Worthy to Pay 100 more for 6MB L2 Cache

Hi,

I am debating whether I should pay $106.25 more

from Intel Core 2 Duo processor P8400 (2.26GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2)
to Intel Core 2 Duo processor T9400 (2.53GHz, 6MB L2,1066MHz)
[add $106.25]

I wonder whether it is worthy to pay 100 more for this

Purpose:
programming including Database Programming (SQL Query), but the size of database is small.


Also, I am planning to have 3 GB of memory. I know that memory price is dropping every month. Is it worthy to get 4GB of memory later on and pay less for 4GB instead of 100 more for 3 MB of cache?

IF I get 4GB of memory, then I have to change OS to 64 bit OS.

Please let me know.

Thanks.

 

If you're planning on compiling on the laptop, I'd go for it... there are other advantages to the upgrade, beside the cache there is a slight speed increase and a lower power consumption on the T9400.

 

To add to this, if you plan on having the laptop for a few years and using it very often, then I say go for it.

 

You're getting a bump in clock speed as well... compare benchmarks but I'd say yes, it's worth it.

 

DDR3 is expensive. You could get a 2gig single stick and then order one yourself for about $75 in the US. I'd go with the faster processor if you need it for compiling. The clock would probably benefit you more than the cache itself...but it is good none the less.

 

The task you stated isn't really CPU-intensive, and you'll benefit more from a fast HDD, at least a 320GB 7200RPM. Go for 3GB, P8400 and a fast HDD.

The P8400 is good for all intensive tasks, is a very fast CPU, and has a much lower TDP than the T9400. CPU clock difference is negligible, and the L2 cache isn't utilized fully by all applications.

 

I agree with Andy, go for the 7200rpm instead.

Although, if you want the most speed you can get, or just a faster PC, pay th e 100 if in budget.

 

Errr compiling code is very CPU intensive...

 

But OP states that the size of the database is small, and the T9400 compared to the P8400 will make a difference in seconds when compiling.

 

Which machine are you getting because I think the T400 comes standard with the faster of the 2 processors you mention? Originally I ordered the T61, because I didn't realize that the T400 was its predecessor, and later I changed this. In terms of a faster drive I wouldn't do it through Lenovo personally. You can pick up a Seagate 320 GB 7200 for well under $150 (tax in) and their upgrade price is going to come close. You can run x64 with 3 GB of ram. There are lots of people that are running it with 2. So, I'd get the faster processor. You can't change that. You can always get more ram or a faster drive. 3 GB is enough. Get the 7200 drive they offer and if you need more space don't buy it from them for the reasons I've stated. You can always later put an extra drive in your ultrabay which is nice.

 

This is slightly inaccurate. The P series processor will use slightly less power (1-2 watts) than the T series processor, not the other way around. This will probably translate to about 1 hour better battery life for the P8400 compared to the T9400.

More cache is usually worth about 1 extra step (≈100MHz) for certain applications. For this reason, the T9400 can probably complete computational/mathematically intensive tasks about 20% faster than the P8400.

The important thing is to weigh your need for maximum speed versus maximum battery life. If you frequently do tasks that are able to saturate a processor for long stretches of time (compiling, media encoding, file compression, etc.) then you will see a gain from the T9400. However, if you mostly do lighter work (web broswing, document editing, coding, etc) and like the flexibility to work for long stretches on battery, you will be better served by the P8400.

 

The TDP-rating for the T9400 is 10W higher than the P series processor. While this does not directly translate into the exact same number in regards to power consumption, I believe that the difference in power consumption should be more than 1 - 2 watts.

 

Above posts are correct, that was my mess up.

 

Yeah ... I got a laptop with a p series cpu simply because the most intensive thing I was going to do was light photoshop work ... PLUS I regularly am away from a plug and running on batteries, so ever little nitnoid helps imo.

If you are always near a plug then why not? Perhaps it will be a good investment in the long run.

 

Really? Everything I've read says the contrary. I'll take your words for it, though.

 

T9400 is a standard voltage CPU. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors

The p8400 and p8600 Medium voltage.

 

I was referring to 1-2 watts at idle. I believe that both processors (as well as the SL9400 in my x200 Tablet) are able to dynamically undervolt to 800MHz. Most your time on battery will be spent at this level. As a result, I believe it will be about 1-2 watts different with both the P and T series at minimum speeds due to the different core voltages. I agree, that if you max them out (high performance plan), that the difference will be 5w+ for the T9400.

 

Okay. Thanks for the link. I'll take a look.

 

More testing needs to be done on accurate battery life differences, but I doubt you'd squeeze 1 hr more - 30 min is reasonable though. Also, the difference in performance is probably closer to 10% than 20% only when doing CPU intensive calculations, otherwise performance difference is basically zero.

 

Ya i think the main issue with battery life...was that some users couldnt get their CPUs to throttle down enough so they were losing out on battery life.

 

I had to make the same decision about two months ago.

I went with the higher speed and larger (6MB) cache. I am very satsifed with that decision.

I have compared to T400 with the lower proc/cache, and while both machines are quick, I can notice a difference in performance. It's was worth it to me, but for others it may not be.

$100 is about the biggest difference in processor price I would go; I would never pay $300 or more premium for the latest and greatest - that's just paying Intel's R&D. Wait 6 months and it drops to the same price.

I am still amazed at the performance and value of the T400, esp. compared to others (HP, Dell).

 

I just paid $1000 for 12MB L2 cache... and an extra 2 cores... and an unlocked multiplier. Some people will get back their investment pretty quickly, believe me!