Intel x9000 vs t9500 vs x7900 (winner??)

I've been trying to find a one vs one comparison on these CPUs and can't seem to locate one. I can find tid bits here and there, but nothing solid.

Basically, I'm on the market for one of these processors for my Gateway 6860FX (currently running stock t5550)

This is probably more between the x9000 or t9500... but the prices on the x7900 seem pretty good ATM (around $100) so that's not helping, lol.

Any thoughts or help on what a x9000 can do that a t9500 can't, etc etc?

Thanks.

 

Finally found a place that allowed to be see some numbers for each proc
Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News - Notebookcheck.net

 

Any of these processors provides better performance over your current T5550 in terms of rendering, gaming and CPU hungry applications will benefit from it for your current machine. The performance increase is generalised roughly 35% ~less or more fluctuating~ with a T9500 with these applications mentioned.

The X9000 has an unlocked multiplier and thus able to overclock up to whatever speed that is capable of. Technically is up to 3.8 to 4.0GHz, but due to heat constraints in the 6860FX 3.6GHz is a nice setting with temps in the mid 70s.

Long ago, Gateway limited their BIOSes to 3.0GHz maximum for CPUs with unlocked multipliers. This isn't an issue if used with ThrottleStop.

X7900 will run warmer than the X9000 due to a higher TDP, voltage/power consumption and Manufacturing Process that makes up these setbacks as compared to the X9000 and not entirely recommended for your machine's heatsink setup, but still capable of running it.

Check out the Gateway forums - many users have the X9000 and T9500s in their FXes - they have posted alot of benchmarks and performance guages over the years and are extremely happy with it.

 

Go X9000. With throttle stop it is awesome. I had one in my 6860fx and I could get it up to 3.6GHz.

 

thank you all for the info and tips. I'm leaning away from the x7900.

I'll provide a bit more info to see if this helps. I would like to OC the x9000 to a min of 3Ghz.... depending on temps a little higher would be OK of course. The main "problem" if you will is that I won't be modding the cooling or heatsinks of the laptop. The most I'll be doing is placing some fresh AC5 or better thermal paste down.

This is the of course the main reason for the X9000. As for the T9500... I know I can't OC, but it feels like the "safer" CPU due to the lower TDP... but I almost never use the laptop away from an outlet... 95% or more of the time it's plugged in while I'm using it.

I primarly use this laptop for gaming (Left 4 Dead, Fallout, Borderlands, etc) and HD video viewing... it's not a business laptop or anything and I don't do any encoding (audio/video) etc. Currrently the "future plan" for the laptop is to retire it to being an HD HTPC in the next few years.


The thought of selling this laptop and using the money for another is an interesting idea I hadn't really considered. Some of the reasons I don't think I'll go that route are... I'd have to that twice since both my wife and I have the same laptops and prefer to keep it that way. Makes buying games and playing coop stuff a lot easier knowing our hardware is the same. Another big reason is that both our 6860s have been dreams and haven't had any hardware problems (minus a GPU overheat problem I recently fixed on mine) (unlike our previous laptops).... still an interesting thought though. I might have to look into how much this stock lappy and pull in and how much I'd have to spend on getting a new one and see how it all adds up though.


This is a "no brainer" in terms of X9000 vs T9500... but I'm having a hard time deciding if the extra $150 is worth the 200Mhz increase... (or with the chance for 400mhz-800mhz more with OC).

 

The problem as I see it is mainly you have the nVidia 8xxx series GPU with the Bump issue in these machines. Pushing them harder could expidite the issue showing up. Not saying it will ever show up but you increase the chance.

If the issue crops up you have a paper weight worth just about nothing. Worst yet this could eventually happen to both machines. Not that you would get all that much for them now, anything is better than nothing.

If you had the 9800m's it wouldn't be as much a concern but figured I should raise this point..............................

 

I thought the 8800gts chips (being a g92 core) weren't effected... but TBH, I haven't really read up on the full history of the nVidia debacle.

 

I've had this happen to me a few times here recently as well. I'll post a reply, the page refreshes and it shows up... but after I "refresh" on my own the post is gone. Not sure of the reason though... I haven't noticed any connection or internet issues from my end.

