Processor T7700 Vs T9300

Is it really worth it to upgrade to a processor that is only 100MHz faster to gain less heat and power usage, I have seen benchmarks and they are close enough to be insignificant. Keep in mind, I just bought this, just wondering if anyone had done this upgrade and had been blown away by the performance. (in an shape) Id really like a T9500, but thats a 3rd of the cost of the laptop, not really worth it IMO.

 

If you already have the notebook, than no it isn't reasonable IMHO.

 

What exactly will you be doing with your laptop? You will not be able to notice any difference between the two CPU if all you do is surf the web, create documents, and play computer games. Only some of the most CPU intensive tasks will benefit from such an upgrade, such as encoding video or batch execution.

The battery improvement will not be significant. Most of the power is usually used up by your display/HD/GPU, if you are not carrying out CPU intensive tasks in battery mode.

 

Not worth it cost is too high. Save the money for when you replace for other reasons. As Budding said on much you would not notice but I would go so far as to say even if doing CPU intensive tasks economically not worth it. If you must have faster consider selling what you have and buying new (cost). But you might find yourself doing this every 3 months so, don't do. Wait at least a year or two.

 

if u have merom there is no reason to upgrade to penryn. wait for an year or so and upgrade to Nehalem Auburndale in calpello platform. That should be a great upgrade.

 

Do it in a year or so when your warranty has expired and the penryn chips prices have dropped.

 

As an upgrade, it isn't worth it. The T9300 is in the $300-400 range for the CPU alone, last I checked, and the T7700 won't get as good of resale as one might like.

As a new purchase, Penryn wins. It doesn't cost much more as part of a new build, and while the improvements may not be major, they're worth the minimal price increase.

 

I totally agree.

Penryn has better architecture. Higher speed. 45nm technology. Lower overall cost. Bettter CPU.

 

Fortunately for my wallet, Because I got it through work and its a "Business" Notebook, it has a 3 year factory warranty! YAY!!! so taking it apart in a year, not unless I wanna void it, but that wasn't something I had considered... I feel like such an airhead sometimes

 

It's just a die-shrink version and it's not worth it if upgrading from the T7700, which is still one of the most powerful CPUs at this moment, unless he runs some really intensive tasks and every second matters, there won't be noticeable differences in performance.
If you want a new micro-architecture, wait for Nehalem.

 

I believe that was the point. As was the point that if purchasing a new system, Penryn is worth it.

Penryn is a bit more than just a die-shrink; it adds SSE4 instructions, and has additional power-saving circutry that gives the processor one additional sleep state for better energy saving, in addition to the die shrink. Further increases in efficiency make it 5-10% faster in most applications.

Is 10% worth $300-400? Of course not. However, it's worth $0-50 (it's a free upgrade on some systems like the Lenovo ThinkPad line) if you're buying a new system, to get an extra 10-20 minutes of battery life plus the extra performance.

 

Well said, I totally agree.

The T9300 at it's current price may not be worth $300-400 for upgrade costs today, however that price will drop as more processors come out and will be included in more notebooks as a standard much like the T7700 nowadays and at the point it becomes an easy upgrade decision. Keep in mind that the T7700 was at a much higher price point when it was first released much like the T9300 and T9500 at the moment.

 

Sure there is percentage difference in performence IF you use the CPU 100% of its power, that being said unless you uses really intensive tasks, you won't notice the 10% difference...
Of course if $50 is not a big deal, I'd go head and grab the T9300. And the 10-20 minutes battery life is relative, it's only slightly better with Penryn.
And I think upgrading the CPU will void the warranty, not too sure, don't take my word for it.

 

Wow, HP charges a $225 premium.

 

As I said, twice, it isn't worth it for an upgrade, however, it IS worth it for a new system. I won't bother repeating it again, I think this third time is enough. It was quite clear in both of my previous posts, and on these points, you are repeating exactly what I said, so I don't know why you're arguing the point when we're both of the same opinion.

