2.93 Ghz T9800 Vs 3.06Ghz T9900

am I going to notice much of a difference between these two processors?

I am upgrading from a 2.8Ghz T9600 to one of the above and was wondering if I would notice much difference between the two.

Am wondering if the extra 200 dollars is worth spending on the 9900 or elsewhere.

Thanks in Advance

Jono

 

I would say you may not notice going to either one from the T9600 you have?

What are you doing with your computer that you need the highest clocks?

How much are you paying to go to the T9800?

 

I doubt you'll get any cost-effective benefit upgrading from your current cpu to either one of these for what might at best be a 7% speed increase. I'd add RAM or an SSD, or just save your money.

 

thanks for the swift replys

Im buying a new laptop (clevo M980NU) and Im trying to work out what upgrades to go to.

 

Ah -- makes more sense in a new laptop. As my rough rule of thumb, unless you're really doing something that requires really cpu-intensive stuff, whenever you configure a laptop you'll see something like:

cpu1 +$0
cpu2 +$30
cpu3 +$75
cpu4 +$250
cpu5 +$500

It might well be worth spending $75 for cpu3, depending on what it is, but beyond that it's a massive case of diminishing returns --- like spending 15 skill points to raise your chance of a critical hit from 37% to 39%.

 

Nice analogy

In short, you will not see any noticeable differences unless you are playing with some benchmarks. Most games are GPU dependent and won't require that much CPU processing power with the exception of some RTS games. And even then, you probably won't even notice any performance differences.

On another note, if you are inclined to upgrade to a T9900, I'd suggest purchasing one separately and upgrading it yourself. It would be more economical this way. You can probably purchase a T9900 for about $300 on ebay (brand new can be bought from HP for $360) and sell your current T9600 for $200.

 

I generally try to buy the best processor I can afford. On some laptops it's difficult if impossible to swap out the processor. If your potential laptop fits that criteria, then get what you can afford. If you can easily swap cpu's, option 3 in the above example is the best option as you can always buy a better processor later on if needed. Maybe 4 if you can swing it.

In your example, the t9800 would be the better option. It's only 130 MHz "slower" then the t9900. You'd likely never be able to distinguish the difference even if you tried. Take the extra $200 and put it into things to accessorize you new notebook. More RAM is always a good investment, though much more than 4GB can be wasteful unless you use a lot of RAM intensive programs. A good backpack if you travel is a good investment. A ZeroShock III Sleeve is definitely worth it. A wireless mouse is a good accessory. Also consider a notebook cooler if it's going to be a gaming machine, an external hard drive for additional storage, a good set of earbuds or headphones, some microfiber cloths and some LCD screen cleaner (alcohol free).

 

Ah, in that case:

My 'standard' buying advice for computer hardware is: buy when you need. When you buy, buy as much as you can afford.

Be honest (to yourself) about the 'afford' and the 'need' parts and you'll rarely go wrong with following the above advice.

Good luck and Happy Holidays!

 

Thanks heaps guys!

This site makes buying laptops a lot easier for the technology retardard!

Merry Christmas

 

Isn't the M980NU available with a Q9000?

 

Second that...

If you upgrade to T9900 via the retailer, they charge you the full price of T9900 but do not discount for the old processor. However if you do the upgrade, you can sell your old processor which will cover-up most of the expenses. I did the same thing when I upgraded from T9400 to T9900.


--

 

One thing you guys do not regard is the task.

The real world difference is generally not noticeable between 1/2 "upgrades" amongst processors.

But say you are doing RAW conversions... if you batch process a lot of images regularly... a few hundred every day you can easily gain some time.

Once you get into the realm of paying 200, 300$ more its doubtful the price justifies the gains though - maybe you can tell us the usage of the notebook, then it might be easier to help too

 

i would recommend that u buy a Q9000 as the M980U supports quad cores... then later on , u can buy a QX9300 and put it in for $500... way cheaper than buying the laptop from the shop with the QX9300.... that would set u back by $1K...

 

I havnt looked at the quad core (Q9000) cause I wouldnt be supporting 8 different tasks at the same time, I assumed the duo with higher Ghz would be faster with the 2-3 tasks I would be doing max.

Is this right?


Im using it to game, for work and uni. I do photography at uni (but wont be converting 100's of raw pics a day)

 

It really depends on the game. Some games (notably GTA IV and Dragon Age: Origins) actually run better on a quad core than a dual core, because they're designed to spread out the load of the game across all 4 cores. Most games, however, will run better on the higher clocked dual core than the quad, because they're only designed to spread out over up to 2 cores. As for other programs, again, it all depends on how the program is coded, and that will come down to the individual program.

 

In games, the P9700 (2.8Ghz Dual Core), and the Q9000 (2.0Ghz Quad Core), perform almost exactly the same. The Q9000 edges out in core hungry games like Supreme Commander and GTA IV. The Q9000 will do heavy multitasking better, and will be better for video encoding, etc.