 

Go to the Gateway forums, there have been a few machines dead of the bump issue. I will say not too many though, I've seen other manufacturers with worse reports but again the P68xx probably has a smaller user base than machines like HP's.............

 

Interesting... Nothing I can really do about it though. If it dies it dies and when that happens I'll check into getting something done about it I guess. It's been a good solid rig for 3 or so years and even if I'm on borrowed time it that still a good run.


BTW, still can't decided between x9000 or t9500. I hate performance vs $$$, lol.

I guess I need to know where my bottle neck would be.... would I be primarly GPU or CPU bound with either the t9500 or x9000 for most gaming?

 

If you use emulators, the x9000 is the way to go. I have one in my HDX and it runs at 3.8GHz no problem.

 

My 8800m GTS did die eventually after 2+ years but I had it overclocked all the time. I also had a 8600m GT die in under 10 months. It is not as bad as the G84 and G86 chips but the G92 still seems to be affected by the whole solder issue.

 

Are these the CPUs they used in the ancient greece?

 

I use dual ida on my T9500 thus running it on 2.8GHz, reaching about 2000 cpu marks.

an i5-540M has about 2500 cpu marks running continuously on full speed.

... so which part of ancient greece are you talking about ?

PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

 

I hadn't even considered that... I do use MAME as well as some other emulators to get a quick gaming fix from time to time. (and before anyone jumps down my throat, my favorite games I play on emulators are the same games I own... usually several times over thanks to publishers "cash-ins")


Also, the more I read up on the G92 cores (8800GTX/GTS) they do seem effected as well and how bad seems related to when they were released/built. Oh well. I've never OC'd my GPU though and don't plan too, but I can see how having a stronger CPU might help push it. Either way, even though I'm concerned I'm not going to let that stop me from upgrading the CPU.

Yeah, I don't really get your comment. These CPUs aren't that old and still perform very well. If you want to talk "ancient" we can start talking 100Mhz CPUs and below.

 

I do have one question that might sway me towards the t9500... can the T9500 be OC'd with the help of "ThrottleStop"??

I've never used that program before so I'm not sure how it works. Sounds like something that will allow an OC from within Windows? Or is more of a boot/bios mod?

Thanks.

 

hmmm... well... If I can OC a T9500 to about 3Ghz with ThrottleStop maybe I'll just get one of those and save the extra cash. Seems to me it's the exact same chip as the X9000 just with a locked multi.

If there's something I'm missing under the hood of the X9000 please let me know.

 

You can "OC" it to 2.8GHz maximum with Dual IDA Mode in ThrottleStop. Why 2.8GHz max? Because this feature called, IDA (Intel Dynamic Acceleration) which disables one core and speeds the other core by 200Mhz. With ThrottleStop's Dual IDA Mode option, it forces BOTH cores to run at 2.8GHz. The T9500 has a locked multiplier you cannot OC the T9500 higher than 2.8 unless via hardware modification; disabling TME which it isn't recommended and requires soldering skills.

The X9000 as mentioned in my previous post, has an unlocked multiplier and thus OC'able to any stable frequency. Average is 3.4 to 3.8GHz... 1.275v to 1.4750v

 

If you can get a dual-IDA bios AND do a PLL pinmod then a T9500-2.6 would easily be overclocked to 3.3-3.6Ghz. More if you do a VID4+Vss cpu overvolt. See http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...verclocking-methods-examples.html#post4998927, particularly the HDX9000 example. X9000 is the simpler but costlier solution. T8300-2.4 is the budget conscious overclocker's choice.

 

All good info. I do have good soldering skills that I don't use much. I used to hand solder medical equipment which requires nearly perfect soldering so as not to fail when being used with a patient. I don't think I'd go to that extreme though.

Perhaps the true agrument then is the x7900 vs x9000. I started leaning toward the T9500 just because of the 45nm process.

From what I've seen so far stock x7900 vs stock x9000 isn't a big difference, but would save me some $$$ for the short term. Plus it appears the x7900 still beats the T9500 for cheaper. I does run hotter though, but I don't feel that will be a real problem for me.

