Which processor is sufficant enough for my needs?

The T4400 is almost obsolete yes, but it's not a relic.

As Trottel said, the day internet and MS office will be too much for the T4400, the Core i series will also be way gone.

 

Essentially a usefull relic, to me is something obsolete. The reason I stated "usefull as of today". I can not guarenty future usefullness of the item and I won't. Can I state the i cores usefull life, nope I surelly can't do that either. Will an i3 still be usefull beyond a T4400 who knows. I can say the i3 stands a better chance at it though.

Before I purchased my current laptop with a T6500 I tried the one with a T4400 in it, it felt anemic by comparison all else being equal. I've now upgraded the T6500 to a P9600 and it's feel is even that much better.

Did the T4400 function, yes. Was it being anemic a nice feeling, no especially since it was new and systems tend to slow down over time with updates and the like. This let alone software upgrades, plugins, other possible software applications, AV etc etc etc.

Edit; the biggest problem with the T4400 is the 1Meg L2. The core runs at ample speed. With todays applications and 64Bit etc. 1Meg L2 just isn't enough and gives the T4400 the anemic feeling. This combined with any type of multitasking can bring an otherwise fast core to its knee's, so don't just go by its clock rate.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?i...00+(1M+Cache,+2.20+GHz,+800+MHz+FSB)+Socket+P

 

uhhm i thought i said

by what means?
(Microsoft office, view videos, and web browsing).

its like having a 1000W Power Supply to power an ultra low voltage cpu

the chipset on T4400 (GM45) ICH9M already supports SATA 2 3.0Gbps

really?

ddr3 sound better than ddr2 right?
7200RPM sounds better than 5400 right?

but the question is how much better?

ddr3 uses less voltage
how much longer battery life?

7200RPM is faster in benchmarks
how much faster in real life?

people tends to fall on marketing ploy by those greedy companies
for $100 upgrade, he can spend that money on something much more usefull like (higer resolution, SSD or video card upgrade)

people tend to overlook the value of money and just fall on"higher is better"
but always forgot to ask "how much better?, how much faster?"

by the time this system becomes obsolete. cheaper, faster, more efficient laptops and possibly new technologies(OLED, Blueray, etc)will become mainstream and affordable

people don't need to futureproof them selves, just get the thing what you need, and if your machine becomes obsolete, newer, cheaper products will become available

don't waste your money on something else you dont need

life is not only by computers, you could spend that money on something else

 

That Dell Studio is expensive man... $650 for T4400???? LOL.

Get one of these and add an SSD. You will see MUCH more improvement than those Dell Studio's.

Newegg.com - Acer Aspire AS5732Z-4598 NoteBook Intel Pentium T4400(2.20GHz) 15.6" 4GB Memory DDR2 667 250GB HDD 5400rpm DVD Super Multi Intel GMA 4500M

Heck you can even add a 80GB Intel X-25M G2.

 

Again the problem with the T4400 is the 1meg L2, and yes this is very much noticable side by side. Now if you are saying he will be tossing the T4400 in the future for say a Pxxx series in the future, I'd agree but by your own standards why waiste the money?

You say how much faster is a 7200 rpm drive but then advocate a SSD, now you will have to admit that this still becomes an upgrade question trying to improve performance. Personally I have a much faster system with my 7K500 over the stock 320 GB WD Blue. Not as fast as an SSD but measurably faster.

If the T4400 in my own personal experience were not anemic feeling, I would shut up and go away. I recently had a person at work about to drop money on a T4400 laptop for a birthday present for her husband. I steered her away from it and to an i5. Needless to say he loves the system even with all the bloatware intact as it seems really fast and smooth to him.

 

I was just trying to show him that the Dell Studio is really expensive and what he can get with the same amount of money.

I'm pretty sure if he is not doing anything intensive but only surfing web, doing office, and viewing videos, the SSD will make the laptop feel snappier than a Core i3 will.

Not all HDD are made the same. Even rated at the same RPM; one HDD can be faster than another. How fast programs load is mostly affected by HDD speed. Installing the fastest SSD on a computer won't help a bit in gaming because gaming is heavy on the CPU + GPU instead of the SSD. The SSD will make the game load faster but that's it.

 

Agree the T4400 is usable, I'll agree too Dell price for it (T4400) is insane.

SSD helps at first load. From the the browser or word etc is cached in ram and will load up quite rapidly be it a 5400, 7200 or SSD on opening the second time and beyond per session. I'm not detering away from SSD's feeling snappy, they surely do more than a CPU upgrade. SSD's will not help with multitasking or the anemic feeling of 1Meg L2.

