Q8200 vs Q6600

Spades22

Spades22

CAGiversary!
Which of these processors is actually better?
The Q6600 has 2.4GHZ, 1066 MHz and 8MB L2 cache
Q8200 has 2.33GHZ, MHz 1333, and 4MB L2 Cache

I don't really know what these Mhz and cache specs help, I think GHz is the speed...so I'm not sure which of these processors is actually better.
6600 has better cache and ghz specs, but a worse Mhz figure.

Any suggestions???
 
Do a google search of Q6600 vs. Q8200, check newegg reviews, and so on. IMO I would go with the Q6600, in fact I did with the ebay live cash back deal. I'm comfortable with attempting to overclock. From my understanding the Q6600 is one of the best chips out of the Quads for OC'ing. I'm sure others on this board will have opinions at least of the Q6600 since it is one of the best Intel budget buys. I'm supposed to get mine today or tomorrow. So once I get the system built I may update this post.
 
Q6600 is better for overclocking thanks to a higher multiplier and that it is rated higher for voltage. The MHz really doesn't matter at all and it is actually probably worse when the front side bus (which is what it is measuring) is higher in comparison to the chips total speed (which is the GHZ) since that means the multiplier is lower. Q6600 is likely faster at stock speeds and would definitely be faster overclocked. The only thing the Q8200 has above the Q6600 is that it should draw less power.
 
Well I don't plan on overclocking anything. It's not really necessary for me...I just wanted the best bang for my buck right out of the box.
 
You can get a Q6600 above 3 GHz on stock cooling very easily... above 3.5 GHz with aftermarket air cooling... it's a great, great chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top