Do you know about CPU? then please help me decide which one I should get for my Laptop. (=/+ Q6600)

Hello Guys,

I am planning on purchasing a laptop with a processor that equals or surpasses the power of my desktop processor, Q6600.

I cannot go over my budget. And getting Intel® Core™2 Extreme Quad QX9300 2.53GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) will go beyond my budget.
Dell sells it in their m17x for the upgrade price of $1280CAD (This is $1000 above my budget)

So Now if that is the only processor that would match or pass my desktop's processor then I'll be looking for best bang for the buck.

2 options:

1. Intel® Core™2 Duo T9800 2.93GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) $560CAD
2. Intel® Core™2 Quad Q9000 2.0GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) $280CAD

I am having a hard time deciding which would be more beneficial for me. I do plan to play high end, graphics demanding games, and I also plan to use it for programs such as Photoshop, Illustrator, Vegas, After Effects etc...

Since I will be keeping this laptop for 3-4yrs. I would need to get the process that would last that long. I know there aren't much programs and softwares that use the Quad cores properly but I'm sure future apps will use all four cores.

So guys, which one should I go for?

QX9300 (probably not $$$ )
T9800
Q9000

My desktop processor:

 

Well...... between those two, you'll just have to compromise somewhere.

Based on your post, the T9800 is twice the price of the Q9000. It has a much faster clockspeed, but as more and more programs/games become optimized and enhanced for more than two cores, that clockspeed difference will start to show diminishing returns. It'll probably still be faster overall, but I don't know if it's worth double the price.

The Q9000 will be more "future-proof", but its lower clockspeed will not be able to match the performance of the 2.4ghz Q6600. Heck, most people with Q6600's overclock the thing to over 3.0ghz easily. Doesn't Intel have higher-clocked mobile quad-cores?

 

Get Q9000. This is the one that surpasses the Q6600. Source:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Q6600: 2882
Q9000: 3042
T9800: 2122

 

Hi Ricky_S. Your Q6600 will still trump the QX9300. regardless of the smaller cache, if you overclock it to 3GHz or higher as madmook mentioned.

I'm calling shenanigans on those numbers.

 

the qx9300 can clock to 3gHz as well. So thats a pretty moot point.

I would personally go with the q9000 and then use setFSB or some such program to over clock it to a reasonable (2.5ish) level

Or dont and then save a bit of money (counting the 280 you save with the q9000) and eventually get the qx9300 if you feel the performance isnt enough for you

 

The QX9300 will get nice and toasty at 3GHz. The Q6600 can clock to 3.6Ghz easily on air.

 

Thank you all for your replies!

@madmook: That's the thing, I've done too much googling on this topic and now I'm more stuck than before. People say that geting the Q9000 will "future proof" my laptop. Like you mentioned more apps may develop later on which will use all four cores making Q9000 more useful in the future.

But people also say that there is no such thing as "future proofing" in technology. We don't know when those apps will develop that will use the Quad like it was meant to be used. And When these Quad-core using applications do come into the field the core speed (2.0GHz) probably wont be enough to run those quad core programs. So the best thing to do is get the T9800 and get the performance that it puts out at 2.9GHz. instead of Q9000 @ 2.00 GHz.

Now Kamin_Majere mentioned that the Q9000 can be overclocked close to 2.5GHz which would mean that if I get Q9000 and overclock it, it would give me the same result as the QX9300 stock.

if OCing the Q9000 is possible without any meltdown then I guess it would be the best choice

yes? no?

Sidenote: How easy is it to OC Q6600 without adding any new cooling devices, and will it be stable with the stock fan?

I really appreciate all the input. thanks

 

Q9000 will be more beneficial than the T9800, even now. Video editing programs (such as vegas and after effects) love multi-core CPUs.

Re The Q6600: Was this a custom built PC you made yourself, or was it a Dell, Gateway, Acer, etc?

If it was made by a big computer company, forget it. If you built it yourself, it should be very easy to overclock it if your motherboard and power supply are up to snuff.

What are the other specs of your desktop?

 

To be honest, I think you will be happy with any of those.... All of those you listed are great performers.

 

I am gonna take my chances with Q9000. and OC it to 2.5GHz or around that. Considering it is actually possible to OC dell's processor. They don't lock it, do they?
Plus I'll save some money.

Some posted this in another thread. www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

I see that T9800 is at #8 while Q9000 is at #34. Is this chart accurate? why such a huge difference? And does this difference matter?

Sending a PM to avanish11 regarding OCing Q6600

 

The numbers may (I'm stressing "may", since the CPUs don't appear to be benchmarked using a controlling environment, like same mobo, video card, RAM, etc...) make sense if you consider that they're using stock speed of Q6600. The architecture of the Q9000 is newer than that of the Q6600, so pure clock speed doesn't tell the whole story. Again, this is just a hypothesis as to why the numbers seem contradicting to common sense.
Yes, we all know that Q6600 is a great overclocking CPU, but that isn't the point of the thread, seeing as the OP doesn't even know how to OC.