If a processor is only faster when it was at 100% usage, it would only make sense for people to have the fastest processors if their systems ran at 100% the majority of the time. However, this is incorrect. In fact, Intel is increasingly moving towards an architecture where getting certain operations done quicker is important, because when an operation is completed quicker, the processor can go back to low-power mode, increasing battery life. This is one of the primary design goals with Nehalem, though Intel has already done some of this starting with the Pentium M (Banias) on up to the current Penryn architecture. Intel is increasingly moving focus away from brute CPU power in the desktop/mobile world, and moving towards efficiency, designing their CPUs to work smarter rather than harder, and thus consuming less power.

Result: even when the 10% doesn't seem noticeable to the average user, there are benefits to the increase in performance, especially if the wattage consumed remains the same, or in some cases, decreases. The processor is done with the task quicker, and can therefore resume low-power state sooner, increasing battery life.

Ouch. Dell and Lenovo turn out to be better deals then for the money, I guess.

 

I wasn't arguing with you, I was talking about the OP's case, that he doesn't need an upgrade.
and the rest of what you say, well let's just take your word for it.
Cheer

 

I just purchased a new hp laptop with the T9300. I was considering getting a Dell, but I prefer HP notebooks better. Hp does charge $225 for the T9300, but Dell charges more (and less) depending on configuration. I was considering an XPS m1530.
With the "GOOD" ($999) and Product Red ($1149) configurations, dell charges $300 for the T9300.
With the "Better" ($1348) configuration, dell charges $250 for the T9300.
With the "BEST" ($1398) configuration, dell charges $200 for the T9300.

I was wanting the T9300, so I decided to get the HP. I could have gotton the "BETTER" XPS m1530 with the T9300 (You have to add the Nvidia 8600m GT) for around $1800, and that's a lot. With my prefered additions of a 250GB hard drive, Wireless N, and 9-Cell Battery, About $1900.

My HP costed me around $1300. Only drawbacks the HP has compared to the Dell is a lower screen resolution, smaller screen, Nvidia 8400m GS, No slot loading drive, VGA Webcam, and No Fingerprint reader.
I'm really happy with my purchase. I really don't really care for these drawbacks. I don't need a high resolution screen or slot loading drive. Only thing I wished for was the fingerprint reader which the dv2800tae doesn't offer.

Good thing about Dell is that they have more options in configuration. HP is kinda limited where Dell offers the older processors and HP only offers the new Penryns.

 

so any one knows when Nehalem becomes available ?

 

Ollirac, you are right , Dell offers more configurable laptops and PCs.

And HP does not even offer CTO here in Asia, if I wanted the AE(artist edition) , I'd have to get it with T5550 and the NV 8400GS with 128 GDDR3.

If I wanted the Verve one , I would have to get T7500 or T8100 (no other options).

And if I wanted DV67 0r 68 series , I would have to get 4gb of ram which I really don want to get , I would like to get the DV6800 but only when I can get it with 2gb ram and 160gb HDD.

why HP force us to get like these set models?

I hope Dell will do some serious business in SE Asia soon.

 

Yeah, It kinda sucks that HP limits CTO models abroad. HP should make CTO models availiable everywhere. I think the problem with making CTO availiable worldwide is HP having to deal with a huge number of orders. People would probably see their Estimated Build Dates go from maybe 2 weeks to a Month. Hp would have to order and restock many parts and we would see shortages that would cause the increase in build time.

It would be nice though if HP does make CTO availiable. If not, they should at least make better pre-configured models. Many of the pre-configured laptops I see today at stores all have the same pattern. They all have a Big hard drive, lots of ram, maybe a dedicated graphics card or Wireless N with bluetooth, but when it comes to the Processor, they usually use one of the lower end models. When it has Intel, they always use the T5XXX (ex, T5250, T5450, T5550), sometimes the T2XXX on lower end models. For AMD, pretty much the TK-57, TL-58 And TL-60.

 

What about the difference between a T8100 and a T9300?

Both are Penryn chips, so it isn't as much of an upgrade from the T7700. However, the T9300 runs at 2.4GHz and has double the cache. In the notebook I am ordering it is only about $100 to upgrade.

Worth it? And something I was wondering is will a more powerful processor consume more power (the T9300 compared to the T8100)?

 

You also have the option of going the middle-ground, and going to the T8300 if it is available. The T8300 is actually the CPU that runs at 2.4GHz (the T9300 runs at 2.5GHz); the T9300 does double the cache of the T8300 though.