Comparison: Which would perform better for gaming?

Basically I'm looking at the following two options:

1.8 GHZ C2D w/ 2MB cache (800 fsb)

or 2.0 GHZ C2D w/4MB cache (800 fsb)

Video card is:

nVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT w/512MB

Now the question is.. for a $50 difference, would it be better to get the 2nd option AND/OR -


WXGA vs WSXGA+ for an $80 difference. Plan on making the purchase within an hour - thanks guys =)

 

Go for the better screen. You can change cpu's in the future but not screens.

 

The GPU is the bottleneck here, so either processor is fine.

 

Either processor will be fine - i doubt you will notice any difference between them. The screen is a worthy upgrade.

 

Well personally since the price difference is rather small I would go for the 2.0ghz CPU and the WSXGA+ screen.

 

I agree with usapatriot. Although the performance difference may be small, so is the price difference. And also, the upgrade from 1.8 to 2.0 is a relatively cost-effective upgrade compared to other processor upgrades others down the road since you're moving from a 2MB to 4MB cache.

 

If you have $100 to spend, spend it on the display. If you can afford both, they would both be a benefit. And I'd also make sure you get 2GB of RAM, and I'd even suggest getting that over the faster CPU (or at least get 1GB in a single DIMM, so you don't have to remove memory to upgrade later on).

 

Im going to say unless you really need the space don't upgrade the screen (here come the flames ), the GPU can't handle the latest games at that resolution without sacrificing a lot of settings so you might end up lowering to 1280x800 for gaming anyways!

(where are all the 1440x900 screens these days , that is the perfect resolution for mid-range cards imho)

 

You'll have a lot more space for other things though - watching movies, spreadsheets, etc.

See MBP.

 

i find WSXGA+ in a 15.4" screen terrible, you'll end up with glasses. i agree that WXGA+ is great for 15.4".
anyway back to the point using it for gaming dont bother with WSXGA+, the 8600m gt isnt going to really be able to run many games at that res anyway, and res is usually the first thing you sacrifice to improve game performance. go with the WSXGA+ if you do photo/vid/cad work.

 

The Compal IFL90 may become available with this option:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=132106

 

I'd rather have the 1440x900 display and 4MB of L2 cache instead of 2MB L2 cache. And as others have noted, there are some benefits to a lower native resolution when it comes to a mid-range gaming GPU - trying to push the native resolution of a very high res display would really tax even an 8600M GT compared to what you could do at a lower res.

 

I guess my eyes are good because I am young, but the 1680x1050 on my g1's 15.4 is just fine, not too small or anything.

Too each his own, but I say go for the extra upgrade options as the additional price is so small as opposed to the overall cost of the machine.

 

So it would be wiser to go with the smaller screen? I have a few portable DVD players laying around, so I wont be watching movies on it frequently, but it'll mainly be for gaming.

For the 8600m gt card, would I get better results by sticking with smaller resolutions so it wont be a more obvious bottleneck when trying to push it to the max?

Thanks.