E5200 vs E7200 vs Q6600 B3 - best bang for the buck?

Which one would be better deal:
E5200 - 110$
E7200 - 150$
Q6600 B3 - 220$
I would go with Q6000 if it would be G0, but with B3 I have a doubts...

most intensive task would be Gaming, like multitask a lot (gaming, simultanius download and use i-net)
but sure that compare to my current X2 4400+ any of these CPU (considering OC) would do much better.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

 

I'd go with an e8400 over any of those.

 

What motherboard will you be using? If it is known to be a good overclocker of quad core cpu's then I would take the q6600 as even a b3 can most of the time do 3-3.2ghz at the very least, motherboard permitting.

My q6600 is a b3 and runs at 3.2ghz just fine, many b3 users have it even higher, though if the motehrboard isn't that great for overcloking quads than a 45nm dual core with the highest multi possible would probably be better.

 

M/B would be or EP45-UD3R if I would go with Quad
or GA-EP45-DS3L if I would go with dual so basically:

UD3R + Q6600 = 390$
vs
DS3L+E5200=230$ (E5200 as I read go easily to 3,5Ghz)

So is to worth to pay extra 160$ fro quad, or better save them now and get for 160$ something later on (in 1-2 years)

Prices in canadian dollars - that's why they are look kind of high.

 

Added E8400 as an option - it is on sale now for 200

So:
E5200 - 110$
E7200 - 150$
E8400 - 200$
Q6600 B3 - 220$

Any more opinions, as an most diverse and best for a buck solution?

 

E5200 for me

you could always look at the Q8200 aswell depending what price it is.

 

In between those 4 i would choose the E8400; better overclocking, less heat, lot of cache, etc.......Or you can get the E7200 and overclock it like hell than you'll get as much performance as the E8400, its all yours.

 

Updated list:

E5200 - 110$
E7200 - 150$
E8400 - 200$
Q8200 - 215$
Q6600 B3 - 220$

would be Q8200 better choice if m/b would be EP45-UD3R and Memory is DDR2-1066

 

In general performance (not OCed), these should run about the same speed (Q6600 with bigger cache and slight faster in GHz vs Q8200 with slightly improved core and faster FSB).

Q8200 Pros
The Q8200 uses much less power (IIRC it is almost half that of the Q6600).
The Q8200 has SSE4.1 that for some applications gives it a noticeable boost.
The Q8200 (has a 7x multiplier) with a modern excellent OCing motherboard, should normally be able OC quite well (FSB limited) and as a bonus would use much less power than the Q6600 OCed. OCs at 3.5GHz+ probably wouldn't need a higher-end heatsink (and power supply) like the Q6600 probably would need.

Q6600 Pros
The Q6600 has VT that for some users is really important, but for most others might be useful in the future.
The Q6600 (has a 9x multiplier) so with a less capable motherboards would most likely OC better than the Q8200. OCing to 3GHz should be easy. However some Q6600 have been noted to have trouble reaching 3GHz or much past it.

 

The q8200, though 45nm, has a lower multi (7 vs 9) and half the l2 cache than that of the q6600, the q6600 is probably the better choice. Out of the dual cores imo the e5200 with a 12.5 multi and a 200mhz default fsb is quite attractive at $100 and should be relatively easy to overclock to numbers in excess of 3.2ghz, if you get a good chip.

Seeing as you like to multitask and newer games are starting to make use of the extra cores in a quad, and that you want to keep it for 1-2 years the q6600 is a good choice but obviously twice as expensive as the e5200. I like to encode video and play games at the same time so a quad is pretty ideal for me, but if it's a matter of browsing the net and downloading at the same time as gaming a dual core would be sufficient for most games.

It really depends on how much you value that extra $100, if money is tight then get the e5200 otherwise the q6600 is going to be better for the 1-2 years you intend to keep it.

 

Hey buddy, where are you getting those numbers from? Pulling them out of a hat?

Idle:


Load:


Yes, the Q6600 uses more power, but come on: TWICE AS MUCH??!! I don't think so... 170W vs 184W -- the difference is very minor, and you will save that amount using a decent power saving software solution like Gigabyte's Dynamic Energy Saver utility. A dual-core however does have a significant power-saving advantage over a quad-core, as witnessed above.

Also, the Q8200 is not really a suitable OC processor:

Source: behardware.com

 

Damn i was planing on a Q8200 but im sure it can get to at least 3ghz no ?

 

Q6600 is currently best bang for your buck

 

Who sells B3 Q6600's anymore anyway though? They were phased out well over a year ago.

 

So basically decision left between: cheapest E5200 or more future proof and expensive q6600...
As I was thinking stock of UD3R for 150$ gone, and now I left or with DS3L for 110$ or UD3R for 180$ in other online store...

 

Ok Buddy,

First of all i can't read chinese so can you show me some nice pics??????

Than if i look at your source, YES its almost twice as much;



So other than that where's the point?

And for the overclocking part if you have a decent motherboard than your gonna be able to reach high FSB than nice OC.

 

My bad, it seems the Q6600 really does consume a lot more power than the Q8200 -- I was erroneously thinking about power consumption for the entire PC, as below.


Source: Xbitlabs

Hmm... Makes me wonder how the heck my 500W PSU can manage both the Q6600 and the HD4870... :3eyes:

 

As long as you have a strong 12V rail your good...

 

Best bang for buck would be E5200. It's cheap as hell, cool and clocks nicely. Pretty much all go to 3,5GHz, some go even beyond 4GHz.
I use mine clocked at 3,8GHz mostly for gaming but i also encode video quite often with FormatFactory, run VirualPC and several applications at once. There is not a single thing this baby cannot handle. You'd get more performance for offline applications with quad core but it's more expensive and gives boost only in few games, everywhere else dual cores still pwn.