308°
EXPIRED
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz 1333FSB - £99.94 delivered @ Aria
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz 1333FSB - £99.94 delivered @ Aria

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz 1333FSB - £99.94 delivered @ Aria

Editor
Buy forBuy forBuy for£99.94
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Leaders of the pack seeking monster performance, look no further. With four execution cores, the Intel Core 2 Quad processor blows through processor-intensive tasks in demanding multitasking environments and makes the most of highly threaded applications. Whether you're creating multimedia, annihilating your gaming enemies, or running compute-intensive applications at one time, new quad-core processing will change the way you do everything. Pioneer the new world of quad-core and unleash the power of multithreading.

Technical Details:
Product description - Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 / 2.33 GHz processor
Product type - Processor
Processor type - Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200
Multi-core technology - Quad-Core
64-bit computing - Yes
Compatible processor socket - LGA775 Socket
Processor qty - 1
Clock speed - 2.33 GHz
Bus speed - 1333 MHz
Manufacturing process - 45 nm
Cache memory - L2 4 MB
Features - Enhanced SpeedStep technology, Execute Disable Bit capability, Intel 64 Technology, Enhanced Halt State (C1E), Intel Thermal Monitor 2
Compatible slots - 1 x processor - LGA775 Socket
Manufacturer warranty - 3 years warranty

26 Comments

good price! While this is a great chip the L2 cache is pretty low and so im still waiting for the q9550 to drop a bit more till i upgrade

Great price, anyone know how I can find out what motherboard requirements there are for this processor?

great price!

Great overclocker for enthusiasts.

hawkeye84;6421520

Great price, anyone know how I can find out what motherboard requirements … Great price, anyone know how I can find out what motherboard requirements there are for this processor?



Do you mean to find out if it will work with your motherboard or which one to buy ?.

hawkeye84;6421520

Great price, anyone know how I can find out what motherboard requirements … Great price, anyone know how I can find out what motherboard requirements there are for this processor?



Look for motherboard with LGA775 Socket

At same site just motherboards for this specific cpu Intel 775
aria.co.uk/Pro…SY=

Evan;6421790

Look for motherboard with LGA775 Socket



Also has to accept 1333mhz FSB and you also need to check that this actual processor is supported,

A few £'s cheaper at Scan for the people who get free delivery. ]Here (was less than £95 last week)

A good upgrade for people who already have a older 775 cpu but wouldn't start to build a system round it. (Remember windows 7 users that this doesn't support VT (Virtualization Technology))

New system builders be aware of AMD AM3/AM2+ Athlon II Quads, they are around £70-90 and perform just as well. Good price though.

this a good price.

£91 on super specials today as well on aria

badrick;6421347

good price! While this is a great chip the L2 cache is pretty low and so … good price! While this is a great chip the L2 cache is pretty low and so im still waiting for the q9550 to drop a bit more till i upgrade



In exactly the same boat! They've held their price for a while now, its just tough playing the waiting game knowing I can get so much more out of my machine with the 9550

hawkeye84;6421520

Great price, anyone know how I can find out what motherboard requirements … Great price, anyone know how I can find out what motherboard requirements there are for this processor?



]This is a good motherboard, I stuck a Q9550 in it for an HTPC and it flies at stock speed. Also has RAID if needed for the future.

The other poster is right about the Q9550 though. I bought mine a cpl of months ago and the price has gone up since then.:?

GAVINLEWISHUKD;6421985

A few £'s cheaper at Scan for the people who get free delivery. ]Here … A few £'s cheaper at Scan for the people who get free delivery. ]Here (was less than £95 last week)A good upgrade for people who already have a older 775 cpu but wouldn't start to build a system round it. (Remember windows 7 users that this doesn't support VT (Virtualization Technology))



Yeah i bet everone will be gutted they cant run different OSystems on w7, my w7 runs like a dream my missing days of xp and getting further apart....

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

GOOD READ.

Remember windows 7 users that this doesn't support VT Virtualization Technology

And this seals the deal because x64 will make it just that bit harder to run. Voted cold

Running one of these at the mo, bloody cracking CPUs. I paid around £130 for mine

have heat

jpearn;6425636

Remember windows 7 users that this doesn't support VT Virtualization … Remember windows 7 users that this doesn't support VT Virtualization TechnologyAnd this seals the deal because x64 will make it just that bit harder to run. Voted cold



What are you talking about when you say "because x64 will make it just that bit harder to run"?

andy_d90;6422047

New system builders be aware of AMD AM3/AM2+ Athlon II Quads, they are … New system builders be aware of AMD AM3/AM2+ Athlon II Quads, they are around £70-90 and perform just as well. Good price though.



yea right...:?

