500GB 7,200RPM (16MB Cache) vs. 256GB SSD?

I'm likely going to buy an Alienware M17, and I'm trying to decide between the two hard drives. I like the fact that the SSD will keep the machine cooler, but I'm not sure of the pros of the 500GB 7,200RPM hard drive.

Which is better and which is 'worth' getting and why? Or am I completely off track?

EDIT: Also, one more question..
Intel® Core™2 Quad Q9000 2.00GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)
OR
Intel® Core™2 T9600 2.8GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

Not necessarily aiming for an all-gaming PC, just a desktop replacement.

 

The SSD is actually not necessarily cooler - many SSDs run quite warm. I'd say right now, unless you really care about performance, SSDs are not worth the very high cost.

SSD
+ Very fast, much faster than even the fastest 7,200RPM notebook HDD
+ More "stable" - immune to drops and most physical damage
+ Silent operation
- Very very expensive
- Older cheaper drives have a "stuttering" issue that slows performance (newer SSDs with newer memory controllers do not have this issue though)

HDD
+ Cheap cheap cheap
+ Larger sizes available (Seagate makes a 500GB 7200RPM drive)
- More prone to damage from drops
- Slower
- Some disks are noisy

The choice of processor would depend on what you're using it for. In most current games, the T9600 will beat the Q9000, because the games lack multi-core support. However, many video encoding programs (among other programs) have quad core support, and the Q9000 will outperform the T9600. The Q9000 also has a higher TDP of 45W, so it will drain battery faster. And, of course, the Q9000 is more expensive.

I would choose the T9600, but again, that depends on your purposes. You may want to fill out the FAQ.

 

How much of a difference is it between the T9400 2.53 GHz processor to the T9600 2.8 GHz processor?

 

Theoretically 10%. (2.8-2.53)/2.53 = 0.1

Practically 3%. You will not be able to notice the difference unless you are running some synthetic benchmarks.


--

 

Or last gen emulators.

 

You'll not be able to notice the difference on a 400mhz or equivelent core2duo processor either. When you're running basic applications such as internet browser, word processing and light photo editing, or playing hd videos, 400mhz core2duo is totally acceptable. Pracractically... there's virtually no difference between 400mhz or 2800mhz cpu when you're not running processor intensive applications.

 

How much of a difference is it between the T9400 2.53 GHz processor to the T9600 2.8 GHz processor?

Theoretically 10%. (2.8-2.53)/2.53 = 0.1

Practically 3%. You will not be able to notice the difference unless you are running some synthetic benchmarks.

Why Intel producing so many processors when all are the almost same and there is not much difference ...?

 

because people buy them?

 

So.. I want my laptop to last long.. I should get it a 4-core CPU supportive even if its got much less operation/time (speed)?

Actually my Taskbar is ALWAYS full, so would I REALLY (thats a big "really") benefit of 4-quad CPUs?
Actually my Taskbar is ALWAYS full, and I got Core2Duo 2.5Ghz/6mb/800mhz, and it works great.. so full taskbar is what I call multitasking, so why am I "not" experiencing any problems? (oh taskbar is full and its Vista SP1 Ultimate, and I got -lol- the Intel X3100 Video Card)

 

your computer doesn't support Quad core.
X3100 = penryn core = fastest chip availible = X9000

 

no man u mixed things up..
1-I`m just talking in general..
2-the x3100 is the Video Card (GPU) not the CPU; well, anyone I think its not X3100, I`ve just checked and its something like: GM950M -lol-.

So, anyway.. didn`t answer my previous questions?

 

Yuio did answer your question.
The Intel X3100 graphics card you have was only used on the socket P santa rosa platform, so the fastest processor you can install is the T9300/T9500/X9000
No quad core processor can be matched with the X3100 chipset graphics card.

K-TRON

 

I'm so happy with my 64 GB Samsung MLC SSD, I'll never part with it for any mechanical drive. I'd much rather have a 1.2 GHz Core 2 Duo with a SSD over a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with a 7200 rpm notebook drive. Once you've experienced how much of an effect it has, you really notice how slow a mechanical harddrive is when using an older computer. Sometimes my T42 grinds to a halt, all because it's harddrive is constantly accessing some data, which could be program files or mail inbox etc. I really don't care what it is, I just want my system to respond, and that's exactly what it doesn't when a mechanical harddrive is in charge