q6600 quad core vs x9000 dual core

Good day i want to ask which of these processors is better for games?q6600 quad core or x9000 dual core?

 

Why would you compare a desktop CPU with a mobile CPU? I think the Q6600 is better.

 

It depends on the task. If most of the programs you are running can take advantage of four CPU cores, the Q6600 will be faster by about 71% for those programs. However, if you run mostly single-threaded programs (as most older programs are), or dual-threaded programs, the X9000 will be faster by about 16%. The best thing to do is to figure out if your most-used programs, and any you're planning to buy in the future, can take advantage of four or more cores, and decide based on that.

The other major consideration is that the Q6600 is a desktop processor (95 Watts) and will kill your battery life. The X9000 (45 Watts) uses more power than the vast majority of mobile processors (primarily 35 Watts), but still a lot less than desktop processors (primarily 65 Watts), and vastly less than quad-core desktop processors.

 

He is probably looking at the sager 9262, the one with quad core support.

I would go with the quad core, as it is a $250 chip or so, which is quite a lot cheaper than the X9000, which retails for near $1000. If you are concerned about performance, any desktop processor will beat the daylights out of a mobile one. The Q6600 is more than powerful enough to do anything. Plus the 9262 can support dual gpu's to maximize game performance.

K-TRON

 

and on games like crysis,bioshock,gears of war etc. which will be better?

 

Not sure, but if the games are multi core ready the quad will win for sure. Gaming performance is not usually determined by teh cpu, but the graphics card.
If gpu being the same in both the Q6600 will win as it delivers more than twice the Mflops and Mips of the slightly higher clocked x9000.

K-TRON

 

look at this NBR wPrime hall of fame

the basic Q6600 crushes all dual cores in benchmarks... especially shines when the app/game is multi-threaded.

developing games/apps are all multi-threaded.... so theres no reason to not go quad-core for a $200 pricetag.

 

The X9000 is nowhere near $1000, the X9100 is pretty close to that, and the X9300 is above that.

I'm going to say that wPrime's a decent indicator for multicore performance, however, while multi-core support is growing, most current games are not multi-core ready. Haven't seen mention of that many new games featuring multi-core support either.

For your list of games, Bioshock is. I'm thinking Crysis is (or at least dual core ready, not completely sure). Also, you're also likely to get gears of war performing terribly on a PC, not through any fault of the hardware, but rather terrible porting.

As mentioned previously, it's going to be largely about what you'll be using it for. A quad core will likely have a longer viable term of usage though.

 

Most Unreal Engine 3 games are multi-threaded... count on that... (beta testing them)

 

Yep, which includes Bioshock.

 

For sure UT3 is 100% multi-threaded... the more cores the better.

I wish Crysis was as optimized to utilize everything like UT3 did. Crysis is multi-threaded but poorly coded.... even during the beta... they did not listen (or cared to).

 

Out of curiosity, do you think Silicon Knights (makers of Gears of War) have any basis for their suit against Epic Games?

 

I was hearing about that this year at E3... not sure what to make of it really.

Kinda serious claims... I guess the facts will determine the case.

The Epic guys have been pretty cool bunch since I met them a while back. Not sure that the claims can be proven.

 

so which of theses notebooks will you chose?

this

Sager NP5796 Custom Notebook (Built on Clevo M570TU)
- 17" WUXGA "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1920x1200)
- Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound
- Standard Dead Pixel Policy
- ~Intel® X9100 45nm "Montevina" Core™2 Duo Extreme 3.06GHz w/6MB L2 On-die cache - 1066MHz FSB
(Overclockable up to 3.53GHz!)
- 1,024MB PCI-Express nVidia GeForce 9800M GTX DDR3 DX10 (User Upgradeable) (ETA Early August)
- ~ 4,096MB DDR3 1066MHz Dual Channel Memory (2 SODIMMS) (Requires Vista 64-Bit to recognize Full 4GB)
- 2GB Intel® Robson Turbo Memory II
- NP579x Silver Frame Trim Color (ETA August)
- Panasonic UJ-220 Blu-Ray Super Multi DVD+/ -R/RW BD-R/RE Dual Layer Burner -
- ~ 320GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300 - 16MB Cache)
- Internal 7-in-1 Card Reader (MS/MS Pro/MS Duo/MS Pro Duo/SD/Mini-SD/MMC/RS)
- Internal Bluetooth 2.0+ EDR
- Built-in Intel® PRO/Wireless 5300 802.11 a/g/n Wi-Fi Link
- Built in 2.0 Megapixel Camera
- Sound Blaster Compatible 3D Audio - Included
- Basic Black Business Case - Included
- Smart Li-ion Battery (8-Cell)

