Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200

Verdict: Another Yorkfield that can't beat the Q6600 for overclocking.

Since Intel released its Core 2 range, it's processors have gone from strength to strength on more or less all fronts. The Core 2 Quad Q8200 is based on the revised Penryn architecture and its 45nm manufacturing process, and is the lowliest of a new range of processors that Intel has recently released. As Intel has yet to make a quad-core processor that can rival the G0-stepping of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 for value and overclockability, we were keen to see whether the Q8200 was good enough to win the hearts and wallets of the overclocking community.

The Core 2 Quad Q8200 runs at 2.33GHz at stock frequency, which it achieves with a 333MHz front side bus (1,333MHz effective) and a multiplier of seven. Not only is this the slowest quad-core that Intel has released to date, the Q8200 also has the least Level 2 cache - just 4MB. The older Kentsfield architecture Q6600 CPU has a stock speed of 2.4GHz (the result of a 266MHz FSB and a 9x multiplier) and 8MB of Level 2 cache. At £146, the Q8200 costs notably more than the £120 Q6600.

We know that the Penryn architecture is around 4 per cent faster than the original Conroe and Kentsfield designs clock for clock, and this speed difference was again apparent in our tests. Testing both the Q8200 and the Q6600 at stock speeds, the Q8200 scored 883 points in the Gimp test compared to the 861 points of the Q6600, despite having a lower frequency.

Similarly, in video encoding, the Q8200 scored 1,314, while the Q6600 scored 1,302. Interestingly, the Q6600 was faster than the Q8200 in the multitasking test, which is probably due to its 8MB of Level 2 cache, compared to the Q8200's 4MB.

Unfortunately, the Q8200 wasn't fast enough to produce a playable frame rate in Crysis using our 512MB BFG Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTS, with the frame rate hitting a low of 23fps. The Q6600 is even slower at stock speeds, only managing a jittery 20fps minimum. In SuperPi, the extra clock speed of the Q6600 made it fractionally faster than the Q8200, with a score of 21.310 seconds compared to the 21.980 seconds of the Q8200. The Q8200 was the marginal winner in CineBench R10, with a score of 8,828 compared to the Q6600's 8,741.

Intel's dual-core 45nm CPUs have proved to be ludicrously overclockable, while the cheap quad-core versions have been lacklustre in this department. As expected, overclocking the Q8200 was a little disappointing. We spent some time on our attempts but the chip wouldn't advance beyond 3.3GHz. This 3.3GHz clock speed was achieved by keeping the multiplier at seven and raising the FSB from 333MHz to 471MHz (1,884MHz effective). To remain stable, the vcore required a massive boost from 1.3625V to 1.55V.

We also had to overvolt the motherboard, pushing the Northbridge to 1.7V, the FSB to 1.4V and the PLL to 1.9V. In contrast, the Q6600 is capable of reaching 3.6GHz with air cooling, giving it an extra 366MHz over the overclocked Q8200.

The most significant difference between the two CPUs when both were overclocked was in the multitasking test, with the Q6600 scoring 1,220 points and the Q8200 rustling up just 897. The Q6600 at 3.6GHz scored 1,478 overall, while the 3.3GHz Q8200 scored just 1,321.

The thrashing continued in both SuperPi and CineBench. The Q8200 completed SuperPi in 16.458 seconds, but the Q6600 was faster, with a time of 14.446 seconds. The Q6600 also scored higher in CineBench R10 with 12,504 compared to the Q8200's 11,854.

The overclocked Q8200 can at least claim to be as fast as the overclocked Q6600 in Crysis, however, which ran at a minimum of 27fps. The Q6600 managed only a 26fps minimum.

Conclusion

There's almost no stopping the Q6600, especially as its price continues to drop. It's supremely overclockable - more so than cheap quad-core CPUs built on the 45nm Penryn architecture. At stock speeds, the Q8200 just about justifies its price, making it a good choice for a powerful media PC or everyday workhorse. However, if you're looking for raw overclocking potential, the Q6600 is still king of the cheap quad-core kingdom.