Intel Core 2 Duo T9800 (2.93GHz) vs Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9300 (2.53GHz) Processor

The T9800 has 2 cores but higher clock speed and the QX9300 has 4 cores but lower clock speed, so which is the faster more powerful processor?

 

The QX9300 in the M17(with a Whitebook BIOS) or M17x because you can kick up the multipliers in the QX9300 and overclock it to 3Ghz.

 

The answer will always be it depends on what you are doing with it. If you run many apps that take advantage of 4 cores then the quad, if not then the dual core.

 

I wouldn't want to overclock the QX9300 because on the Alienware website it says over clocking can cause overheating and therefore reduce the life of internal components. When i spend that much money on the M17x i don't want to risk it, so i just want to compare the two processors with the QX9300at the factory default clock speed.

 

T9600 would be a better bang for your buck. If they had a T9900 available then maybe it would be worth it.

 

AW is just playing it over-safe. The QX9300 will be fine at 3.0Ghz. The Whitebook/M17 can keep it safely cooled running it up to 3.53Ghz and that notebook's cooling looks like a paper folding fan compared to the M17x's.

 

I haven't used either processor, but as a very generalized statement; programs that take full use of the quad core will make the QX9300 faster, while games and programs that aren't as advanced and only use 1-2 cores will still be faster on the T9800 with faster clock speeds. Multitasking will also be better on the quad.

 

the qx9300 is going to be better then the t9800

 

i think i'm going to go with a qx9300 i'd really like to have a quad core, it will be my first.

 

Good choice, and the OC from the bios is a big +.

 

I've never overclocked a processor before is it easy to do?

 

Once in your bios it is very easy. No doubt someone will get their new M17X and do a how-to for everyone.

The nice thing is this feature is made available right from Alienware so it's covered under warranty.

It also looks like the OC feature in this bios will still keep clocks well within safe ranges.

 

Just to correct you, it CANT run it at 3,53ghz. It wont even boot up at that clock. I have a M17 with a qx9300 so i know what im saying - its also been confirmed by other people on this forum. 3,2ghz is the MAXIMUM here - and its not exactly so stable. But 3 ghz is rock solid. And the Qx9300 is by far the best - until Qx9500 comes out.

 

Very true.

My X9100 goes from a stock 3.06 to 3.57. Anything more than that and it caps out.

 

For the programs I use on my computer I will benefit more from a t9900 than a qx9300. If I get a qx9300 it will actually runs programs slower than a cheaper t9900,

 

for what exactly i had a dual t9400 @2.53 ,a quad [email protected] and now a [email protected] and now about to get a [email protected]. let me know what exaclty going to be doing and i'll tell you which one is right for you.


be detailed the more you explain to better answer you will get.

 

Runing my qx9300 (OEM) at 3,3 stable..

 

is the qx9500 a 100% confirmed processor coming out?

 

No, it's not coming, ever. Intel has Clarksfield to sell.

 

It depends on what you do on the computer. Multitasking quad core is great but checking games that use Quad core you only see 1fps speed increase. Unless you use low res like 1024 by 768 then you see a wapping 8% in speed. But most people like high res video games and you see 1 or 2fps in game increase. Becuse games use more in gpu power not cpu power.

 

And what if your just surfing the web while watching youtube movies and doing some other stuff that isnt really processor intensive but they are still multiple things all at the same time. Will the quad be very usefull for this or is the duo still fine in these cases?

 

if multitasking at all, the quad will be smoother. Typically, the quad is the better way to go as it allows you to do more and will accommodate future programs better as more and more programs become multi threaded

 

Seeming as nearly everything will run on a 2.53GHz processor-either dual or quad-I'd go for the quad especially as it can be overclocked. Very little will benefit from a clock speed higher than 2.53GHz and with more and more quad support it seems the way to go.

 

I went for a quad....some of my graphic apps will take advantage of all for cores (like 3D Studio Max 9)

 

Okay thanks, i may wanna upgrade in a year then. What are the predictions of models that are suited for the M17x, i know this is hard but in two years will the processors available at that time still be suited for the m17x or is the QX9300 the best possible choice.

 

Theres a new architecture for future mobile processors, for the M17x's architecture, the QX9300 would be the best possible choice, as you put it.

The next strongest mobile processor from intel will be clocked at 2.0 Ghz, produce more heat, and eat more power...so you'd be good for a while

 

Theres more games out there that use Quadcores then people think . Example anything using the unreal engine takes full advantage of Quads and gives massive boosts to framerates.

 

Thx for the reply. It would still cost me like 900 euro's at the moment so that's way to much. dunno when it will be affordable but that's all for next year then. Let's see what it gives with my T9600 which came 80 euros cheaper then the p8600 in belgium. I geuss they where emptying there stock because know there out of the option list.

 

Just so you know, CPU prices will not change much over time. The quad core will still be around the same price next year. Just look at the trend in history with the highest level CPU in each socket (ie. T7600).