its called "ALL POWERFUL" but doesn't even include the t9900

I spoke with an AW rep and he said it would be atleast a month before the t9900 will be offered in config for the m17x. How sad is that. I mean i'm putting mine in myself but for a comp that is supposed to be allpowerful it doesnt even include either of the 3.06ghz core speed dual cores. Really annoys me. Guess I'll save money putting my own in but id prefer my warranty to cover everything ya know.

 

Right.... Because the QX9300 isn't powerful enough

 

I sent them an email asking about the x9100 but I haven't heard anything yet. Probably in the same boat with the T9900.

 

I wouldnt even think about buying a Dualcore period other then the stock 8600 that it comes with and swap it out with a Qx9300 before i even powered the thing on . I do understand though people dont like to mess with there new machines and want peace of mind for all there hardware , i just cant bring myself to ever think that way . I love to tinker with stuff .

 

Well, in all fairness, it says "AllPowerful". Not, and second and third and fourth powerful too.

 

i dont need a quad core. Besides most programs dont use more than 2 cores anyways. Quad core is usually just a lot of wasted potential. Maybe in the future when it is more widely supported I will upgrade. Thats what's great about the m17x. It is so upgradeable and future proof. but the 3.06 ghz dual core will end up running many things faster than a quad core because the quad core is running at a slower clock speed and wasting some of the cores sitting idle.

 

Quadcore overclocks to 3.0 ghz and above, so that solves your problem of not finding any processors that are clocked that high.

 

Quadcore if used right can be soo much better , you can have things like your Antivirus for instance running on one core all the time while not affecting your main 1 or 2 cores while playing games etc , that is just one example of how a quadcore can be so helpful. I have owned Quads in my desktops now since they debuted and now the i7 which is just crazy fast so it would be hard for me to ever go back to dual core, Win7 will be heavily Quad optimized as well. Many new games including anything built on the unreal engine are all Quadcore capable plus games like GTA4 ( if thats your bag i love the game) practically need a quad to run properly. But hey like you said you can always upgrade down the road .

 

I've been partial to my X9100 and wouldn't change my mind to this day.
There is no way I would have wanted to deal with fixing any problems in my M17. Regardless of how easy the fix.

However, if I was buying a new M17X, it would be the QX9300 for sure. They have, no doubt fixed any quad issues with this model.

I mean the M17X has built in over clocking right in the bios to do it the right way. Not just Setfsb. Then, it's all under warranty too.

 

All this core talk makes me think; "am I the only one still using a single core desktop?" It makes me so sad.

 

I've been waiting to buy the M17/Arima 840/OZC Whitebook with the 4870s since last Nov.--LOL. Since then I've built a new desktop with a i7 920 and it is wicked powerful. I wouldn't buy or build anything now other than a quadcore CPU based system, running an x64 OS, and with the fastest ram I could justify buying.

 

I don't use anti virus programs firewalls or anything else and my computer runs fine so I don't need to dedicate a core to useless things like that. You have to be dumb to get a virus on ur comp.

 

hmmmm..most people here seem to want to just get the basic cpu then upgrade it to something powerful.isnt that against AW warranty?

 

does seem foolish to play on the whole all powerful/ultimate gaming stuff when you usually don't have the absolute latest hardware but I imagine for a large company with its specialized designs etc its a bit more complicated than for others who get new stuff quicker. At least they will get it.

 

I agree with dual core vs quad core. Quad core is great if your software that support quadcore. But it useless on software that only use one cpu. I think we had Dual core for what 8 years and only 20% games use dual or Quad core. Like world of conflict and Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 and how much of a gain do you get with quad core with them 3% faster on 1024 by 768 when you max it out to 1600 by 1200 the gpu max out and you only see 1 fps faster at the most. This is looking on Desktop cpu and Gpus.

I rather have Dual Gpus in sli or crossfire that can help in games. Then Quad core.

 

In my opinion, all you need for power is a quad core. Yes, there are programs out there that will probably perform better on a faster duo, BUT...

There is not a SINGLE program that I can think of out there that uses 1 or 2 cores that won't run fine on a 2GHz quad. Not a single one. Seeming as many of the games that use two cores, and especially the ones that use a single core, are older, they often use up less actual processing power.

Not to mention if you get a QX9300 (which if you were going for an X9100, you've almost definitely got the money anyway) you can likely overclock that stable to at least 3.2GHz, looking at what people have managed with the M17. The X9100 from what I've seen can go to around 3.5GHz-3.6GHz stable. That difference in processor speed is small enough to make next to no difference, and the speeds of both are high enough anyway that every single program I could possibly think of won't be hindered in any way by the quad.

And nearly all games being released at this sort of time will have quad core support. In my opinion, the time of the dual core is drawing to an end, and the time of the quad core is dawning.

 

I check all the tech sites that deal with high end games that work with quad core. That with Low end screen resolution like 1024 by 768. The quad core going to look faster but once you stress your gpus to higher res. Like 1600 by 1200. Dual core and quad core are about the same.

It not like the Gpu in SLI or Crossfire. Where you get 30% to 40% in speed increase If I had my Laptop playing lord of the rings Mines of moria. I get 40fps single gpu. If I use my sli I get 61.7 fps. Max out.

Quad core good at mulitasking or CAD that run 80% to 98% cpu power. But for games it not worth the money. I think game companys need to get off there rear and work on games that work with cpus that act like two or 4 gpus in sli or crossfire. But right now 5% at low res is not worth it.

If anyone can find a games that will use more then 70% on dual or quad core core post it. run the game in 1600 by 1200 screen resolution.

 

Honestly this is not a true statement. Wait until you get a virus that writes to your bios and renders your machine useless. Do more research on this subject or get burned.

 

The M17x is being sold and warrantied by Dell, and with Dell's warranty it wouldn't be void by upgrading a processor (unless you damage something in the process, of course).

 

So you must never use any bittorrent clients? Or any file sharing for that matter?

That is a pretty stupid statement because you may not get a virus easily, but a trojan can get on your comp quicker than a fat kid on cake,,,,,

 

LOL! I believe he's already stated he's using bit torrent'ed versions of windows so I would guaranty he has a virus already.

I remember reading an article where a third party was testing three different AV programs on three different computers. They bit torrent the same software to all three systems and ran AV and found no viruses. They then shut down all three machines for a month and when they turned them back on they updated the AV software. After running the scan again they all came up with a handful of viruses.

 

If you don't have an antivirus, then sir, you are completely stupid. No, you don't have to be dumb to get a virus on your comp. I've had my fair share. Luckily, I also have a good antivirus that will sniff out any viruses you download.

And I'm not dumb.

Your computer can get infected VERY easily. There are websites that download a virus onto your PC without you knowing. Without an antivirus, you'd be screwed. You don't have the same security when downloading ANYTHING. And it'd never be safe to use a torrent without a good antivirus just in case.

 

funny actually there was a torrent / shared version of windows 7 itself that had a virus that would install in the mbr!!! and im positive this is the case for many copies of windows out there which are not legit.. agredd anyone who doesnt run a av at all is a idiot

 

ouch. i hope that's not true, because if it is, you must've failed Computers And The Internet 101 bigtime.

 

There are many good free anti-virus programs that run almost transparently and use a tiny amount of system resources.

There really is no good reason not to use one.

 

AVG Free is particularly good. Causes practically no slowdown and provides superb protection.

There is a good reason not to use one though. Two good reasons, in fact:
1. If you don't own a computer.
2. If you're retarded.

 

Yes i agree lol, but hey like they say "live and learn" .

 

That sounds about right.