Basically, I'm willing to pay up to around $200 give or take a little, but $250+ just doesn't seem worth the price. I feel that those prices are only being held thanks to eBay. Obviously $250+ is too much to ask simply based on just how many of the x9000 chips are available on eBay. I feel if they reduced the price to around the $200 price mark they'd start to sell.

 

This seems to be coming down to picking
x7900 at $90
or
x9000 at $250

Are the "bonuses" of the x9000 (sse4, 45nm, 6mb cache) really worth the extra $160? I'm leaning towards no... but only because I can't "see" any real reason for the extras. Mostly I game on my laptop, but I also accept the fact that it IS a laptop and won't ever out perform my desktop. Even getting a x9000 won't kill my desktop.

hmmm... unless someone comes in here boasting about why I "must" have sse4 and 6mb cache... I think I'll go the x7900 route, save my $$$ and use the saving towards getting a better laptop down the road. I suspect I'll be buying a new laptop in the next one or two years anyway I guess.

 

^ because of the HD video encoding built in the Penryn CPUs, no Merom CPU is worth considering.

on X series CPU you can feel free to make eggs on top, as it runs that hot.

for comparison, I run 2.6GHz with no IDA at 1.025V, and 2.8GHZ DUAL IDA at 1.075V

standard the CPU runs at 1.136Volts or something like that, and would hit 80 deg C on continues full load. Try to imagine what the temp will be when at 1.275V and up

 

The temp will be in the 60*c +range for 3.4GHz @ 1.2625v and 75-80*c @ 3.6 to 3.8GHz 1.3625v - 1.4625v on these gaming systems I tested on my end. I think the Gateway FX owners can testify that too.

Unless you cram in an x9000 into a 13 or 14 incher, not every laptop will handle the same x9000 CPU and WILL run the same temperature. In fact, if that's the x9000 @ 80*c and 1.136v only is something you should check your paste or heatsink.

So it's not as bad as what most people think it is, heat isn't entirely so.

 

X9000 only has C0 stepping...

 

this is a tough choice. If I could find two x9000 cpus for $200 or less I'd spend the extra money.

As for the T9500 I guess it's still in the running then, but it's at a good $60 price premium over the x7900.

As for the cooling of the x7900, from what I've been able to read the temps aren't too different from the x9000. They both use the same 44 TDP and are only 5c away from each other on their "max temps.

Let's forget benchmarks and focus on real world numbers then and let's even forget about the x9000.

x7900 vs T9500 at stock speeds... or even lets say I OC the x7900 to 3Ghz, but keep the T9500 at stock speeds. Which one would win in the following:
Fallout 3, Borderlands, Galatic Civilization II, Starcraft II, Portal II, etc...
HD videos & HD flash videos
Emulation (ie, MAME)
Office 2010, Internet Explorer 9

 

The win depends on the player too

yes, his laptops cooling ability will be most likely much stronger then what's on my 14" T61. Still, I used it for comparison about how much the CPU would actually heat up, which is a lot.

I dont know why the x7900 is still being considered. It's a big NO for me though. My old T7500 would heat up same if not more than my current T9500, and the second one runs much faster (+50%)

the 1.136V is the spec of my T9500 (not the lowest), and standard my laptops fan is pretty quiet, thus allowing it to hit those temps. I had to alter that for my needs though, currently not passing 72 deg C at full continues load on both CPU and overclocked GPU.

 

Average 'completed' ebay listing prices of the CPUs.

X9000-2.8: $280
T9500-2.6: $170
T9300-2.5: $125
X7900-2.8: $110
T8300-2.4: $70

To my eyes the bottom three are the bargain picks depending on what you want to do. The T8300/T9300 being great candidates for PLL pinmod overclocking on the cheap. The $100 saving a T8300 offers over a T9500 can be put towards a $110 60GB SSD. T8300 likely to overclock better since it has less cache.

 

Thanks again to everyone.

