What about my Q8200 @ 3.02GHz?

By Mekayel Anik
Sep 11, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. SKYSTAR

    SKYSTAR TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 250

    it has 2 mb L2 cache not 512 kb + higher clock speed and 4,00 ghz fsp
  2. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,364   +9

    weather you say that or not your wrong the q9550 is far better and matches the i7 920 at 4.0 ghz in most games
  3. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,364   +9

  4. SKYSTAR

    SKYSTAR TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 250

    first : this is i7 860 not i7 920 as you told me
    second :see this review on techspot ,this review contains both of q6600 (2.4ghz ,8mb l2 cache , a Little slower than q9550 ) and amd athlon II x4 620 ( 2.6 ghz ,2mb L2 cache , a Little slower than than x645)
    http://www.techspot.com/review/197-amd-athlon2-x4-620/page7.html
  5. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,364   +9

    the i7 860 is faster than the i7 920 anyway so point is still there the q9550 is a lot faster than the q6600 dont know what you mean but alas im done arguing either way the q9550 is still faster and can be overclocked to 4.0ghz.
  6. SKYSTAR

    SKYSTAR TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 250

    anyway the q9550 has the same performance of i7 860 in some games not all and that happened because there is many games depend on L3 cache
  7. Mekayel Anik

    Mekayel Anik Newcomer, in training Topic Starter

    SKYSTAR u said that L3 cache gives higher fps. But the fact is L2 cache is much much more faster than L3 cache. So theoritically Q9550 with huge 12MB L2 cache should give more fps than L3. But there r other things that should come in concidaration like, i3, i5, i7 processors access ram directly and use QPI Path but the Quad cores don't thus make them faster.
    As far as i know an Q9550 @ 4.0GHz is almost equevalant to i7 965 @ stock. But Sandy Bridge I7 r much more faster @ gaming as they have integrated Graphics. I just know these things from other foroums. I don't know exactly as i don't have any of these CPUs. Make me correct if i'm wrong.
  8. Arris

    Arris TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,508   +81

    Good roundup of benchmarks. This is exactly why I held onto my Q6600 at 3Ghz with 5850 for so long as the first generation i7/5 processors didn't offer enough of a performance increase for what I used the machine for. I held off for Sandy Bridge and am glad I did. For 1680X1050 I would say that you won't have much or any of a bottleneck with 1 card. I'd get one card and then see what you think, 2 cards would most likely require a PSU upgrade as well unless you had the foresight to buy a high power unit to support future upgrades. Buying 2 cards and a PSU is quite an large purchase and could be disappointing if the CPU does present a bottleneck (which I think from memory it would do, at least slightly).
  9. Mekayel Anik

    Mekayel Anik Newcomer, in training Topic Starter

    thanks again SKYSTAR & many thanks 2 Arris
  10. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,364   +9

    this makes me laugh
  11. SKYSTAR

    SKYSTAR TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 250

    the truth should make you burst in tears


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.