AMD come already overclocked...

andycraze;6427418

yea right...:?AMD come already overclocked...



That doesn't make any sense. Surely what the come as is just the factory clock speed? It's just that they have less overclocking potential. Whereas intel chips are typically factory set much lower but can be overclocked much more.

jdmoyers;6427471

That doesn't make any sense. Surely what the come as is just the factory … That doesn't make any sense. Surely what the come as is just the factory clock speed? It's just that they have less overclocking potential. Whereas intel chips are typically factory set much lower but can be overclocked much more.



well AMD take the chips to the max and sell them maxed at as "factory stock speeds"...

take 2 processors maxed out, intel vs amd, intel will always win hands down...you can then judge which is good value for money....

and just generally AMD seem to be lagging behind...:whistling:

wewontgetfooleda;6424152

Verdict: Another Yorkfield that can't beat the Q6600 for … 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 8,741GOOD READ.



Although the Q8200 isn't as good an overclocker as the Q6600, it is around 40% cheaper, and at stock speeds is still a better performer for most apps. And the Q8200 is still a very good overclocker.
Considering the price, this one is much better value.

andycraze;6427542

well AMD take the chips to the max and sell them maxed at as "factory … well AMD take the chips to the max and sell them maxed at as "factory stock speeds"...take 2 processors maxed out, intel vs amd, intel will always win hands down...you can then judge which is good value for money....and just generally AMD seem to be lagging behind...:whistling:




Intel will always win? So you're saying that if I buy the slowest intel processor and overclock it to max it will beat all the AMD ones? Not quite sure where you're getting that from - agreed intel have the fastest range of processors with the most overclocking potential but you have to pay a premium for it.

I would have thought it would be better to have it maxed from the factory, saves you the effort. Intel chips generally have lower rated clock speeds so you have to overclock them significantly before you get to the equivalent AMD processor factory speed. I think a lot of people tend to fall into the trap of thinking a processor is really good if you can overclock it by a long way, but considering that Intel chips are effectively factory underclocked, a lot of the overclocking is just used to bring them up to speed.

Regardless, the original point that someone made that you can get decent AMD processors for cheaper is a good one. They tend to offer better value for money in the mid range, especially if you can't be bothered to do any overclocking - the cost of the cooling needs to be taken into account too!

I used to buy from Aria, but then I had a problem with a brand new memory card and, when I finally got through to their customer support after waiting in the call queue for over 20 minutes, they told me it wasn't their problem and I needed to contact the manufacturer, gave me no contacts or help. After threatening them with a chargeback they relented and promised a replacement card and utterly failed to do any thing. Having sent it back and chased it up 6 times - countless phone calls and hours wasted - I never got a working card.

Never bought anything from them since. Where I work now I have an IT budget of over £100K and Aria will never see a penny from me or anyone I know.

sorry, every time I see Aria mentioned the red mist comes up and I feel the urge to smack a salesperson!

jukkie;6428299

Although the Q8200 isn't as good an overclocker as the Q6600, it is … Although the Q8200 isn't as good an overclocker as the Q6600, it is around 40% cheaper, and at stock speeds is still a better performer for most apps. And the Q8200 is still a very good overclocker.Considering the price, this one is much better value.



The heat generated by an overclocked Q6600 is also a consideration. In order to reach maximum overclock on a Q6600, you need a pretty good heatsink and a well ventilated case. I am actually considering this to replace a 1.86Ghz core 2 duo e6300 in my totally passive, heatpipe cooling, no fan at all HTPC. There's no way I would put a q6600 into that box. I am just not sure about the heat generation of this versus a 9400S instead.

speculatrix;6446745

I used to buy from Aria, but then I had a problem with a brand new memory … I used to buy from Aria, but then I had a problem with a brand new memory card and, when I finally got through to their customer support after waiting in the call queue for over 20 minutes, they told me it wasn't their problem and I needed to contact the manufacturer, gave me no contacts or help. After threatening them with a chargeback they relented and promised a replacement card and utterly failed to do any thing. Having sent it back and chased it up 6 times - countless phone calls and hours wasted - I never got a working card.Never bought anything from them since. Where I work now I have an IT budget of over £100K and Aria will never see a penny from me or anyone I know.sorry, every time I see Aria mentioned the red mist comes up and I feel the urge to smack a salesperson!



Similar bad experience here! I will never buy anything from those jokers again! :x
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text