Q9000 or X9100

so i wanna buy quad core Q9000 or core 2 duo extreme X9100

what do u guys prefer

Edit: this is for the m17 im gonna do copper mod if i get quad

 

Transmeta Efficeon.

 

for what systeme?

 

As much as I like quad cores, if you can go for the X9100 do it. Unless you have any particular reason to use a quad, e.g. lots of quad supported games

 

Quad > Dual (how many times have I had to type that in these threads)

I think its time I write a guide on this and ask the forum admin to hotlink the word quadcore to the guide lol, to the OP please try a search we have 25+ recent dual vs quad threads and inside of them is lots of informaiton for you.

The quad core will offer you more power at a lower cost, there is probably not a single dual core task that will use all 2ghz of the quad core and leave you in a situation where the dual core is faster/better but there are many cpu intensive tasks that support quad core (and for good reason) where even the lowest and cheapest quad (the 2.0 Q9000) will out perform the fastest dual core by a good margin.

 

ViciousXUSMC is right in my opinion. I have not yet met a SINGLE application for single or dual cores that will utilise any more than 2GHz. And then the 2GHz Q9000 is easily overclocked to 2.4GHz or even 2.5GHz in most cases.

It really depends. If you have any particular applications that will slow down on a quad that's only 2GHz then the X9100 is the way to go. However once the Q9000 is overclocked, the difference is very small, and overclocking the X9100 any further will not provide any benefit whatsoever in nearly anything really except for benchmarks.

 

It just breaks down to common sense if you take a moment to look at the big picture.

nearly all the single & dual threaded apps are older and when they were devoloped they were made for the slower cpu's of that time.

now nearly all the programs made are multithreaded in a fashion to support quadcore & higher, games too.

so you left in a situation where the quad core can always perform just as good as the dual core, but then many situations where the quad core can do a lot more work faster than the dual core.

the only situation that ever had any argument in it was games, it was more prodominant to see dual core games and when benched the dual core did better but results were twisted because they were comparing 120fps to say 160fps, the dual had more headroom with its faster clocks to boost the fps but in REAL LIFE both performed the same because they were well beyond the 60fps margin.

Now take a game like Supreme Commander or Flight Simulator X, games with heavy cpu loads. Now your dual core is baraly pushing 20-30fps while the quad is breezing in the 40+ range.

Also even in dual thread games its nice to be running things in the background without it effecting your gameplay. I like to download movies or something or can even encode and process a video and it will have no effect on other things I am doing.

My Q9000 goes to 2.7ghz on my W90 thats over 10ghz of total processing power for when I encode a video. the X9100 may get 3.2ghz if I was lucky and about 7ghz of power max if you managed 3.5ghz.

Thats 50% faster my quad can do a encode task, that is huge.

 

Wow, how the hell did you push your Q9000 to 2.7GHz? That's brilliant! And I thought I got a good chip when I could push it to 2.55GHz...

There is one thing I do miss a faster dual core chip for and that is emulating video games. That takes a LOT and I mean a LOT of processing power and due to the nature of it it will only utilise two cores. (Of course I'm talking about emulating things like a PS2 and not a piddly gameboy...lol)

 

2.75 fully stable, higher than that for bench.

CPU's are limited by the mhz ceiling before anything else, so a low clocked quad has a LoT more room to OC than a high mhz dual core. (plus all OC is 2x vs dual core 300mhz = 1200mhz)

The only reason this is not happening is many of the quad notebooks do not have enough voltage to get the cpu up to its peak.

Inside the chips are the same almost, so the quad & dual have the same OC limit if that makes sense.

Here is my 2.85 run of wprime

From W90 Benchmarks

Also you can see many real life game benchmarks here that I did at 2.0 vs 2.3ghz to show that even at 2ghz the games ran fine and when I increased the speed to 2.3ghz the fps did not go up showing that the game was already maxed out just fine @ 2.0ghz and did not require more cpu power aka a "cpu bottleneck"

This is with dual 4870 cards too, much stronger than most laptops, thus the highest chance to produce a cpu bound situation.

From W90 Benchmarks

From W90 Benchmarks

From W90 Benchmarks

From W90 Benchmarks

From W90 Benchmarks

 

The Asus W90 is very successful when it comes to its ability to overclock the CPU.

People got Q9000's all the way up to 2.8GHz, but I could only get mine up to 2.76GHz and keep it stable enough for benchmarking.

 

Is the Asus W90 overclocking unlocked in the BIOS, or are you doing all that with something like SetFSB?

On topic, there is a small increase from that overclocking...it does show though that clock speed doesn't make a huge difference, I have to admit.

 

SetFSB is what I use.

The small bump in frame rates has more to do with how the average gets pulled up from a faster core speed than actually running faster, has there been a real cpu bottleneck it would have been a big difference. I include min/max/avg for a reason so that a good analyst can figure out what the numbers mean in relation to gameplay.

Like say WC3 if you saw 14fps min you would think that the game drops to unplayable at times, but when you see the 60/60 avg/max you understand that it was just a pause in the bench when something was loading and not an actual gameplay issue.

Then also is the situation where you see like 170fps max and then 30 avg, that would be bad because that means a super high max has raised the avg and that your real gameplay fps is probably in mid 20's.

 

Go for a quad....its the wave of the future. Apps and games and OS's are more and more being MT-coded & optimized, so even a quad with a "lower" clock speed will outperform a duo with a faster clock speed.

 

i think ima get quad but still not that sure

 

::facepalm::

 

I lol'ed. 10char

 

FWIW I took out my Q9000 and put in an X9100, but that's only because the M17 wasn't playing nice with the Quad Core. *shrug*

Bottom Line: Just because its new and shiny doesn't mean it's always better.

 

I would personally go with the higher clocked dual core, over the quad still. It isn't a clear cut thing that the quad is a better option as many have said in my opinion.

 

Get the quad and the dual core and switch CPU's with the task at hand. There, problem solved.

 

"Let's game."
"Hold on, let me swap processors."

"Let's encode video."
"Hold on, let me swap processors."

 

LOLOLOLOL


i'd go for the quad (and it's the choice i made for mine) it's cheapper and it's also the the way of the futur the quad will get relly out dated much after the dual core no mather it's clocking

and the performance of the systeme with a quad is real good at gaming and awsome when heavy multi tasking

btw you might even be lucky and get a stuter free one like mine and don't need to copper mod it