The main reason the X7900 is still being considered is that I can buy 2 of these CPUs off eBay for $180 shipped. Getting two T9500 CPUs is going to cost me at least $300... as for the X9000 that would be about $500 for 2 from eBay... and from what I'm being told, the T9500 and X7900 are comparible at stock speeds.

If I could buy two T9500 for around $200-$250 shipped... or two X9000 between $300-$400 shipped. I wouldn't have posted my threads as all I'm really trying to do is justify or find really good reasons to spend the extra money, but so far I'm not seeing anything that's really "OMG, It's totally worth the extra $$ because...." replies. It's mostly to do with concerns on CPU temps and SSE4/Cache/45nm

 

why do you need 2 ?

 

I'd get 2x T9300. There is a real difference between 65nm - 45 nm + the extra cache+ the heat reduction.

(he needs 2 because he has 2 laptop he wants to upgrade)

 

Correct. Both my wife and I have 6860FXs and keeping them on even terms makes coop and multiplayer much easier.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!



Why would you and your wife need the same processor? Why not mix between the two you want most, and go from there?

 

Because we did that years ago with our desktops. I had better gear and she would get the "hand-me-downs". It started to become a big issue in terms of gaming together. Since then we keep our Desktops and laptops on even terms.

It also allows for instant spare parts if something dies or goes wrong and can be a great help in troubleshooting problems. If one computer has problems and the other doesn't, I can start swaping the same parts back and forth until I find the exact hardware problem.

If I go the "T" route, it will be the T9500... which I'm once again leaning towards. Some of the bonuses of the update would be nice to have over the X7900 and as other have said, on paper the X7900 and T9500 are similar, but in real world apps the T9500 will generally perform better.

The real CPU I want is the X9000, but it's the price that doesn't seem on par with the rest of the CPUs. Considering I can get i7 CPUs that destroy the X9000 for less... I think it's time the eBay sellers take a hard look at just how long they want to try and hold prices high without getting any money or bids.

I'd get new laptops, but I'd really like to see another GPU series come out before doing so... and not just some rebadged older GPU on a new process.

 

Well, I hope you get what you want. I wouldn’t even consider an x7900, but that’s just me. I don’t have to go by paper stuff, I go by what was said when I was doing all the overclocking and benchmarking and from that alone, I would stay away from the x7900. I don’t have any experience with the T9500, maybe because they were priced so high for having just 100MHz more than the T9300. One thing is forsure; the T9300 will overclock in certain situations to 3.3MHz (HD 9000 forum) and never run hot.

So I wish you all the best with your T9500s! To be honest, I would just about opt for the T8300 if I was going there. Two T8300’s and two SSDs would be a real winner, considering price to performance.

Good luck!

 

No worries. I'll probably get the T9500s if I can't find good prices soon on X9000s. The X9000 are the ones I want, it's just finding a reasonable price.

 

OK, I just purchased an X9000 for $220 shipped. I guess that's the CPU I'm going for now, lol. I just need to find one more around this price and I'll be very happy.

Thanks again for all the suggestions and advice. I'll try to remember to report back on how it goes with the install.

 

lol... just grabbed a second X9000 for $207 shipped. When it rains it pours.

 

Will do... I certainly didn't plan to get two x9000 chips today. I figured I'd be watching prices for a few weeks and would end up with T9500s

Negotiated one eBay seller down some and then a new listing showed up at a "crazy" (read this as reasonable) price. Right place, right time I guess.

 

gaming wife = double win

 

Just thought I'd give a small update.

The first x9000 arrived (the $207 one). It ended up being an "ES" version, but so far I haven't found a single issue. I've only been testing a couple of days though.

So far I've OC'd to 3.2Ghz at this point using ThrottleStop. I did run it at 2.8Ghz and then 3.0Ghz using the BIOS before though as I wanted to watch the temps. I haven't done any voltage stuff yet... just using the multiplier to OC.

So far with MX-2 thermal paste (I have some MX-4 on the way) and at 3.2Ghz my idle temps are around the 39-41c range (basically the same as 2.8Ghz or my T5550) and after playing some Borderlands for about 30min my max CPU temp was about 79c. Doesn't seem to be too bad, but I'll have to compare my numbers to others to get a good idea.

