why is the dv9500t $200 more than dv9500z? HPs

Why is the base price of the dv9500z $200 less?

They are both very similar. some of the addons differ and there are other, what I consider, minor diffs.

The main diff for me is the
dv9500t has the C2D
and the
dv9500z has the 64x2 turion

I know a lot of people like the c2d better, but performance wise aren't they roughly the same?

is it really worth $200 to get the c2d rather than the 64x2. Or, should I get the 64x2 and put that $200 toward system ram?

I'm leaning heavily toward HD now, due to price and performance.

Thanks, c

 

AMD processors are always cheaper than comparable Intel processors ... it's AMD's way of trying to get a bigger market share i guess ...
that being said ... as far as mobile chips go (laptop chips) ... my personal notion is that Intel does a better job with heat management ... a lot more research goes into an Intel chip than an AMD one ... and i guess the combination of these factors is why AMD powered notebooks are cheaper than their comparable Intel versions.

I think the AMD chips will run a li'll hotter ... so... if you're willing to put up with the li'll extra heat.... then i guess that it's a good idea to go for the AMD notebook and save up and get urslf some extra ram .. day to day performance wise ... u won't be able to "notice" any difference between the chips ... but be ready for a shorter battery life and a li'll more heat with the AMD ...
on the flipside though... it's 200 bucks cheaper...
with 200 bucks... u could get urslf a lot of ram!

 

There's no Intel marketing tax on the dv9500z. Intel spends hundreds of $millions per year on advertising, AMD spends next to nothing. HP spends some of the money they save on their own ads of course.

All Turion X2's currently coming off the fabs are 65nm so the power consumption difference between the X2 and C2D has shrunk a bit. The odd-numbered clockspeed Turions (1.7GHz, 1.9, 2.1, etc) are all 65nm, the rest may or may not be depending on when the chip was built. The nVidia chipsets HP uses run hotter than Intel chipsets, in large part because the integrated GPUs Intel builds are less powerful than nVidia's. The new GeForce 7150 chipset may be better about this though. ATI's newest chipsets (ATI having been purchased by AMD a while back) are more power efficient than nVidia's but HP is only using those in their business notebook lines.

Anyhow, I'd definitely pick AMD over Intel for the money. Put part of that $200 savings towards a GeForce 8400GS upgrade, 802.11n and Bluetooth, etc.

 

While agree with this, let me just say this. Intel is set to launch a 2.8-3.0GHZ 6meg L2 cache Core 2 chip based on there new 45nm chips all this wrapped up in the same 35 watt power rating of the current Core 2's. Now we know clock for clock the Core 2's are quite a bit faster. But imagine have the performance of a 6800 Core 2 extreme in your notebook