M17 Quad9000 2.00Ghz vs T9400 2.53Ghz

Almost as the title says, which would be better or more efficient gaming wise/next 3 years of school. Ive looked at the stats on http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
Unfortunately they are not that high on the list, so should i just upgrade to the T9600 though it is 150$ more than quad and 200$ more than T9600. thanks for your responses and.....Moo for mr. moo

 

I'd take the Q9000. More and more games will have quad support, and the Q9000 will run rings around the T9400 in multithreaded games.

 

the quad will run great in games that support quads and even ones with quad support because you can overclock it easy in this laptop.

you can run that quad @2.53 ghz so it will be the same speed as the t9400 with 2 more cores!!!!!

 

Isn't there a problem with over-heating, if you have a quad, in the M17?

 

no.... people run qx9300 at 3.2 ghz all the time ......

 

Im getting the M17 Q9000 with crossfireX and 2Meg DDR3.

Should arrive in a few days - will let you know how it goes.

 

to get it to run good you'll need to over clock you will get a good boost in fps if you OC to 2.6-2.9

 

I would opt for the dual core 2.53 chip as you get and pay for performance now in the games and apps you use today and maybe in a year or two upgrade to quad when more quad-tuned apps become available and the chip should be cheaper by then.

Getting a quad would be future-proofing now, but you're essentially paying more for a downgrade in a sense (lowered clock speed with little to no use on quad). Also, at this time, some people are experiencing issues with quadcore in their m17. Do you really have the time to deal with those issues and wait for them to fix it or do you need your computer running 100% on day 1?

However, if there are apps that you will be using often for school that do benefit with the use of quad today, go with the quad.

 

my thoughts exactly, when i originaly placed my M17 order i had choosen the 2.0 quad, but after a few days of thinking bout it i called and had them replace it with the dual core 2.53 t9400. I am extremely glad i went with the 2.53, it runs everything ive thrown at it with no problems. Hard choice youll have to make for yourself.

 

Not to burst your bubble: quads are great, but currently (no fix yet) these notebooks cant feed enough power to them when the cpu and both gpus are under load so that results in horrifying stuttering.. think about this also.. i just wanted to alert you.. i had a q9000,9100 and now i finally got the qx9300 and they all stutter sometimes which is annoying as hell in games.

 

I have seen posts that have the same stuttering problem using the quads in other brands of laptops too. It's not an overheating issue at all, it's a lack of voltage issue.

I am soooo glad I went with the X9100 core extreme. Zero stuttering.

 

That is what i said.. but i dont expirience the stuttering with qx9300 if i dont oc it.. q9000 and q9100 both stuttered all the time.. strange right?

 

Hmmm.

 

so..no go on the quad? though it is future proofing, agreed. or no

 

IMO save your money and go for the T9400. Good luck.

Duane

 

Quad > Dual by far however if this model has some issue with the quads you dont have much a choice do you?

The voltage draw for a quad is only a small step up from a dual core, I have a hard time believing its a voltage issue, sounds more like a bios issue.

Based on my tests with the w90 and the Q9000 even at 2.0ghz its giving me the same fps as the 2.8ghz dual core in 90% of my game tests.

Use the built in overclocking the W90 has to boost it to 2.3ghz and 5% more games match,

use SetFSB and overclock it to 2.7ghz and its a 100% match with double the power in reserve for all other tasks like photoshop or video rendering.

Basically it boils down to this, almost any dualcore tasks a quad can perform, even if in a rare situation you suffer a minor loss in performance due to raw mhz.

However if you flip the scales over and try to make a dual core run quad core tasks, there is absolutely no comparison.

 

Hm well..you seem quite knowledgeable..think ill go with a quad when i buy it...still waiting for 4870s..(taps foot in anticipation)

 

I wouldn't go for the quad unless you are overclock it to 2.53ghz. IMHO 2.0ghz is very slow.

 

but but..everyone has a different opinion on here..and..dammit...wtb divine intervention
and if i overclock it, doesn't that increase the heat thusly putting more stress on the chassis and possibly creating a problem if i overclock it.

 

lol you will run outta voltage before you over heat i overclocked mine to 3.14 ghz

 

yup i'm at 3.2ghz. i can go to 3.33ghz but just bluescreen cause of voltage.

 

Sorry i don't exactly know what your implying, i wont have enough voltage? i will not be able to overheat it..which is good. But in your use of the quad are you satisfied with its performance, or would you prefer you got the duo.

 

he had a t9400 duo and he upgraded to a qx9300

 

My piece has been said, I stated well ahead of time when the W90 was coming out that those that got the X1 model with the dual core would regret it when I got my A1 and started benching it, and sure enough they did. One owner already upgraded his 2.8ghz dual core to the 2.53ghz QX9300 and openly states if he had it to do agian he would have got the A1 with the Q9000 and just overclocked it and been happy.

Now is the time 64bit OS and Quad Core cpu are becoming the norm, if you get a dual core your shooting yourself in the foot as far as reading for the future games and programs.

Two things to consider here that I did not have to think about are these so called studdering issues, those do not exsist in the W90, and you guys are mentioning cost, the W90 cost the same with the quad core as the dual core pretty much. So you need to balance out those factors and then make the personal choice wich you prefer.

if your doing nothing but gaming, you may be happy with your dual core (well untill you play a game like FSX or Supreme Commander that both use and pretty much require quad core) but soon as you step into some real world stuff like video rendering, photoshop, heavy multi tasking, things liike that the quad core is really going to show a big gain, while the dual core is not going ot show any major gains inside of games.