What's a good test program to stress the CPU a bit so I can get a real feel for my max temps?

Oh, and the difference between the T5550 and X9000 is crazy. Borderlands is loving the new CPU... before I would have lots of slow down and stuttering (at max settings though). Currently I'm running max settings and it's amazing how smooth the gameplay is. I think I've only see a couple of stutters, but those were related to HDD loading or the GPU and tons of flame/particle effects.

Happy I was able to find some X9000s at reasonable prices.

thanks again to all the tips, info and suggestions.

 

I would recommend taking your pick between the T9300/T9500/X9000 which is 45nm, as opposed to the X7800/X7900 which is built upon the 65nm. 45nm uses less power and produces less heat than 65nm and since its smaller allows more transistors to fit into the same space. The T9300 is what I am currently using and I must admit it runs very cool and uses so much less power than my previous T5250, I would definitely recommend using any of the T9xx series, I had the option to utilize a X9000 chip but I refused because I don't really want to deal with overheating issues as my laptop is already 3.5 years old.

Also, the T9300 is far cheaper than all of those viable upgradable options mentioned in this thread, mine was listed at $135 on eBay and I was able to talk it down to $125. The T9500 will cost around $200 something easy, also keep in mind I was able to get the T9300 *NEW* for that price, not used, refurbished or anything of that sort.

 

Thanks for the suggestions.... I'll assume you didn't read most of the thread or my last post though.

I've already bought two X9000 CPUs ($427 shipped for both) and the first one arrived the other day so I was just tossing out an update.

It's still good info though as this thread might show up on someone's google search in a year or two.

 

LMAO, I didn't even realize more than a page to this thread existed, wow I must be tired. But yeah, that's a pretty diesel price to pay for processors but honestly, that T5500 probably wasn't going to make it past this summer.

 

It's all good.

Playing around with Orthos ATM. It seems my "limit" is 3.4Ghz. Orthos will give some "rounding greater than 5" error unless I put my VID to 1.3125. At that point the program will run, but my temps sky rocket. The highest I allowed before stopping the test was 98c... I also had an instant PC shutdown at one point too, but don't know the temp that was reached.

What's funny is that my computer can game and seems fully stable at 3.4Ghz & 1.3 VID (I BSOD at 3.4Ghz & 1.2VID)... so I'm not sure if it's an issue with Orthos being a Beta or not. Just trying to decide if 3.0 via BIOS is plenty or if I want to run ThrottleStop and push 3.2Ghz or (big maybe) 3.4Ghz.

Right now at 3.4Ghz & 1.3125 VID my idle temps are around 43-45c. But I am concerned about Orthos being able to get my temps so high and that error message it gives. Any thoughts?

 

I don't think I messed around with RM Clock when I installed the T9300, I only installed and set everything to automatic so it gives me performance as I need it. It took so long on the T5250 to find the right margin but at really, I ended up running the processor at 0.9500 Volts, this one I assume will require at the very least 1.125 volts to run properly so I'm just letting it do it automatically.

 

nice. are all laptops overclockable with throttlestop?

 

All laptops with extreme CPUs are overclockable with throttle stop.

Nice purchase with the X9000. I had one in my 6860fx and it was awesome.

 

did you try cooking some eggs already Told you it's gonna run hot as hell. I dont know about you, but something tells me part at ~100 deg C in my laptop is no good.

 

I really wonder how much physical stress it puts on the motherboard, itself, or is there any to begin with?

 

The temps are OK at 3.2Ghz and below, it's just at 3.4Ghz I have to add too much VID and the temps then go crazy when maxing the CPU with Orthos.

It is an ES version so that might be part of it. I should get the retail version on Monday and then I can test that to see if it's any different.

It's not like it really matters, I just wanted to see what the chip could do with my stock cooling. I'm currently only running at the BIOS default of 3.0Ghz and everything is still as slick as butter.

I'm just not sure it's worth an extra 200Mhz to also have ThrottleStop running in the background... maybe... maybe not.