|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
Neon
VIP Member
Posts: 18935
Location: Poland
|
 Posted: Sun, 30th Nov 2008 21:06 Post subject: Upgrading CPU |
|
 |
I'm thinking about upgrading my CPU.
Should I pick Q6600 or Q8200? The latter is surprisingly cheaper in Poland (around 27 USD less than Q6600).
I heard Q6600 overclocks more, but I'm not that much into overclocking.
The 8200 is known to be quiet, cool and it has bigger FSB, but on the other hand it has half the cache of Q6600.
As I said, I'm not into overclocking that much, so which one would you recommend?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Nov 2008 21:45 Post subject: Re: Upgrading CPU |
|
|
| Neon25 wrote: | I'm thinking about upgrading my CPU.
Should I pick Q6600 or Q8200? The latter is surprisingly cheaper in Poland (around 27 USD less than Q6600).
I heard Q6600 overclocks more, but I'm not that much into overclocking.
The 8200 is known to be quiet, cool and it has bigger FSB, but on the other hand it has half the cache of Q6600.
As I said, I'm not into overclocking that much, so which one would you recommend? |
Quiet?, how can a CPU be more quiet then another?. It all depends what cooling solution you have there.
But no matter, what do you use your PC most for?
Gaming, just surfing, apps like Photoshop, movies etc etc.
Personally if you are in to gaming and not really a hardcore apps guy, I would be looking at a Dual core not a Quad.
But if the choices are the 6600 vs 8200 I would simply go for the 8200 as it's a 45nm build and not the old 65nm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Nov 2008 21:49 Post subject: |
|
|
At stock speeds the Q8200 actually outperforms the Q6600 despite having lower clock speed and cache. Must be due to higher fsb or other changes made to architecture in 45nm. It is only when overclocking is taken into account that the Q6600 becomes a better value but since ocing is not a factor for you, the Q8200 with its lower price looks like a good choice.
Review1
Review2
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon
VIP Member
Posts: 18935
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Nov 2008 21:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to both of you.
Captain, you mentioned that you would pick Core2Duo. Which one you would recommend? Judging by the prices and my current money available, I'm thinking about either Core2Duo 8500 or Core2Duo 8400.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Nov 2008 21:58 Post subject: |
|
|
The E8500 is what I run @ 4Ghz, as from today (STABLE)  read my post about my freezes here (not related to the CPU but.
The E8400 is for sure a more price worthy/value for money choice and almost as good as the E8500. If you are not in to OCing I would put my money on the 8400, and saying that the 8400 also OC's well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon
VIP Member
Posts: 18935
Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 30th Nov 2008 22:45 Post subject: |
|
|
Couldn't agree more. Core 2 Duo is still the best price/performance available, unless you do video encoding 24/7, stay away from quads.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi
Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon, 1st Dec 2008 04:06 Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno as much as you guys know, but my quad is great 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
