between 4 cores. thats 1MB each core (Q8200), as opposed to 3MB per core(wolfdale E8xx0) or 2MB per core (Q6600)



does the cache make a big difference on Intel chips? I know on AMD 512k and 1MB per core doesn't really make much of a difference.


----------



## francis511 (Nov 9, 2008)

I read a comparison between the two and the benchmarks were pretty much evenly split. IMO the multiplier wins out for the q6600 tho`


----------



## Mussels (Nov 9, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> does the cache make a big difference on Intel chips? I know on AMD 512k and 1MB per core doesn't really make much of a difference.



it does make a difference on intel. In synthetic tests, i've found a wolfdale vs a conroe to be around 12% faster, at the same clocks due to its larger/faster cache. If you remove the cache advantage, its going to be the same clock for clock - and thats where it becomes a battle of OCing, and the Q6600's multiplier wins.


----------



## swimdude0614 (Nov 9, 2008)

i'm actually putting together a database of parts for my website and i'm deciding which one will end up being the entry-level quad core processor. they're exactly the same price on newegg right now.

and i don't know if some future customer will need VT support...
and i don't know what motherboard i'll be putting it in...
but i don't plan to overclock unless specifically asked to by a customer

but, hearing all you guys talk about how much good the cache does for a computer, i'll go ahead and throw the q6600 in my list and keep the q8200 in the back of my mind.


----------



## swimdude0614 (Nov 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> it does make a difference on intel. In synthetic tests, i've found a wolfdale vs a conroe to be around 12% faster, at the same clocks due to its larger/faster cache. If you remove the cache advantage, its going to be the same clock for clock - and thats where it becomes a battle of OCing, and the Q6600's multiplier wins.



are you saying the SSE4 instruction set doesn't do anything for the wolfdales? i thought that's what was SOOO amazing about them?


----------



## Binge (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm pretty sure wolfdales are amazing because of the manufacturing process and power consumption.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Nov 9, 2008)

q6600 for sure


----------



## Pinchy (Nov 9, 2008)

It depends on the system they are going in.

If left at stock clocks, I would take the Q8200 due to the higher fsb.

Yet if overclocking, the q6600 hands down.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 9, 2008)

Pinchy said:


> It depends on the system they are going in.
> 
> If left at stock clocks, I would take the Q8200 due to the higher fsb.
> 
> Yet if overclocking, the q6600 hands down.



why? the higher FSB has little to no performance difference at stock, while the Q6600 has a higher MHz advantage, so even if you beleive in the FSB boost, the clocks of the Q6600 would make it faster anyway.


----------



## FilipM (Nov 9, 2008)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9400.html

Here's a test - Q8200, Q6600, Q9400, Q9300, X4 9950

Intel's tested on a DFI LANPARTY DK P45-T2RS

They also put an E8600 in the test for reference.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 9, 2008)

summary of that review, is that they're pretty equal. 
OFC, the Q6600 has the better future proofing due to the easier OC.


----------



## r9 (Nov 9, 2008)

Just read specs on people here - Q6600 is weapon of choice.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 9, 2008)

how much is the q9300? Other Question is what are you going to be doing with your machine as it looks like your current 1 you do light gaming on if at all, (i may sound like a Hipocrit from my specs but i do play More current games sans Crysis at good detail levels without performance hit)


----------



## Pinchy (Nov 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> why? the higher FSB has little to no performance difference at stock, while the Q6600 has a higher MHz advantage, so even if you beleive in the FSB boost, the clocks of the Q6600 would make it faster anyway.



Yeah, but the MHz boost is 3%, the FSB boost is 25%.

Look at the benches. The reason the Q6600 sticks with it at stock in vid encoding and all that is due to the extra cache. 

Now think of the two quads doing standard computing (where the extra cache doesnt do anything) and the Q8200 is the clear winner. Higher FSB speeds have always made the computer more "responsive" for me.

As I have said, though, this is only at stock. Once overclocked, the q6600 will dominate.


----------



## swimdude0614 (Nov 9, 2008)

well, as i mentioned before, i don't know what the CPUs will be used for. i'm building a database of parts to go on a website where i sell computers, and i was looking for which entry-level, intel, quad-core processor i should put in.

seeing as how the benchmarks suggest that, overall, they're equal, i'll go with the q6600. this way if my future customer decides they need VT, they have it.


----------



## niko084 (Nov 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> with a 7x multiplier vs a 9x multiplier, you're talking 400x9 for 3.6GHz or 514FSB on the 8200.
> 
> Since the 8200 has lower cache, its performance will be less... so you're talking a board that can do 400FSB or a board that does 550. (not to mention ram that can clock that high, 1:1 on intel boards)



Indeed Q6600 rock stomps the Q8200 all day, in top scores and averages.

Get the Q6600 if you want a quad, but as said before if you don't want a quad for a reason, get an e8500


----------