 

btw to the OP
if your commited to dell, i have a deal for you

Dell Studio 15 s1555-4286C 15.6
15.6 in WXGA TrueLife LED backlit (1366 x 768)
Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 2.20 GHz, L2 cache 2 MB
4 GB DDR2 800 MHz
500 GB SATA 5400 RPM
Windows 7 Home Premium
Slot-load DVD+/-R
Memory card reader (SD/MMC/MS/MS Pro/xD)
2 built-in speakers
5.1 Channel Dolby Digital
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD with shared graphics memory
2 USB 2.0
eSATA
Headphone output (2)
Microphone input
HMDI
VGA (15-pin)
RJ-45 (LAN)
Battery
9-cell lithium-ion (8 hours)
Camera
Built-in webcam with microphone
Wireless
802.11a/b/g/draft N

for $849 - 40% off code: CLR-MSAFL-40%-PC = $509 + free shipping
Dell Studio 15


or if you want performance and open to other brands


Lenovo G460 06772WU 14.0
Intel Core i5-430M Processor 2.26GHz 1066MHz 3MB
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64
NVIDIA GeForce 310M 512MB
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1066MHz
14.0" WXGA LED Backlight TFT 1366x768
320GB 5400
DVD Recordable (Dual Layer)
6 Cell Lithium-Ion
Intel Wireless Wi-Fi Link 1000
Bluetooth Version 2.1 + EDR

for $899.00 - $50.00 instant discount - Use coupon USP0422SVE for $200 off in cart. = $699 + free shipping
Lenovo G460


or if you want thin and light + long battery life with a discrete graphics


ASUS UL30VT-A1 13.3
Intel Core 2 Duo CULV SU7300 1.3GHz Processor
4GB DDR3 1066MHz RAM
500GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
13.3" HD 16:9 (1366x768) LED Backlight Display
Integrated 0.3MP Webcam
nVIDIA G210M 512MB DDR3 + Embedded Intel GMA 4500MHD Video
802.11b/g/n Wireless LAN
10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet LAN
Built-in Azalia compliant Audio chip, with 3D effect & full duplex (3D Stereo Enhanced Sound System)
2 Built-in Altec Lansing Speakers
8 Cell Battery that provides 10+ hours of battery life
4-in-1 Card Reader SD, MMC, MS, MS-PRO
Ports: 3 x USB 2.0, RJ-45 (LAN), Headphone-out (with S/PDIF), Microphone-in, VGA, HDMI
Dimensions (WxDxH): 12.68 x 9.17 x 0.59-0.97 inches
Weight: 3.7 pounds

for $849.99 - $110.99 + Bing Cashback Bing Link, click on "J" to sort to J&R signup if you dont have bing or sign in then u type in search ASUS UL30VT-A1 13.3" = $702.05 after bing cash back

 

really?
what do you mean by multitasking?
how about running a antivirus scan and browsing web at the same time?
how about switching from a game to windows messenger?
how about searching for a file in windows then watching highdefinition movie at the same time?
how about copying files while installing software at the same time?
how about if an application crashes?

 

I wasn't advocating the P4, just saying that for "basic use", it still does fine so I see no reason why a T4400 wouldn't.

I'm interested in TANware's repeated use of the word "anemic" though; precision on his experience with a T4400 and comparing it to an older and obsolete CPU like the Pentium 4(or the Pentium M/D) is what I'd like to accomplish .

 

The difference between 1 MB and 3 MB cache is not noticeable during normal Office and web usage. It will only show during calculations like zipping or encoding and a spell check.

There was probably another problem with the computer you were using. I'm guessing different hard drives.

I've owned a HP DM1 with SU2300 (1.2 GHz 1MB cache) and DM3 SU4100 (1.3 GHz 2 MB cache). I couldn't tell the difference.

Again, the T4400 will handle web and office more than fine. The T4400 runs at 2.2 GHz, I do everything with 1.3 GHz. And even that is more than fast enough for what I do (office, video, web, multi tasking).

Will it be enough in 3 years? No one knows but I think even 1.3 GHz will be enough. But I keep my computer clean which makes a huge difference.

 

Phil, I beg to differ, I used, albeit shortly, a T4400 and T6500 on Vista 64 at the time and could handily tell the difference. The desktop felt smoother, the IE browser and office 2007 worked better. There was a definate difference that I could see and feel. Was it worlds appart no, but the difference was there.

With Windows 7 maybe there is less of a difference as the OS seems less resource dependent, The same may be said if XP were on the systems. but again I am going by my own experience, I am sorry if you hadn't seen the same.

I can tell you there was more of a difference in general use of the T4400 to the original T6500 I had than from that to the P9600 in here now. what is anemic to me may not be to you. a number I do remember.

Both systems from desktop with restart back to desktop. The T6500 57 seconds the T4400 69 seconds. both had the same bloatware etc, both 320 GB 5400 drives, although could have been different manufacturer drives. The general feel to the system was about the same, while minimal in lag there felt to be that about 10% slower (or should I say laggy) with the T4400. Again though it was perfectly usable.

