Overclocking Intel's Core 2 Quad Q8200
Intel’s value-priced Core 2 Quad Q8200 uses two of the same processor dice as the Pentium E5200, at a lower clock speed and a higher front side bus clock. The combination of moderate CPU frequency and higher FSB also requires a lower CPU multiplier, and Intel designs these so that the multiplier cannot be increased.
Intel typically uses a low FSB on mainstream processors to modulate performance and expand compatibility, so we’re not certain why the company chose FSB-1333 for its cheapest quad-core models. We do, however, know that many overclockers specifically select low-cost processors for the higher multiplier that typically accompanies a lower bus speed, so that its use of FSB-1333 for the Q8000-series has all but prevented its adoption amongst enthusiasts. After looking at the far higher prices of Q9000-series processors, we returned resolute to get big gains from the Q8200, viewing its lower multiplier as a challenge.
Unfortunately, the Q8200 would barely budge beyond its original 2.33 GHz frequency, regardless of how much voltage we applied to its core, reaching the same 2.5 GHz overclocked speed at core voltage settings from stock to 1.45 volts. The problem, it seems, is that FSB-1333 is almost the limit for these cores at stock FSB voltage.
Dual-die processors of this design use the front side bus for both CPU-to-chipset and die-to-die communication, and increasing the CPU FSB beyond 354 MHz (2.5 GHz CPU clock) would require an increase of the “VTT FSB Voltage” setting seen in the second screenshot below.
Our research showed that CPU FSB voltage had the same practical limit as core voltage: 1.45 volts peak and “something less” under load for continuous long-term use. As with the core voltage of the E5200, we chose 1.40 volts as a target voltage for Q8200’s FSB. We were then able to increase the FSB to 384 MHz, but the resulting 15% overclock is barely worth the risk and effort.
We really wanted to reach at least the next “Intel standard” FSB clock of 400 MHz, or FSB-1600, but getting there required far more “VTT FSB Voltage” than we can safely recommend. Further research into other far-more-successful Q8200 overclocks revealed that those units were actually cream-of-the-crop “Q8200S” models.
The CPU cores certainly wouldn’t need a full 1.40 volts at so low an overclock, so we began back-tracking. While “VTT FSB Voltage” remained at 1.40 volts for a stable 384 MHz FSB, we were able to drop the “CPU Voltage” setting to 1.30 volts. Anything less resulted in an eventual crash under Prime95 v25.8 build 4.
With the chipset’s maximum memory clock rate of twice the CPU FSB clock, the fastest selectable memory clock of 768 MHz provided a data rate of DDR3-1536. As with the E5200, we then began stability tests using Memtest86+ v1.70 at progressively lower DRAM latency settings until the best stable timings of 6-6-5-16 were determined.
Latest CPU News
- 10/02 – CPU Performance Boosted 20% When CPU, GPU Collaborate
- 10/02 – Leaked Slide Shows Intel Haswell Set for March-June 2013
- 09/02 – $100,000 If You Can Prove Quantum Computers Impossible
- 09/02 – AMD Adds FM1 CPUs Athlon II X4 638 and Athlon II X4 641
- 08/02 – Raspberry Pi Scheduled to Launch This Month




Using top end motherboards isn't really budget overclocking, a cheap p43 board is sufficient for e5200 overclocking, additionally a q9400 is only 25% more than a q8200 and overclocks to 3.5Ghz with ease
..or allows, considering different models often come off the same wafer xD
Still, I doubt the AMD-basher's will let that one rest..
I like it. I like to see how far we can push this technology as well as how to keep the idle TDP as low as possible. I think the phenom II 955 suits me the best. AMD overdrive allows you to set both preformance settings as well as the idle settings. Something were i7 failt for me.
I would like to keep cool and quiet on at all times because i dont would want a high power bill and because my computer is on for a few days in a row. So my challenge would be how can i keep the voltage and clocks very low at idle but maintain a resonable desktop preformance. However for gaming i can use some extra headroom. i like to fine tune it well.
Why the hell did you choose an 8200? That makes no sense at all, its poor overclocking performance is widely documented.
Better would be to choose something else, then have a side note saying 'do not buy this part to OC'.
if you want a cheap stable intel overclockable intel quad core look for a Q6600 or if you really want a challenge look for a Q6700, both are very good OCers but are EOLed
Strange to think its Intel that got an unfair bashing this time around. Using top-end mobos in a budget OC session is a major no-no. Using a Q8200 instead of something closer to the X4-955BE's price tag, like the Q9300, is just plain stupid.
To be honest, switching to budget mobos wouldn't have affected the outcome that much; from what reviews I've heard the MSI 770-C45 is a perfectly decent AM3 budget OC board going for a pittance and there are a few MSI and Gigabyte P35/P43 mobos in the same price range on the Intel side of things.
I need to get out of my closet and start reading these forums way more.

Thanks for a very interesting thread
(Even if criticed by some)
e5200 oc at fsb 1066 (no voltage increasing)
What would be the lifespan of the processor.