Originally Posted by Warweo
The Q8200 is a 45nm chip and therefore runs cooler as it uses less voltage. 45nm also does run faster clock for clock, it's wolfdale vs kentsfield. Wolfdale is newer, smaller, faster and uses less power and is therefore better.
Unless you have very good memory, the Q8200 won't clock as high as the Q6600. If it were me choosing between these, i'd spin around and use the one that I ended up facing. They both have their merits.
You're talking theoretically, but in realy life that's all wrong.
#1: I've built and run a Q8300 head to head with a Q6600, both at 3.6GHz with the same memory and vid card. The Q6600 was a bit faster across the board. Why? 45nm or not, the Q8xxx series has half the cache of a Q6600. And that's all there is to it.
#2: See if you can search and find any people clocking Q8xxx series much more than 3.4GHz. You won't. The only reason I got that Q8300 to 3.6 was because a buddy traded me his EP45 UD3L board for my Striker Extreme. Before that, that Q8300 wouldn't budge past 3.1 or so without having problems, on 4 different boards.
#3: Heat: Yes the Q8300 ran cool. The problem is, thermals don't matter if you don't have the right board to clock it on. I still run my Q6600 daily at 3.6 with an H5O. Check the link in my sig, at full load for hours it never hits 60C, and that's at 1.51V in BIOS. I'd say thermals are not a real problem if you have decent cooling.
It may be 45nm, but it simply is NOT better in any way because of it's severe limitations. Period.Edited by 2thAche - 3/11/12 at 10:01am