E5200 & Q8200 chips already on sale!!!

4 cores, 1333 FSB but has a limited 4mb cache... I am sure it will hit 4ghz, just not as easily as the e5200 will...
 
we need comparison tables.. between this new Q8200,the Q6600 and the Q9300
 
vict0r said:
we need comparison tables.. between this new Q8200,the Q6600 and the Q9300
Click to expand...

Q6600 - 2.4GHz / 1066FSB / 9x multiplier / 8MB L2 / no SSE 4.1 / 65nm
Q8200 - 2.33GHz / 1333FSB / 7x multiplier / 4MB L2 / SSE 4.1 / 45nm
Q9300 - 2.5GHz / 1333FSB / 7.5x multiplier / 6MB L2 / SSE 4.1 / 45nm

The Q6600 remains the best choice for overclocking due to the 9x multi, but the Q8200 and Q9300 run cooler and has SSE 4.1.
 
4 GHz with a 7x multiplier is very very hard. I'd say it's pretty much impossible since you'd need a 571 FSB.
 
harpoon said:
Q6600 - 2.4GHz / 1066FSB / 9x multiplier / 8MB L2 / no SSE 4.1 / 65nm
Q8200 - 2.33GHz / 1333FSB / 7x multiplier / 4MB L2 / SSE 4.1 / 45nm
Q9300 - 2.5GHz / 1333FSB / 7.5x multiplier / 6MB L2 / SSE 4.1 / 45nm

The Q6600 remains the best choice for overclocking due to the 9x multi, but the Q8200 and Q9300 run cooler and has SSE 4.1.
Click to expand...

How does the q9550 compare to those?
 
The Q8200 is kinda meh, but I'm digging the E5200.
Price needs to go down a bit though, $93 is kinda steep IMO.
 
yea that sucks. i have been on pins and needles waiting for that sse 4.1 for months now. i could simply shit.
 
Harb said:
How does the q9550 compare to those?
Click to expand...

Q6600 - 2.4GHz / 1066FSB / 9x multiplier / 8MB L2 / no SSE 4.1 / 65nm
Q8200 - 2.33GHz / 1333FSB / 7x multiplier / 4MB L2 / SSE 4.1 / 45nm
Q9300 - 2.5GHz / 1333FSB / 7.5x multiplier / 6MB L2 / SSE 4.1 / 45nm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q9550 - 2.83GHz / 1333FSB / 8.5x multiplier / 12MB L2 / SSE 4.1 / 45nm
 
The Q8200 is pretty pointless for that price. You can get a Q6600 for $50 less that has double the cache and will most likely overclock better due to the higher multiplier.
 
what the q8200 has, IMO, on the q6600 is it will probably run cooler and be more 'green' (energy efficient).
When I had a q6600 it was HOT and sucked a lot of volts...
 
matrix563 said:
at that price i wouldn't touch it
Click to expand...



I'm with you about the Q8200... $200+ for that chip is not what I would have expected, especially since it has less cache than the Q6600...I could be wrong but the pricing on this chip just doesn't make much sense to me.
 
maybe they are just fishing for all the suckers that like new stuff. Looks like a $140 cpu to me. Even that E5200 is overpriced. Fry's has the retail E7200 w cheapo motherboard for $100 right now
 
Q8200 with a 266 FSB and 8.5x or 9x multi would have actually been interesting. 7x333 is worse than the Q9300, which is a lot worse than the Q6600. And at $200, Q8200 might just be the most pointless chip ever made.
 
I agree on the Q8200. What do you guys think of the performance/price of the Q9300 or Q9400 over the Q6600? It's a technology shrink, faster FSB, and unified cores. (Does it make much difference that the cores are unified over a pair of dual cores?)
I'm debating which one to get. I'm not a big fan of overclocking, so I wont push either very hard. I'm looking for a processor that will last me a few years, but not cost too much.

Thanks!
 
i really wish the q8200 made any sense. What is intel's obsession with that 333 fsb this shrink?
 
gilmorad said:
I agree on the Q8200. What do you guys think of the performance/price of the Q9300 or Q9400 over the Q6600? It's a technology shrink, faster FSB, and unified cores. (Does it make much difference that the cores are unified over a pair of dual cores?)
I'm debating which one to get. I'm not a big fan of overclocking, so I wont push either very hard. I'm looking for a processor that will last me a few years, but not cost too much.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The 45nm C2Qs do not have unified cores.

The Q9300 isn't particularly fast, so I'd ignore it. The Q9400 is pretty good, although it's also a little pricey. In the long run it might last you a little longer due to SSE4.1 and the slight architectural improvements going to the Penryn core revision, but if you won't be overclocking you probably won't experience a substantial benefit. I would suggest the Q6600 for you.
 
if the only game you really play is CS Source ..and the rest you do is surf on the web and do some small things..

what cpu would you get ? e5200 , e7200 ,e8400 , or q6600 ?
 
vict0r said:
if the only game you really play is CS Source ..and the rest you do is surf on the web and do some small things..

what cpu would you get ? e5200 , e7200 ,e8400 , or q6600 ?
Click to expand...

cheapest one i could find then overclock to 3ghz~
 
vict0r said:
if the only game you really play is CS Source ..and the rest you do is surf on the web and do some small things..

what cpu would you get ? e5200 , e7200 ,e8400 , or q6600 ?
Click to expand...

I'd get the E7200 and overclock the crap out of it.
 
I got tired of waiting. Picked up the $100 E7200/ecs combo at fry's. Should be able to get about $20~30 for the motherboard
 
dont forget too this is a retail box chip at newegg, and even with the higher price it appears to still be the cheapest e5200 chip shipped in the USA
 
Too much for my blood. Wish i still had my e8400 i brought for $250 =[ Doubt i'll ever buy an expensive CPU again. Unless i come into a steady good flow of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top