su9400(1.4 GHz) or su9600(1,6 GHz) processor ?

Is it worth $45 to upgrade to su9600 processor? Is there a significant speed difference? The cache memory and side bus memory are the same in both? How is the thinkpad wifi (BGN) compared to Intel wifi Link 5100 with My Wifi technology ? Is it worth the upgrade for $18? What is my wifi technology?

 

I doubt it would make a huge difference. SUs are generally weak cpus because they are born for power saving.
Let's talk about this in numbers: according to cpubenchmark.net, the U9400 gets 930 points while U9600 gets 1063 points.

 

Weak compared to what? A significant difference would depend on what you're doing. For Office, Internet and Media the SU9400 offers plenty of performance. Those are the things X was made to do along with good battery life, where the SU9400 has the advantage. There are some CPU intensive tasks like coding video crunching databases where the SU9400 is going to come up short as compared to other mobile, but most users aren't doing those things on their laptops.

 

OK I totally agree with you, but that doesn't answer the question, right?

Well, SU9600 is the king of ULV processors today.
It always sounds great to get a top one, as long as you can afford it.
But if the budget is limited, I say, grab the SU9400 and use the money on other components.
My own opinion though

 

For that sort of money i would get the better CPU, this will add to your resale value down the road.

 

I disagree. A year from now, when Arrandale-based laptops are common place, nobody would care about the difference between U9400 and U9600.

 

That seems to be a big assumption. You could also say that about the Core Duo and Pentium 4 laptops. But a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz does sell at a higher price than a 2.8 ghz version, even when Core Duo processors were out.

Also what you assumed is that when a new technology comes out, everyone all move to that new technology and all the previous technology becomes redundant, we all know that is not true. There are still people buying second hand Pentium 4 or even Pentium 3 CPU equipped laptops and desktops.

I am sure that people here still use 6 years old laptops, i know i do. So what you are saying about Arrandale and difference of the two processors, is not correct.

 

What I did not say:

I did not say that everyone will move to Arrandale based laptops.
I did not say that everyone will stop buying Core 2 based laptops.
I did not say that everyone will stop using Core 2 based laptops.
I did not say that Core 2 based laptops will become redundant.

It is easy to verify that I did not say any of those things.

What I did say:

Exact quote: " A year from now, when Arrandale-based laptops are common place, nobody would care about the difference between U9400 and U9600."

To make it more concrete, I claim that the upgrade from U9400 to U9600 will not increase the resale value of a used laptop by $15 USD a year from now. Based on that claim (with which you are free to disagree), upgrading to U9600 for $45 to increase the resale value does not make economic sense.

 

i have to agree with ckx.   buying a 200MHz faster processor hoping to increase resale value is a big assumption in itself.   there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to used systems and no guarantees that buyers will be willing to pay more for a better processor.   paying for 200MHz because you absolutely need it makes more sense -- although someone could easily make the argument that if 200MHz makes a significant difference to you then you need something other than a ULV processor.

i'd put the $45 toward an SSD or upgrading from a 5400RPM to a 7200RPM HDD.   both will make a more significant and measurable difference compared to adding 200MHz clock speed.

my rule is that if you have to ask about something, you probably don't need it.   those who need something already know it and don't have to ask.

 

Thanks. So Is it advisable to upgrade to 4 gb ram for $58 from lenovo instead of paying $45 to upgrade to su9600 processor ? I am not able to find a 2gb ddr3 memory stick for less than 45$ anywhere else. Can anyone tell me the difference between thinpad wifi (BGN) and Intel wifi 5100?

 

Upgrading RAM is very simple, and RAM typically do not go bad. However, $13 is not that much money, so either choice is okay.

However, RAM has become pretty expensive lately. Do you need 4GB RAM now? If the answer is no, defer the upgrade until you need the extra RAM. You may decide that you are okay with 2GB ($50 saved), or you may decide that you want to buy a new laptop ($50 goes toward the new laptop), or RAM may become significantly cheaper a year from today (you save a few bucks).

I am going to break erik's rule and recommend that you go for the 5100. I have heard a few people having problems with their BGN card, which uses the Realtek 8192SE chipset.

 

unless you plan to go with a 64-bit OS, 4GB won't be necessary.   windows 7 32-bit runs great with 2GB and slightly better with 3GB.   standard applications like office, email, and web browsers use very little memory as it is.

the intel 5100 card is definitely a great way to go.   i have both the 5100 and 5300 in my systems and have no complaints about them.   signal strength is always 4~5 bars.   intel's cards tend to be better with battery life, making them worth the extra money for that feature alone.

 

I thought it would be wise to opt for windows 64 bit system to make it more future proof. If I go for 64 bit win 7 and opt for 2 gb ram will it slow down the system? I understand if I go for win 7 32 bit now in future it would be a hassle to upgrade and I have heard that 64 bit is the way to go now.

 

there would be NO difference in the real world between the two cpu's. use the money to get a faster harddisk. 5400rpm vs 7200rpm is definitely something that IS noticable in real life.

 

No such thing exists. At some point it'll be old regardless of whether it's 32 or 64 bit and you can always upgrade later if need be. They're already talking about 128 bit. I can hear the questions now, "Should I get 64 or 128 bit Windows?".

 

the nintendo 64 was 64-bit and look at how outdated it is by now...

 

It's a great game and is as fun to play as it was 10 years ago.

 

The Nintendo 64 was not a game...

 

What difference in performance would one experience from win 7 32 bit and win 7 64 bit system ? If I am purchasing a new notebook Is it advisable to go for 32 bit or 64 bit system? If I configure a laptop with 2 gb ram and opt for 64 bit system would it slow laptop down? Is it necessary to opt for 64 bit system with 4 gb ram installed to notice performance improvements?

 

64-bit doesn't necessarily mean better performance, unless application makers tuned their products specially for 64-bit. I don't see such a thing happening now.
64-bit OS can use more RAM(>4GB) than 32-bit OS, that's it, nothing more.
Drawback is some, not many though, 32-bit apps may not be able to run in 64-bit OS.

So 64-bit is not necessary if you use 2GB ram. And you would have little noticeable performance improvement.