Dont be fooled by cpu bound benchmarks like 3dmark06 with its pitiful 1280x1040 resolution, its been more of a cpu benchmark than a gpu one since the 8000 nvida series, so its a pure raw mhz test.

Go into a game and crank up the settings to max for real life numbers and be amazed that the slower 2ghz quad and the faster 2.53ghz dual get exactly the same fps, or both of the are over 60fps so performance is the same since you can only use/see 60fps.

Difference is the quad core user has 3 programs running in the background

 

i am going to run fc2 now at stock speeds(q9000 OC to 2.53 or a stock qx9300)
then try it dual core mode.
then cut the cpu speed close to 2.0 quad and see what the difference is.

remember fc2 is a quad core game. so the cpu matters. i don't have any our games that has a good benchmark in it to test. BRB.

 

The one game that dual core really seems to pound quad in my testing was crysis, and that was the only one.

crysis should have been a quad core game and was not so its too much a burden on the cpu and requires a very fast dual core.

 

I agree quads outperform the duals and i must state that with my new qx9300 i no longer stutter with 11.5 multi or under (thats 3ghz and under). But i implore you to get a q9100 if not a qx9300 or you will regret it.. i did tests with q9000 oced to 2,26 vs a q9100.. and the difference in cache is noticable.. (6mb vs 12mb) especially when miltitasking or running photoshop and similar programs. Just take that into account also. The bios fix will be out eventually anyway, and when it is the qx9300 will fly to 13,5x i hope

 

My cpu tests show me to be equal to the others with the qx9300 with the same clock speeds I think that cache does almost nothing, also I have past experience with other cpu's where we did specific tests to determin if cache boosted performance outside of a fraction of a fraction of a second in wprime or superpi it did not make a difference.

You need to give me some hardcore proof to backup some bold claim like that, your going to make people waist money on a expensive cpu for no reason.

 

I no longer have any other processors than my qx9300 and p8400 that i got with the system and am keeping it just in case.. wouldnt be fair to do a compare between them .. i did test the q9000 and q9100 on same clocks when i had em and those were my findings.. but it just could be that i got an inferior q9000 sample (both were qs)..
As i said before.. my laptop acts strange.. i got stuttering with weaker quads but my qx9300 doesnt choke a bit (11.5x multi) even after 30 mins of orthos and me working on it at the same time.. still running orthos at this very moment..
Dont hang me yet its just my oppinion.. i just wasnt satisfied with my q9000.. or my q9100
btw. do you think 14898 is a good enough score in 3dmark06 for 3ghz qx9300?

 

yeah thats right where its supposed to be given the gpu you tested with. Dont let 3dmark06 bother you its really past its age now, you need to be benching Vantage in High or Extreme mode.

If you want to run some cpu benchmarks you can compare them to mine. I have wprime scores on my q9000 it was like 14.2 seconds at 2.85ghz and a cpu only bench like this with heavy calculation is going to show the best case scenario for the larger cache cpu. In a game or something its totally not going to be a factor.

 

There's a simple reason why a 2.0 ghz quad in a game that only supports 2 cores runs just as well as a 2.5 ghz dual core, and it's something that we've all known for years: The bottleneck of nearly all games is not the processor.

Even at 2.0 ghz, you'll have more than enough processing power for older games while newer games tend to support multiple cores. So basically, if you have the money and time to wait for a bios update, get the quad core.

 

yes thats what I am saying but its more detailed than that, 2ghz is a bit slow and you will find a few games where its gonna hold you back, but just about any machine enthusiast enough to house a quad core supports overclocking, once you get it to about 2.4ghz your golden for almost any game.

some games are gpu bound, some game are cpu bound, and it all varies depending on your settings.

but point to make is if you back up and look at the big picture the quad core has much more to offer you and is a better value for your money.

 

Is this a new style camputer?

 

Whell i cant use vantage since for some reason it wont work (at least it didnt in vista, havent tried in w7 yet..). Whell i can certainly do wprime once i get back and post it.. just give a link to the version youre using so we do it on the same one.

 

This is the only one I have uploaded

From W90 Benchmarks

Edit:

Actually here I will share the benchmarks I did for my review, it seems relivent since I did game tests at stock 2ghz and then again at 2.3ghz the stock overclock setting for this unit.

You can see how much a gain from the 300mhz was given, if no gain was there then 2ghz was already fast enough, if a gain was given then the cpu was a limiting factor, but as long as the fps was playable thats all that matters.

Crysis so far is the only game where a higher clocked dual core seems to be doing better.

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width='800' height='533' flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&noautoplay=1&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2Fmasakakoi%2Falbumid%2F5322233806838568097%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>

 

2 cores @2.53ghz


2.24 quad


stock quad @2.53ghz


4cores @ 3.2ghz hahahahahahhaaahahahahaha

 

Ran wPrime, here is the screenshot. Note that it was done at 3ghz, so if you can up your fsb even more perhaps?

 

Yo dondadah88, will you do me a run @ 1680x1050, with two cores @ 2.53Ghz?

 

i am stuck at work right now. i just why in the other thread. i won't be able until about 8-9 tonight but i will because i want to beat the 280m so badly.

can you do me a favor? can you post my picture of two cores which is the first picture on it. on the mobile thread. i really can't since i am on the phone. this is stock gpu's. all the benches i ran were stock gpu's.