Intel Q6600 Stands Strong Against Q8200/Q8300

jmke · 16th February 2009, 17:25

In spite of its age, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 still has some life in it. Intel is having trouble replacing it with anything really convincing, so much so that it is still in the Intel range, unlike many 65nm CPUs. Obviously constraints are more commercial than technical here:« although the Q8200/Q8300s aren’t much better, they are significantly more profitable!

But does the consumer really gain as much as Intel? In terms of efficiency, whether in load or at rest, these top drawer processors do have the advantage. Performance is also at a good level: the impact of the reduction in L2 cache is less significant than we might have thought and the Penryn (Core 2 45nm) brings several improvements on the Conroe (Core 2 65nm), sometimes making all the difference.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/7...the-q6600.html

16th February 2009, 21:35

They forget the aspect that some of the Intel fabs are still on 65nm, so the Q6600 has been an excellent way to put that production to good use while more and more capacity is switched to 45nm.

I expect however, that overall demand is so low now that the 45nm fabs aren't running at full capacity, hence it might be better to phase it out quicker than planned.

16th February 2009, 23:13

Very true, but as they said it is still much less profitable for them. Probably is why the Q6600 will be EOL'd and last orders taken May 8th.

Amazing to think just two years ago the Q6600 was $851, not $180.

16th February 2009, 17:25	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Intel Q6600 Stands Strong Against Q8200/Q8300 In spite of its age, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 still has some life in it. Intel is having trouble replacing it with anything really convincing, so much so that it is still in the Intel range, unlike many 65nm CPUs. Obviously constraints are more commercial than technical here:« although the Q8200/Q8300s aren’t much better, they are significantly more profitable! But does the consumer really gain as much as Intel? In terms of efficiency, whether in load or at rest, these top drawer processors do have the advantage. Performance is also at a good level: the impact of the reduction in L2 cache is less significant than we might have thought and the Penryn (Core 2 45nm) brings several improvements on the Conroe (Core 2 65nm), sometimes making all the difference. http://www.behardware.com/articles/7...the-q6600.html __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
7 Intel CPUs Including Q6600 Phase Out By Q2 2009	jmke	WebNews	0	3rd February 2009 14:53
Intel cuts Core 2 Quad Q6600, Q8200 prices	jmke	WebNews	0	22nd October 2008 13:20
PCGH Review: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 versus Q6600 and Phenom X4	Massman	WebNews	0	22nd September 2008 11:48
Cheap Quad Cores: AMD X4 9600 €99 and Intel Q6600 €126	jmke	WebNews	0	4th August 2008 12:48
Intel price drop for Q6600 and 45nm Core 2 Duo's	jmke	WebNews	0	21st July 2008 20:47
Intel Q6600 Still Very Popular	jmke	WebNews	9	19th July 2008 23:50
Intel Core2Quad Q6600 overclocking guide	Sidney	WebNews	0	15th November 2007 01:18
Intel Core 2 Q6600 G0 Stepping: Cheap Quad Core Just Got Better	jmke	WebNews	6	17th August 2007 15:34
Intel Core 2 Q6600 Performance Test	jmke	WebNews	0	8th January 2007 14:58
Intel pulls curtain back on the Core 2 Quad Q6600	jmke	WebNews	0	8th January 2007 14:57

16th February 2009, 21:35	#2
Rutar Posts: n/a	They forget the aspect that some of the Intel fabs are still on 65nm, so the Q6600 has been an excellent way to put that production to good use while more and more capacity is switched to 45nm. I expect however, that overall demand is so low now that the 45nm fabs aren't running at full capacity, hence it might be better to phase it out quicker than planned.

16th February 2009, 23:13	#3
Kougar Posts: n/a	Very true, but as they said it is still much less profitable for them. Probably is why the Q6600 will be EOL'd and last orders taken May 8th. Amazing to think just two years ago the Q6600 was $851, not $180.