Celeron 667 vs Core 2 Quad Q8200
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2395 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.12 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Timna |
| Release date | August 2008 (16 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.33 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 0.67 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 32 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 180 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 129 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | 370S |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel i752 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 30 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q8200 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 667, on the other hand, has 216.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Celeron 667, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
