With the economy still chugging along not too many people are thinking about buying a processor above $300, so today we will be looking at the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 processor. This 45nm processor retails for just $169.99 online, which makes it interesting due to the price point alone. Read on to see how this 2.33GHz processor with a 1333MHz FSB and 4MB of L2 cache does against over 20 other processors!
"Seeing the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 processor (4MB Cache, 2.33 GHz, 1333MHz FSB) trade blows with the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor (8M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) was very impressive. Why is that impressive? Back in 2007 when the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor was launched it cost $851 in 1,000 quantities. When the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 was released it was available for just $245 in 1,000 quantities. The actual street price today on an Intel Q8200 is just $169.99, so you are getting a great performing chip at a fraction of what it cost just two years ago. Not to mention that the processor we looked at today was built on a newer 45nm processor, uses less power since it is a 65W TDP part and is even more environmentally friendly thanks to being halide and lead free..."
Interesting chip. This chip would have sold like hot cakes to crunchers a year ago but I fear Core i7 offers a more viable and efficient platform. For the average consumer looking for a drop-in replacement, this chip would be great for those running E2xxx and E4xxx series chips and looking for a modest boost in performance. Even more interesting, this chip, when overclocked, competes with the Phenom II X4 940.. interesting
oh and I also forgot... I have included the AMD Phenom II X4 920 and AMD Phenom II X4 940 processors in the charts for the very first time since Chris did the Phenom II launch article.
Gomeler wrote:Interesting chip. This chip would have sold like hot cakes to crunchers a year ago but I fear Core i7 offers a more viable and efficient platform. For the average consumer looking for a drop-in replacement, this chip would be great for those running E2xxx and E4xxx series chips and looking for a modest boost in performance. Even more interesting, this chip, when overclocked, competes with the Phenom II X4 940.. interesting
Indeed, nothing like a little speed boost for a couple of clams instead of a full platform upgrade. I really like the fact that it comes in three flavors ta boot. And, as you said, the sad thing is that it even competes in some areas with the Phenom II x4 940. The way things are going, I can only see AMD hanging on in the CPU market and making advances in the GPU market. If only AMD had a marketing department that was worth a damn they could at least get some marketing spin out there about there.
jebo_4jc wrote:I would love to know more about temps.
Like you mentioned Nathan, this would go great in an htpc/sff
did you keep any temp data in your testing?
I got just the OEM processor, so I didn't get the retail HSF with this one and not sure what it comes with since it is a 65W part. I can give you the numbers i'm seeing under water, but that wont help most people.
Weren't many of the Core 2's overrated in terms of TDP anyways? I doubt that the stock Q8200 was a true 95W part and this magical 'S' drop it down 30W to 65W. IMO a non-binned Q8200 was probably around 75W or so anyways. However, it is nice to see more options in terms of lowering power/heat requirements while keeping performance up.
gwolfman wrote:Weren't many of the Core 2's overrated in terms of TDP anyways? I doubt that the stock Q8200 was a true 95W part and this magical 'S' drop it down 30W to 65W. IMO a non-binned Q8200 was probably around 75W or so anyways. However, it is nice to see more options in terms of lowering power/heat requirements while keeping performance up.
Unless I missed it the older 95w version wasn't included for the power consumption tests which could easily answer this question.
gwolfman wrote:Weren't many of the Core 2's overrated in terms of TDP anyways? I doubt that the stock Q8200 was a true 95W part and this magical 'S' drop it down 30W to 65W. IMO a non-binned Q8200 was probably around 75W or so anyways. However, it is nice to see more options in terms of lowering power/heat requirements while keeping performance up.
Unless I missed it the older 95w version wasn't included for the power consumption tests which could easily answer this question.
If I had a 95W Q8200 I would have included it! Sorry, can't own them all.
