T8300 vs T9300

Hello,

I'm thinking about getting the sony sz with the penryn processors. But i can't decided if i want the T8300 (2.4 mhz /w L2 3mb) or T9300 (2.5 mhz /w L2 6mb). The price difference is about 170 dollars, and i'm wondering if there will be a noticable difference for me to spend the extra money for .1 mhz and 3mb. I'd like to find some benchmarks done on the two processors on a common platform, but i have not found any.

What do you think, Is it worth it? any insight or advice will be greatly appreciated

tia

 

First of all, what are you using the laptop for? For most people the T8300 would be plenty of power.

Unless you need to squeeze every ounce of power out of your laptop, the T8300 will probably suffice.

Greg

 

penryn take less power and do less heat.. but for the performance you wont see any difference

 

I'm a computer scientist, so i do a lot of programming. I like to go to coffee shops, barnes and noble, starbucks, etc... to do my work. So i'm trying to get a notebook that is portable, but capable of handling most of my task. Most of my programs are simple, but i do occassionally need the a powerful computer for matlab or number crunching.

 

There is not a big difference. I think you looked at a ThinkPad (and therefore the too high price difference).

 

Considering people were likely doing exactly what you do w/PIII and not having a problem. Both are so over powered I doubt about a year ago anything in a notebook as powerful as either. I have not seen benchmarks with these on the same system I would like to see but don't think it has been done yet. Here is a link that compares 2MB vs 4MB L2 since that is all I have I have too guess off that. Increasing L2 beyond a critical amount starts reducing returns, I feel very confident that 3MB is beyond that critical point. So with the 2MB vs 4MB average 3.5% difference I feel confident in saying the 3MB vs 6MB would not be greater and might be less. Clocks 9300 has 4% more so even in the most CPU intensive tasks you might see a 7% improvement w/9300. I would get T9300 for bragging rights but I don't think anyone "needs" the difference between these two. And in almost all tasks difference would be imperceptible with out a stopwatch or maybe atomic clock.

 

Totally agree, well thought out.

I placed an order for a T8300

 

Hmmm,

2.4Ghz T8300 3MB $259 in box

2.5Ghz T9300 6MB $336 in box

I choose the T9300. I totally agree that the T8300 should be more than enough.
I’m really interested in the TDP in both these chips over my 34watt T5450.

TAT sent my T5450 up to 70C in both cores during 15 minute run. I’ve seen one post that the Penryn 9300 hit 40C. I’ll have to run it when chip arrives.

 

TDP in both 35w. I think smaller die should help but at full speed might get hotter.

 

Thanks, this could get interesting. The one poster used core temps? I'm off to dig around the intel site.

 

If looking around Intel for things like Max watts, I have never been able to find when I look. And I know TDP is a number they come up with based on assumptions of the usage and is not the Max heat that has to be dissipated. So good luck and post what you find. I do not think a 1w diff in TDP should matter and you can always use a cooler if running high stress apps.

 

Yes, TDP is 35W for both processors, but Intel admitted they just used the some TDP as Santa Rosa for ease the life of manufacturers. Remember, TDP is only an indication for how to build the system (cooling, power supply etc), a sort of upper limit, but the processor can dissipate much less.
25w penryns due to arrive in may should be identical to actual penryns, only with a higher FSB speed...

 

I'll post when chip arrives. I read all sorts of conflicting claims of TDP on the web but as powerpack reported, Intel rates the early Penryns at 35 watts.

I've saved some benchmarks I made for comparison but would love to pop in a T7600 for further comparisons.

My apology to the OP for hijacking your thread

cheers