For a processor that's cheaper than the T9900, it certainly performs very close to it.

And FYI, the Core i7 is the only processor line with 8 threads. The Core 2 Quad series do not.

 

if you looking at a T9800/9900 you should just look at an i7 comp. that's where the power is!

 

True, but he may not have the money for an i7 computer with dual GTX 280M's.

As far as I know, there is no computer with dual GTX 280M's and an i7. If he wants to get an i7, he would need to sacrifice one of the GPU's, and get something like a D900F or a W870CU.

 

I was looking at the D900F, but your right, I did want the dual GPU

 

Why not even the HP DV7t... Core i7, 6GB 1333Mhz DDR3, NVidia MXMIII GT230/240 1GB GDDR3, 17.3in screen... There's alot of goodness there, plus since it's i7 it has it's memory controller integrated onto the processor die, and from what I can see it does make a great deal of difference especially with DDR3. At this point, if you're aiming at a very high end Core2Duo, I would just go to the i7. It's more future proof, and it oozes power (figuratively, literally it's probably more power efficient "per-clock" than that t9800/9900). Really the only HP's I wouldn't recommend are the AMD ones. They tend to run a bit hot, as all HP's run kinda warm anyway.

 

Problem is, processors are so overrated these days, since even the basic ones can provide all the essential computer needs. So unless you have a specific processor intensive need, I'd focus on more critical components rather than wasting money on high priced CPUs. In most daily computer applications, it won't make that much difference.

 

But again, the GPU on that is mediocre compared to the ones on the M980NU.

 

This is true, but I can guarantee it'll run games, and have an i7 for under 1400. Plus it's going to be thinner. CUDA really helps with what you'll be doing too, so if you get the clevo, get nvidia. You'll really enjoy the CUDA, I know I do for HD video content.

 

The twin GPU's on the M980NU will own the GT 240M though, in terms of gaming.

 

I pretty much have my heart set on the clevo.

which am I going to notice more, the extra cores in the Q9000 or the extra MHz in the T9600?

Which one would you guys get?

 

Depending on what exactly is more important to you ... gaming or cpu intensive programs.
If I was you, I'd go with i7 because it would be a steal at that price for my 3d Studio Max projects.
As for games ... true, you won't be able to max out EVERYTHING ... but you will be able to run games in high details for the most part.
Your cpu, while not a too critical component in gaming, does contribute one way or the other, so you might be able to push the quality on a game or two on an i7 in comparison to a core2duo.

Or ... try getting a system that has a core2duo with the gpu's of your choosing, but with the ability to upgrade to a Quad core at the very least.

 

The Clevo is a Core2Duo/Quad based machine. (see below, Comanche SLI is an M980NU)

If you're going to do aftermarket upgrades, check your local prices for QS Q9200s. They're an unreleased 2.4Ghz Quad Core, which puts them only 130Mhz off the QX9300 (unreleased pretty much because they're so close to a QX9300 Intel would have a very hard time marketing QX9300s with the 9200 so much cheaper, and as QS these 9200s are all multiplier unlocked incase Clevo ever give us that promised unlocked BIOS).

Given I've seen them for £180 which equates to a little over $300, I'd call that a much better upgrade than a Q9000 basic, which costs almost the same. QS/ES X9100s are roughly the same price as that Q9200.

Which will be better for you will depend on what you do and play, unfortunately without overclocking there is no way to have both worlds (if I had unlocked multipliers I'd be grabbing a Q9200, seeing how far it'd clock and if it wasn't great, sell it on)!

As far as I can see, you're going from a T9600, which at 2.8 is decent already so perhaps consider the quad more heavily, at least rather than a T9900, which will be overpriced in your scenario!

 

Firstly , the GT230M in the hp is not MXM... most probably it is soldered to the motherboard... Secondly , a Q9000 is way better for most games than a T9900... Thirdly , there is no computer with core i7 and dual GTX280Ms... the clevo or the alienware are the only 2 ones with core 2 quad , dual GTX280Ms... and like i said , for best performance , get the clevo with a Q9000 and then buy a QX9300 of ebay for $500... sell the Q9000 and u should get $200++... way cheaper than buying the laptop with a QX9300... also you can easily overclock the QX9300 to 3.0GHz since it has unlocked multipliers and i'm quite sure it can beat the core i7...

 

A T9900 is not way worse than a Q9000. Especially if you play MMOs.
There are still a large number of games that ARE NOT quad optimised. Yes the minimum framerate increases slightly with a quad, as you're able to offload tasks to other CPU whilst gaming, but a dual core is in no way infirm, you seem to be under the opinion that most games are quad optimised which is extremely far from the truth!

I've had a desktop Q6600 clocked to 3.2-4Ghz, and you'd be surprised how many games didnt care when I shifted to the X9100 at the same clock speeds.