or this

SAGER NP9262 Ultimate Custom Laptop (Built on Clevo D900C / D901C)
- 17" WUXGA "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1920x1200)
- Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound
- Standard Dead Pixel Policy
- ~Intel Core 2 QUAD Q9550 2.83GHz w/ 12MB L2 Cache - 1333MHz FSB
- 1,024MB PCI-Express nVidia GeForce 9800M GTX DDR3 DX10 (User Upgradeable) (ETA Early August)
or
SLI ENABLED DUAL (2) 512MB PCI-Express nVidia GeForce 9800M GT (1024MB Total) w/GDDR3 DX10 Video Cards
- ~ 4,096MB DDR2 800 (2 SODIMMS) Dual Channel Memory (Requires Vista 64-Bit to recognize Full 4GB)
- Panasonic UJ-220 Blu-Ray Super Multi DVD+/ -R/RW BD-R/RE Dual Layer Burner -
- ~ 320GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300 - 16MB Cache)
- Internal 7-in-1 Card Reader (MS/MS Pro/MS Duo/MS Pro Duo/SD/Mini-SD/MMC/RS)
- Internal Bluetooth 2.0+ EDR
- Built-in Intel® PRO/Wireless 4965 802.11 a/g/n
- Built in 2.0 Megapixel Camera
- Sound Blaster Compatible 3D Audio - Included
- Basic Black Business Case - Included
- Smart Li-ion Battery (12 Cell)
- Microsoft USB Fingerprint Reader
- Full Size Notebook Cooler - Dual Fans - USB Powered

 

for the best raw power for the money:
- Clevo D901C (Sager 9262) .... with SLI 9800M GT (beats single 9800M GTX)

for great performance and with some portability (weight and batterlife):
- Clevo M570TU (Sager 5796)

 

The SLI 9800M GT will outperform the single 9800M GTX, however, it's also going to be substantially heavier, thus less portable, when compared to the 5796.

Frankly, you really need to tell us what you need it for. If you're looking at gaming, but with some degree of portability, the M860TU or 5796 are better choices. If it's just pure performance, the 9262 is a better choice.

 

for games and internet

 

how much faster is n9262 then 5796? (for example on crysis)

 

if you have a quad-core and a high-end card like 9800M GT, then the 9262 would have a noticeable gaming performance difference.

remember what I said, Crysis is poorly coded and not optimized, which is why many high-end systems cannot play it on highest settings.... while a new game like Unreal Tournament 3 is fully optimized and well-coded can be played at full settings.

so for well-coded games, most high-end systems would do fine.

for Crysis, however, the faster the videocards, the faster (and more cores) the CPU is, the better.

 

i saw at notebookcheck that x9000 is slower than t9500.Is it true or not?Will be p9500 faster then x9100?

 

Save money and still have great performance... dont get the X9100.

 

The X9000 is clocked at 2.8 and overclockable. The T9500 is a 2.6. Both of them are penryns. With this information available, which do you think is faster?

 

i think that x9000 is faster but on notebookcheck is faster t9500 because on fear benchmark x9000 scores 31fps and t9500 115

 

Hmm, that doesn't make any sense at all. Note, I'm not saying you don't make sense, I'm saying notebookcheck doesn't.

Edit: I just checked out their ranking system and it has the X9000 at 3 for notebook processors and T9500 at 6.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html