T9300 vs. T9500 ~ Need advice!

I'm already getting the "Intel® 45nm "Penryn" Core™2 Duo T9300 2.5GHz w/6MB L2 On-die cache - 800MHz FSB" in my new Sager when I buy it. But I was wondering about the "Intel® 45nm "Penryn" Core™2 Duo T9500 2.6GHz w/6MB L2 On-die cache - 800MHz FSB" which comes for an extra $225. Now it has the same cache and the clock speed has a really tiny increase. Is this really worth it, because I might just be ready to spend for it. Nothing really special about it, right ? It's not Core 2 Extreme or anything?
And a side question, what exactly is so special about core 2 extreme (other than higher clock speeds) ? Is it available as a notebook processor? And the quad core ?

 

The extreme processors have unlocked multipliers, so you can overclock them by simply increasing the multiplier in the bios, this only works if the computer's bios supports it though.

I don't think the T9500 is worth it, you'd be paying several hundred dollars more for a 0.1 ghz increase in the processor speed as compared to the T9300.

 

So I thought...

 

There is nothing special about the T9500 compared to a T9300 except the extra 100mhz clock speed.

It has to be one of the most pointless intel processors of all time.

 

lol Maybe if it would have had a larger cache like 8MB it would have appealed to people bothering to buy it. But $225 for 100Mhz is just making me ROFLMFAO that's like $2.25 per Mhz LITERALLY.

 

Same like others said, it is an useless upgrade. Sure, if you don't care about money you can get it, but you could say the same for the X9000.

 

What's the X9000 ? And well, this thread confirms it. I'm going with the T9300, because I do care about money.

 

The X9000 is an extreme processor, same FSB and L2 cache as the T9300 and T9500, but it's processor speed is 2.8 ghz and it can be overclocked.

 

To answer that question, quad cores aren't available in laptops yet, unless you get a laptop with a desktop processor because those do exist.

Montevina, the 5th generation Centrino platform, is set to include the first notebook designed quad core processor. Montevina is due for release later this year.

 

Partially true, because it will only be one, an extreme version and it will cost around 1k. Q3 or Q4 will bring more CPUs.

 

Is it worth waiting then ? And how long would this wait be ? Also, would it be VERY expensive when released ? Or should I just make my purchase next month ? I really REALLY wanted quad...

 

Yes, it will be VERY VERY expensive! the only quad core they are releasing is going to be an Extreme processor.

Well Penryn only just came out so now is a good time to buy, don't expect montevina to be in consumer laptops for at least another 6 months.

 

Montevina is coming in May. And if you don't get a quad core, at least you get a dual core using on 25w or less of power!

 

Yeah I just hope (wish) they release a more pedestrian quad before the fall (when I plan on upgrading again), because a nice 2-2.5 ghz Quad would be perfect for editing without needing it to be 'extreme'.

As for the original question, which was already answered, there's far ore productive ways to spend that $225 to make you system faster, heck even buying different software or blowing on an XFi (regardless of whether you notice the difference ornot) would be more worthy.

Heck spending half that money on beer would make everything seem faster as your brain slows down.

 

They will release cheaper quads until the end of 2008, that's for sure. It's going to probably be Q3 or early Q4, as some may think, but I'll stick to my Q4 (maybe very late 2008) prediction.

 

Yeah I know eventually, I just prefer to get my new laptops before ski season starts and suddenly my money focus is elsewhere.

 

Regarding the extreme X9000:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=218406


As for the T9500, if the T9300 is also available the T9500 is in no way at all ever under any circumstances worth an extra $225.

 

Agreed, the T9500 is way too expensive for 100Mhz extra.
About your signature, Paris Hilton is ugly on the outside, not only the inside.

 

its not going to increase your performaance at all, i mean, like .01 fps, so it doesnt matter, its not worht it

 

Yes ofcourse. T9500 is out of question. Thanks!

 

T9300 2.5GHz is defiantly the best, the only real choice, and the best power for money imo, the lower clocks just dont seem worth getting!

 

Yeah. That's what I'm getting. The X9000 is too tempting! But too expensive as well..

 

I would say it is in the high power processor category, 6MB of catch + , and like I said spending more money on this is not worth it, better spending money else ware, like SSD, you will get massive performance increase compared to a higher processor!

 

OKay... SSD ??

EDIT: solid state drive ?

 

Yes SSD = Solid State Drive.

The main benefit of them over normal Hard Drives is the extremely fast access times 0.1ms (SSD) vs. 15ms (normal HDD). Read/Write speeds are comparable to 7200rpm hard drives, currently.

 

Thanks! But I'm fine with a normal disk. Either that or the X9000 would really kick it way over my maxxed out budget.

 

I'm not sold on SSD's yet either

 

Year the price + storage is a bummer!

 

SSDs are great, but low on space and I need at least 200GB. What am I going to do with a 32/64/128GB one? The 128GB one is worth as much as a almost fully loaded 5793.
T9300 it is!
Always remember to get an extended warranty, as the standard one doesn't cut it. Who knows when it's going to break...

 

Ideally (and hypothetically), if you had like unlimited cash , you could get a primary SSD 64GB drive for your windows installation (C and everything else on a large secondary drive.

 

A 256GB SSD would work for me. Even a 128GB would, but with an external drive.

 

Agreed, 256GB would be perfect, right now at least.

 

I have a Sager NP5793 with a T7500 and am wondering if it would be much advantage to upgrade to the T9300. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for the input.

 

You should only get the T9500 if you are going to be playing something very processor heavy (like Supreme Commander) or multitasking, both of which also require large amounts of RAM (2-4GB) The T9500 is only .3GHz faster (300MHz) but it has a large cache (6MB as opposed to the T7500's 4MB)
It really depends on what you are going to use it for. (The cache is a factor in how fast it is because it's kinda like processor-RAM, if I understand correctly, it stores often used info for the processor) Of course the FSB is the same on both (800MHz)

 

You summed it up PERFECTLY there. Its interesting from a consumers standpoint because EITHER

1. It costs Intel a significant amount more to produce a near twin chip with a 100 MHZ faster clock speed.

2. Intel is trying to rip us off

3. The resellers are trying to rip us off.


I think I will go with #2