I will say though, with my current system as an example I have upgraded the cpu, first to a P8400 and then to a P9600 and it has made absolutely no difference in boot and extreemly minimal difference otherwise. My present boot is 32 seconds. Yes it though has made a difference working with RAW files and converting video. but that isn't the OP's intended use.

Same here I keep it clean too. And yes this does make a huge difference. I have seen many a powerhouse of a system brought to a crawl by adding useless stuff..........

 

Your testing doesn't seem rigorous enough to accept as evidence on its own.

 

its either your computer is flooded with virus or bloatware crap
my netbook(asus 1005HE)Intel Atom+ Intel X25-V never slows down

 

That's what I would expect. For example: a Seagate 320GB 5400.5 is a lot slower than a WD3200bevt. Both are 320GB 5400rpm drives.

 

No it isnt as rigerous as I would have liked but it did leave an impression. Stores tend to frown on your coming in with programs to run on their systems.

These were store systems I was refering too. They were loaded with bloatware (same bloatware though), hopefully the AV they had prevented a virus. Too short of a visit with them and little looking under the hood. Again this was a comparison of the two systems they had and not a full anilization of the systems.

I agree with the boot and my thought at the time comparing them. I also to dispell this possability would re-open the browser and office etc to see how it loaded from cache. Both were fast of course then but the T6500 felt just a bit faster,. If it were the same 10% I don't know as I did not have a stop watch but it felt slightly faster.

I have to again say the T4400 is fully usable even with Vista. It is just down the line the i3 is more likely to be more usable. If you are retentive as we are then I'd never wory about it other than upgrades etc.

I look at it this way, if you know the users like my mom, once a day emails only on the net for light research etc, the T4400 is fine. Not knowing what he will do on the web or future expectations on the web, or even expectations off future web usage. The same is true of office and other home general use or future programs. So my outlook is i3 as the better of the two chioces.

With the i3 the OP will be less likely to be CPU limited in the future and may even have a better upgrade path if the need arose. If the OP is looking at as, it is what it is and disposable tech when it no longer cuts it, without a doubt get the T4400.

 

You are making stuff up (even if you truly believe what you are saying). There is no way possible that there was such a difference you describe between the T4400 (2.2Ghz 1MB cache) and T6500 (2.1Ghz 2MB cache). The processors cache does diddly for those kinds of operations, and the T4400 is clocked higher than the T6500. The processor does not make IE or office feel "snappier" as it is not being stressed as it is. The processor makes no difference for any of your "tests," so your perceptions were either made up to affirm your preconceived beliefs, or were real but due to another entirely different factor.

Moreover, I have tested a slew of different processors in my laptop, most at various clock speeds, and I can tell you that unless the processor is quite slow, there is no perceptible difference for any basic tasks. Even a single core is enough, although it's lower clockspeed threshold of perception is a tad higher.

 

I forgot one more thing, Both were net connected, I streamed from you Tube 720P Poker face, The T4400 ws about 50% cpu usage and the T6500 was about 35% cpu usage, that was the nail in the coffin that made me go with the T6500. Again perfectly usable I just prefered 35% to 50%. This is pre HD accelerated flash. This also was durring the data stream so the CPU etc was handling the decryption of the data etc while playing.

Trottle I do not attribute the difference to core speed but L2 Cache. The CPU spinning it wheels so to say. I make nothing up, no reason too, again a breif exposure and my impressions........

Edt; I am also admiting my mistake. The T4400 was $100 cheaper on sale then too. If I'd have realized I was going to change out the CPU and HDD I would have been better off saving the money, my bad.........

 

You must be mistaken:

 

I am comparing two other systems, probably now different flash versions since then (some time last year have to dig out the reciepts), Vista with IE, thier bloatware, alot of variables. You are also showing the video data stream done if you are on wireless that should eat some cpu cycles and that can count too on your encryption etc.......

Edit Added my system now, P9600 Flash 10.0..........

Edit2; Your link looked different than the one I captured, this second pic for me plays though out of synch, weird........

 

That is not the same video I used. Here are my results with your video, fully downloaded just like you have it (I couldn't tell a difference between downloading and fully downloaded anyway). Load was from as little as 7% to as high as 19% through the whole video, but it stayed between 11 and 15% most of the time.

 

360p?.......
Also what OS? Memory foot print is small is why I ask. Also you are optimized I would guess so and again what bloatware if any, those were in store display systems I was playing with and loaded with all the junk and yucky non optimized Vista. there alot of variables and this really is not relevant to what I saw at the time on those machines.