Im not disagreeing that a quad at the same clock speed isn't superior, BUT a quad at 2Ghz vs a dual core 3Ghz is in no way a clean shift to quad superiority!

 

Wouldn't that depend largely on how the program is optimized?

 

Yes it would, what Im getting at is Seans assertion that the quad is much better in the majority of titles. It's not.
A clean shift to quad superiority means the vast majority are better on quad, despite the clock deficit. This is not true.

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it would be more "futureproof" if this person had a quad.

 

if I go the quad to futureproof my laptop, is the lower clock going handicap gaming and other applications significantly (the ones that dont like quad core setups?).

For example I will be playing MW2 and Dragon age
I will be using photoshop and Corel.

 

Really depends on the game and application. It shouldn't handicap photoshop and Corel, it will help with Dragon Age (which is quad-core optimized, I believe), and you might take a slight hit on MW2 (which I _think_ is dual-core optimized). The deciding factor for MW2, however, should be your GPUs, and not your CPU, as opposed to Dragon Age, which is much more CPU dependant (at least, according to its system requirements).

 

As Judicator said, MW2 may take a hit, but it's not like it's going to run crap on dual GTX 280M's. Hell, I can max it at 1280 x 800, without AA, and it runs like a dream.

 

sweet. again thanks for all your help.

 

Decide for yourselves, take a look at the benchmarks of the 2.0 Ghz Q9000 Vs the 2.85 Ghz Core2Duo in my sig (2nd link).

If you want a real upgrade though, you should go for the QX9300 since that will be fine on all Dual Optimised and Quad optimised games alike. I would only recommend the Q9000 as your first processor but if you already have a decent Core2Duo then it is not really worth it for an upgrade in my opinion.

 

That's basically what i said... get a Q9000 first and then upgrade to QX9300 later on... it's way cheaper then directly buying the laptop with QX9300.

 

I still have a week before I put the order through for my lappy, so I havnt really decided yet. But with the amount of info you guys have provided I know that at least my decision will be informed!

That would be the ideal, but I unfortunatly dont have the spare $1000 to make this happen.

But I like Seans suggestion of ebaying it later and putting it in my self.
If I get the Duo, would I still be able to replace it with a quad later down? or would I need a quad to begin with?
(this question may seem dumb but honestly Im a rock climbing instructor, and computers and I generally dont get along!)

 

The socket is the same, so if you get a T9600 now, you could swap over to a Q9200/QX9300 later as long as you're willing to open the machine up!

 

wow, that was a cool thread, exactly what Im trying to nut out. thanks for the hard work that you put in to provide that!

it was interesting to read the higher voltage on the Q9000 and how it relates heating and battery life.

 

Don't forget to thank the others

Although the Q9000 has a higher wattage, you can always undervolt your CPU to improve your battery life.

For example, I have undervolted my 2.5 Ghz QX9300 Core2Quad from 1.162v down to 1.050v and it runs cooler than my Q9000 used to. I am not too concerned about battery life since I am more interested in gaming performance on AC 90% of the time. I just watch short movies on battery.

By the way, when I suggested you should go for the QX9300 I was talking about buying an ES on Ebay and installing it yourself. The QX9300 is very close to the 2.85 Ghz Core2Duo in CPU intensive Dual optimised games.

In standard Dual Optimised tasks it will perform excellently and in Quad optimised apps/games it will potentially excel. I was playing Ghostbusters on my laptop last night and noticed 80-90% CPU usage in each core and perormance was better with the QX9300 than it was with the Q9000. In many cases you won't notice an fps increase, instead you get smoother performance with less slow down or stutter in general and in heavy action.


In short, with that CPU you have nothing to worry about and since the multipliers are unlocked, you always have the option of overclocking although it depends on your laptop and / or Setfsb compatibility.

 

let me make myself clear... If u get a QX9300 with the machine , u'll pay an extra $1000 for it... now if u get a Q9000 which is about $100-200 extra over the base processor u get , then u can buy a QX9300 off ebay or somewhere for $500.. then u can upgrade to QX9300 and sell of Q9000... you'll spend $300 in the end... compared to $1K... T9600 wouldn't be advisable... especially as the motherboard might be older or not support quads... however if u already have a quad ,upgrading to QX9300 would go without a hitch..

 

If they have the same socket - which I believe they have - then I doubt its going to be a different motherboard on the same laptop.

 

The M980NU uses the MCP79 SLI chipset, and supports both.

I'd stick with the 2.8Ghz dual now, and upgrade later. $300 Q9200 or a $600 QX9300 would both be viable shifts in the future. Til you decide to go quad though, stick with what you have. No point in spending money on a Q9000 only to upgrade later to a faster quad.

 

It isnt going to cost me any more to go to the Q9000

 

Q9000 it is then for now... purchase time..