# Intel Preparing Low-cost Core 2 Quad Q8200 Processor

#### malware

##### New Member
Latest report from DigiTimes brings us a word of new Core 2 Quad Q8000 series processors.

#### Mussels

Staff member
333x7

400 FSB = 2.8GHz quad, prolly around the $250au price point... sounds expensive/not that good #### Luke hmm i have seen Q6600 for around 220-250AU so this doesn't look like a good deal to me at all #### mullered07 ##### New Member yea the q6600's are close to that price in the uk already so what does this offer that the q6600 doesnt lower clock rate, same cache #### Mussels ##### Moderprator Staff member yea the q6600's are close to that price in the uk already so what does this offer that the q6600 doesnt lower clock rate, same cache lower clocks, lower multiplier, lower cache (q6600 is 8MB) higher stock FSB (1333 vs 1066) also Intel's Q9000 CPU family, the Q8000 CPU series will not support Intel's VT and TXT technology. No virtualisation support. #### Weer ##### New Member I'm glad to see that the production of Quads is getting to the point where we have budget Quad-Core CPUs. But 200$ is really not budget, when I can get a Q6600 for about the same price. There's really no reason to upgrade from a Q6600 at this point in any way. A new architecture would be the only viable upgrade path.

But, I doubt that a 3.2-3.6Ghz Quad-Core CPU won't hold it's own for at least 2 years. Not even Crysis takes more than 50%.

#### JrRacinFan

##### Served 5k and counting ...
I wonder if these would be 45nm or 65nm. If it was 45nm I could see it doing ok, with the lower power req's and temps.

#### Luke

i would guess it is 45nm

Staff member

#### cdawall

##### where the hell are my stars
wonder if these will be like the e7200s 4ghz quads on air sounds good to me

##### New Member
For the same price as a Q6600 and weaker specs idk.. Might as well grab a Q66..

#### Megasty

##### New Member
If you already have a Q6000 then you're set for a while, especially with the G0s. Even the last Q6600 I bought can reach 4Ghz with no problem. That price will last for a week. The Q6000s will also eat these alive because of the cache. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

#### newtekie1

##### Semi-Retired Folder
With the latest Q6600's clocking like complete ass, and these new chips being 45nm, this might be worth it over a new Q6600. They will probably reach higher clock speeds. It would be a hard decision if you were buying new, IMO.

#### btarunr

##### Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
yea the q6600's are close to that price in the uk already so what does this offer that the q6600 doesnt lower clock rate, same cache
Are we forgetting Intel is doing a "clearence sale" on Q6x00? They want to flush Kentsfield off the market.

#### Weer

##### New Member
that 50%, means its maxing out two cores. crysis doesnt utilise quads.

Its a common misconception due to how windows reports CPU usage.
If Windows Vista doesn't report idividual CPU core usage correctly, then what are we to do to find out what the actual usage is?

I am more than 100% sure that Crytek put an exclamation on Quad-Core CPU's. This is evident further by their work with and funding from Intel themselves.

#### cdawall

##### where the hell are my stars
If you already have a Q6000 then you're set for a while, especially with the G0s. Even the last Q6600 I bought can reach 4Ghz with no problem. That price will last for a week. The Q6000s will also eat these alive because of the cache. It doesn't get any more simple than that.
on air stable doubtful...

#### Megasty

##### New Member
on air stable doubtful...
Who can get a Q6 to 4 GHz on air, winter air maybe, but not room temp. The only stable 4 Ghz I've been able to get was on water.

#### Mussels

##### Moderprator
Staff member
If you already have a Q6000 then you're set for a while, especially with the G0s. Even the last Q6600 I bought can reach 4Ghz with no problem. That price will last for a week. The Q6000s will also eat these alive because of the cache. It doesn't get any more simple than that.
mine certainly wont on air. neither does the 3-4 i've seen around. The earliest batches did that, but not for long - 3.6 is the most common clocking off them. The latest batches struggle for 3.2 (i made a thread about it here on TPU a while back)

#### Wile E

##### Power User
If Windows Vista doesn't report idividual CPU core usage correctly, then what are we to do to find out what the actual usage is?

I am more than 100% sure that Crytek put an exclamation on Quad-Core CPU's. This is evident further by their work with and funding from Intel themselves.
If Crysis was able to use Quad cores, you would be seeing greater than 75% cpu usage. As it stands, Crysis is only able to max the equivalent of 2 cores.

#### Mussels

##### Moderprator
Staff member
If Crysis was able to use Quad cores, you would be seeing greater than 75% cpu usage. As it stands, Crysis is only able to max the equivalent of 2 cores.
windows reports it as 25% per core.

Crysis advertised 'best on intel quad core' but that doesnt mean the game even supports them.

25% = 1 core 50% = 1 cores, and so on.

#### Wile E

##### Power User
windows reports it as 25% per core.

Crysis advertised 'best on intel quad core' but that doesnt mean the game even supports them.

25% = 1 core 50% = 1 cores, and so on.
Yep, that's why I said Crysis would use > 75% if it was able to use a quad. That's a minimum of 3 maxed cores, plus whatever you throw on top of that.