Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    q8200 and q6600,which one is better for shared hosting server ?


    it is difficult to find q6600 now,

    the cache of q6600 is larger than q8200,

    i want to ask for shared hosting server,

    is q8200 better than q6600 ?


  2. #2
    Well, the Q8200 is a newer architecture so it should be pretty close to the Q6600, you might also be able to push more for a Q9400.
    High Bandwidth Servers
    Custom Hosting Solutions

  3. #3
    Vote goes to the Q6600. At the same time I suppose you need to add more on the operating system and web server level to have the best performance.
    But sure if ypu want to you will be able to go with apache

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by SiberForum View Post
    Vote goes to the Q6600. At the same time I suppose you need to add more on the operating system and web server level to have the best performance.
    But sure if ypu want to you will be able to go with apache
    im sorry,

    do you mean add more what ??


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by ttgt View Post
    im sorry,

    do you mean add more what ??

    He means that you should add more money when you buy the server to upgrade the OS and web server architecture to get the best performance out of it.

    I think both the Q8200 and a Q6600 are both good processors for shared hosting servers. However, because of the larger cache of the Q6600 which decreases the time needed to access memory.
    Last edited by bikster; 08-01-2009 at 04:05 AM. Reason: Grammar mistake. Oops - Quality Hosting. Affordable Prices.
    Providing premium quality shared and reseller cPanel/WHM hosting at low prices!
    Reseller cPanel/WHM hosting solutions that you can afford

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Seattle, WA
    They will give very similar results. Q8200 is a newer architecture but the performance is very similar.

  7. #7
    i with Q6600 it's good larger cache
    Webgater.CoM - Cheap FullyManged Unmetered VPS , Master Reseller ,
    Reseller and Webhosting.
    Tomer A

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Kusadasi, Turkey
    On synthetic benchmarks, Q8200 outperforms Q6600 by about 10%, even with the lower cache. This shows the importance of the newer architecture.
    Fraud Record - Stop Fraud Clients, Report Abusive Customers.
    █ Combine your efforts to fight misbehaving clients.

    HarzemDesign - Highest quality, well designed and carefully coded hosting designs. Not cheap though.
    █ Large and awesome portfolio, just visit and see!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    I don't think you will feel any difference between these two processors but i would go with the new architecture in the Q8200, like said it outperforms in benchmarks.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Atlanta, GA
    A Q6600 will overclock much higher than the Q8200, mainly due to higher multiplier on the chip. It is doubtful you will be doing this in a hosting environment, therefore your performance gains will be marginal when comparing stock chips. The architecture on the Q6600 is 65nm and the Q8200 is 45nm, this means less heat and power consumption for the Q8200 at full load.
    AS46176SavvisAbovenetnLayerMzimaOneringLevel3CogentTelia Fully Route Optimized
    DC#1 55 Marietta St. Atlanta GA | DC#2 34 Peachtree St. Atlanta GA | DC#3 PhoenixNAP Phoenix AZ
    Follow us on twitter @SoutheastWeb or visit our website

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Q6600 has more cache true but Q8200 performs better on many tests.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Jax, FL
    I would say go with the Q8200, although the Q6600 has a large cache the overall performance of the Q8200 is higher on numerous benchmark tests.

    I would also suggest looking into the Q9400 if it is not much more, you will see a great performance gain in this chip.
    Daniel | Server Complete, LLC
    Windows VPS // Dedicated Servers // Backup Services
    Wholly owned hardware and self operated network (AS19531) in Jacksonville, FL

  13. #13
    Which provider are you looking at for this particular machine? Unfortunately, the 6600 is being slowly replaced due to it being EOL. But you should be able to find a decent provider with 6600 availability. Otherwise, your not going to see much of a performance difference either way with the 8200 if not gain a little more in certain areas.
    Fast SSD Dedicated Servers || 24/7 365 Support || Money-Back Guarantee
    Dedicated Servers || Colocation || IP Transit
    Need to get in touch? Drop us an email at info[at]

  14. #14
    Q8200 it's really good..

  15. #15
    No more difference between Q6600 and Q8200. Choose a processor that cheaper or direct upgrade to Q9400 or Q9550 ! That's better

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Are you planning to put Linux if so apache is good. If you planning to go windows go with Abyss Web Server from . Because apache is crap on windows.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 08:16 PM
  2. Which Processor? Q8200 vs Q6600??
    By LiftBigEatBig in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 02:08 PM
  3. Xeon 3220 vs Q6600 vs Q8200
    By Dannyarr in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 02:46 AM
  4. Limestone Networks, Q6600 2GB RAM 400GB HD $112.49 OR Q6600 4GB RAM 500GB HD $119.99
    By Mike - Limestone in forum Dedicated Hosting Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2008, 02:03 PM
  5. [WTS] Web hosting company for sale + very low monthly cost Q6600 server
    By diligent in forum Other Web Hosting Related Offers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-28-2008, 09:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts