Meh.. 7x multi, wont be doing any serious OCing with it but still a good gaming chip.

Eh? why isnt it q9200. now im confused. Am i being retarded?

iamollieEh? why isnt it q9200. now im confused. Am i being retarded?

Because the 8 series wont feature vt or txt.

can anyone tell me is there going to be a big diffrence between a Quad 6600 G0 stepping
and this new 8200Quad ?

Tatsumarucan anyone tell me is there going to be a big diffrence between a Quad 6600 G0 stepping
and this new 8200Quad ?

Q6600 has a 8x multi and this Q8200 has 7x. Lower cache(8mb vs 4mb). Probably a busted temp sensor like on all the 45nm chips. I dont see the point in this chip really. The Q6600 is still a hell of a chip and cheaper than this.

ShadowFoldQ6600 has a 8x multi and this Q8200 has 7x. Lower cache(8mb vs 4mb). Probably a busted temp sensor like on all the 45nm chips. I dont see the point in this chip really. The Q6600 is still a hell of a chip and cheaper than this.

lol the Q6600 has 9X multi ;)

DOMlol the Q6600 has 9X multi ;)

Omg.. I wish I knew that awile back.. I always thought it was 8x.. I really want one now :cry:

I have a Q6600 9x Multi, running at 3.6 Ghz, with 1066 Mhz DDR2 ram. It will take a hell of a new chip to make me leave my baby Q66.

You will find OC'ers all over the world with praise for the bang for buck you get from a Q6600.

However, 333Mhz FSB base, they have been getting consistent 500 Mhz out of those puppies.. You should at least be able to get 3.2 Ghz off the Q8200, easily, with 3.5 Ghz being attainable with careful tweaking... The q6600 G0 went straight up to 3.2 Ghz so easily, my baby daughter (1 yr old) could have done it.

Can't help but wonder if maybe they produced so many of these and just want to unload them. Not much sense in this particular product line unless I'm missing something?:confused:

thoughtdisorderCan't help but wonder if maybe they produced so many of these and just want to unload them. Not much sense in this particular product line unless I'm missing something?:confused:

Nope, that's pretty much it.

I would have one if it came in an intel lucky bag:laugh: if they made too many they can give me one(the chip :p)

thoughtdisorderCan't help but wonder if maybe they produced so many of these and just want to unload them. Not much sense in this particular product line unless I'm missing something?:confused:

They are just using them to get rid of the bad cores. The cache takes up the largest part of the die, and because of that is usually the part to come out faulty during manufacturing. Instead of dumping the bad cores, they disable the bad cache and sell them as lower processors. They've been doing this since at least the PIII days and calling them Celerons, only recently(Core 2 Duo era) have they stoped calling all of them Celerons, but some still are.

Most of the time, it usually leads to a very cheap chip, that overclocks like crazy(E7200 being a great example). However, with the small multiplier and high FSB of this chip, I don't think it will be worth it. I wish they would have dropped it down to the 1066 FSB.

@newtekie^ - Good stuff! Thanks! :)

Wow, thats a pretty dirt cheap quad. I remember when the E7200 came along and it seemed to prove itself worthy on titles as long as its OC'd. But with a quad related to that, I think Xfiring it with two 4850s won't bottle neck. Good job Intel!

Love the price point!
Think I'll stick with the E8500 though for the clock speeds. I'm not using too much that utilizes that many cores yet : (

DehxI have a Q6600 9x Multi, running at 3.6 Ghz, with 1066 Mhz DDR2 ram. It will take a hell of a new chip to make me leave my baby Q66.

You will find OC'ers all over the world with praise for the bang for buck you get from a Q6600.

However, 333Mhz FSB base, they have been getting consistent 500 Mhz out of those puppies.. You should at least be able to get 3.2 Ghz off the Q8200, easily, with 3.5 Ghz being attainable with careful tweaking... The q6600 G0 went straight up to 3.2 Ghz so easily, my baby daughter (1 yr old) could have done it.

Uh..didn't nearly any chip starting with the E6600 do the same? On stock voltage none the less?

DehxI have a Q6600 9x Multi, running at 3.6 Ghz, with 1066 Mhz DDR2 ram. It will take a hell of a new chip to make me leave my baby Q66.

You will find OC'ers all over the world with praise for the bang for buck you get from a Q6600.

However, 333Mhz FSB base, they have been getting consistent 500 Mhz out of those puppies.. You should at least be able to get 3.2 Ghz off the Q8200, easily, with 3.5 Ghz being attainable with careful tweaking... The q6600 G0 went straight up to 3.2 Ghz so easily, my baby daughter (1 yr old) could have done it.

Dehx you not really correct on the overclocking. The E8200 should be the quad core version of Intel's dual-core rambo midget, the E7200. Even though its just 2.33GHz and a 4MB cache, it has a 1333 MHz bus and a 45nm Penryn core which lowers power consumption thus lowering thermal ratings. With that in mind, the E8200 will probably OC to about 4GHz which just might be better than the E8500 as that processor has been dominating some of the best Q9000 quads for some time. Even though it will take some serious benchmark gaps to get your frenzy on upgrading, you will probably change your mind if Intel has a big success over this processor. BOO HOO if there's only 7 multipliers, go OC for it to get 9 or more multipliers which is the reason why you overclock lol. Also pump more voltage to get that FSB closer to 1600 MHz! In the mean time, I'm going to stay patient with the E7200.

I'll just stay with the E6600 and E8400 til they fry. Havent tried any real OCing with the 8400, need another mobo, but with the 6600 it went to 3.79ghz easily on air.