I added yours, as I said played out of synch for me so not sure it is a good benchmark for me to use. I have all the bloatware too. My system is fast enough I haven't bothered removing it.

Edit; Here is mine with the 360P data stream still coming in

 

Now thats a nice laptop! I dont get paid til tomorrow and they already sold out of the black ones!
The red dont accept the discount codes. I guess because it is on clearance or something.
The discount code is going on til May 31 so hopefully they more in.

I just got off the phone with the Microsoft Store and they are already sold out of all the Dell Studios!
I guess they had a limited amount of coupon uses.
Crap!
If only I got paid a day early!
Hopefully I can find a deal like that soon.

 

I figured out the difference. SSE4, which has been used to greatly increase flash performance, among other things, is disabled on the celeron and pentium dual-core.

 

That actually was a great deal. I had the T6500 CPU and can say ist is an ample lower end C2D (only 800FSB and 2Meg L2). And that price was just awesome, a great find like that was bound not to last though...........

very well could be, the T4400 also lists as pentium dual core (arc), I know it was what when I saw the flash performance it swayed me..........

Intel® Pentium® Processor T4400 (1M Cache, 2.20 GHz, 800 MHz FSB) Socket P with SPEC Code(s) SLGJL

 

flash 10.1 introduces gpu accelaration which the 4500mhd supports and can playback smoothly which is sufficient enough for the OP needs

Intel's GS45M chipset and CULV processor Flash 10.1 HD playback

AnandTech Tests GPU Accelerated Flash 10.1 Prerelease

(sample video)Flash 10.1 YouTube 1080p HD Video on 11.6" CULV Notebook - Works Great!

 

The point was why would a similarly clocked T4400 feel anemic compared to a T6500 etc. I figured it to just be cache size but if trottel is correct and no SSE4 that could be a very good reason as well............

 

Well, if my 2Ghz dual-core merom-based celeron can play 1080p flash video without fully loading the processor, how could the T4400 feel "anemic" if that is its most demanding task?

 

going from 1mb l2 to 2mb wont be a huge difference, also afaik not all software take advantage of SSE4.1(the amd processor has different version of SSE4a)
afaik the only software that benefits from sse4.1 are adobe photoshop, virtualdub, pcsx2(ps2 emulator) which the op wont use













source: Does Cache Size Really Boost Performance? : What Is The Impact Of Cache Size?

 

guy's I can only tell you I felt and saw a difference, I could feel it in the desktop, I saw i in the boot up, I finally opened my wallet when I saw Flash. Other than the two different cache sizes at the time I could see no real difference in the specks. same software, same size and speed drive, same chipsets, same memory size and speed. It was a BB variant that was on sale but I did not want it. If I'd of realized I was going to change out the CPU and HDD I would have been well off with it, live and learn.

BTW, I am not talking synthetics, I had none available to me at the time, and trust me I wanted some as I couldn't believe it myself. I am talking a short real world comparison. Throw all the synthetics out there you want too.............

 

have you factor these things?

drivers(old, conflicting)
viruses, malwares, conflicting softwares
software versions
drive free space
hardrive fragmentation(defrag)
dust accumulation on cpu
temperature

 

I have to eat some crow here, I just saw the release date of the T4400, it could not have been the system I was looking at, It seems it was the T4300 or T4200 in an Asus. I appologize, as this is a 2.1 GHz part not 2.2 GHz. I do still remember the T6500 @ 2.1 or 2.0 GHz should have been in no way that much faster as this was it's selling point for me.............

So my appolgies, but my opinion still stands to the i3 over the T4400 as 0.1 GHz, even though it is 5% over the one I saw, is not going to make it feel that much better. my experience, since a cpu is only part of a system, for 5% more cpu you get 1%-2% better desktop experience if you are lucky. And I'll again agree with ALL OF YOU. I do not know why the T6500 made such a dramatic difference, it didn't make sence to me then either......

Dude you are right, totally uncontroled. I didn't see it clock down but I also wasn't fully loading it up either nor a definative way to watch it either. Again see above as it is my bad somewhat - it was a T4300/4200 not T4400 but it still should not have felt as bad as it did.

(this is old info on it)

 

I give up, when I was comparing the laptops it took me 3 hours on BB's site to find the variant model number then for the cheaper unit, it apparently was an outlet item then. I can't find diddly squat now on it. I thought it was 2.1 as well meaning T4300 but could have been T4200. BB U

 

But look, I have swapped in different processors into my laptop, with everything else being equal, and I could not tell any difference.

 

I thought we had already establish that you probably had different brand hard drives. It's far more likely than you being able to feel the difference between the CPUs.

 

I'd say i3 just in case you want to upgrade the processor later on - its a bit more future proof.

 

Wow I never expected this thread to hit 9 pages haha.
I appreciate everyone help!