How will this M17x perform with this spec ?

I`m not that clued up when it comes to gaming spec laptops and the different types of processors and graphics cards etc, i`m basically trying to decide between an M1730 and an Alienware M17x, i`m leaning towards the Alienware because of the newer platform and within the next 2 weeks i`ll have one or the other order.

Can someone tell me how this Alienware M17x spec would perform and would it out perform an M1730 with an X9000 Extreme processor ? Its the 2 quad bit i don`t understand, quad is 4 so will this be running 4 processors ?

The spec below will cost roughy £2,100 UK delivered, thats US $3,400.

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q9000 (2.00GHz,1066MHz FSB, 6MB L2 Cache)
Windows Vista Home Premium (English, 64Bit)
320GB 7200rpm FFS Hard Drive (1x320GB)
17.0" WUXGA(1920x1200) Display
2GB SLI GDDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Graphics (2x1GB)
4GB DDR3 (1333mhz) RAM
DVD+/-RW Drive
Dell 1 Year NBD Warranty
UK QWERTY Keyboard
# BLUETOOTH 370
# Dell Wireless 1510 Half Mini Card (802.11n)
# Original ALIENWARE packaging
# ALIENWARE BACK UP disks
# ALIENWARE User Manual

 

Everything seems fine, the only thing people will debate is the processor. I think the T9600 would run games better than the Q9000, at the moment. Maybe in a year or 2, quads will perform better than dual cores. There's also a thread titled T9800 vs QX9300 which could be of some use to you. But yeah, just my two cents. Other people might disagree.

 

Thanks Shuya

Will the Core 2 Quad Q9000 2.00GHz perform anywhere near the X9000 Extreme 2.8 Ghz, better or worse ?

 

i think the Q9000 will be just fine imo. here is a post on some game benchmarks with the processor and a 280m gtx

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=387976

 

It's technically 1 processor with 2 dual core processors working together for a total of 4 cores.

The equivalent Montevina based processor to the Santa Rosa based x9000 is the x9100.

If you talk about which performs better it's hard to say because you have to look at the system as a whole and the Montevina based system will be faster. Noticeably faster? I doubt it.

 

Take the cheaper 1066 RAM and you've got the best bang-for-the-buck setup. The 1333 RAM has CL9 latency, which makes it pointless.

 

We don`t seem to have that option in the uk. My budget is around £2100 Uk, see what you can do on the link below to get me the best spec as you know this area better than me

http://configure.euro.dell.com/dell...s=dhs&sbc=laptop-alienware-m17x&~lt=alienware

 

i'd still advise going with a fast dualcore rather than the slow quadcore. also, is your left nipple really the shape of the Nürburgring?

 

If you're going to game a lot, I recommend a faster Dual-core. Then in a couple of years(when all games support Quad-cores), you can easily upgrade.

btw, are you "The Stig" at 405th aswell?

 

I third the motion for the faster dual core.

IMO, processor speed is more useful in more instances than a quad core.

Unless you need a quad specifically for programs you already have, the speed of a dual core will be far more useful on a day to day basis.

 

hey man i would get the cheapest one but with the dual gtx260 or dual gtx280 and then upgrade it after

good luck man

 

@The Stig: Did you see this in the NBR market place?
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4938018

 

I saw that too - darn good price.

 

Yeh i did see it, i agree its a great price and a great spec too, unfortunately i`m in the UK.