X9100 vs Q9200

I'm looking at grabbin me a Nagamaki from K|N and just wondering what you guys/girls think would be the better buy, I can't seem to find much info on the quad core, and it would be neat to say I have a notebook with a Qcore, but am I gonna see a huge difference in performance, seeing how the Dual core is 3GHz and the Q is only 2.33. Thank for any info.

 

Quad core is not utilized too much and it is only 2.33ghz. The x9100 is going to be much better, especially for now. So I say to go for the x9100.

And is this notebook is the OCZ Whitebook?

Also, what is the website?

 

Nice rig Dude Check out XoticPC's setup here.. it's my reseller of choice. Dude55, you know I would never lead you astray! Oh, and "Why I'm going with XoticPC" thread in this forum should explain why you'd want to go with them as well..


EDIT: And I second Dude's remarks.. quad core isn't utilized by most programs yet.. heck, we're still working on getting all programs to support dual core Anyhow, the x9100 is a bit more expensive, I believe.. but you'll not be outdated for quite some time.

 

Yes, the Nagamaki is the OCZ whitebook, and the link is http://killernotebooks.com/nagamaki/nagamaki_order_page.html

Please don't hijak my thread, it has nothing to dp with you and your problems with killernotebooks.

 

Yeah thanks e wrecked. Soon I will have 2 200GB hard drives. maybe i will add another 9700m gts if possible.



This is my config from KN:

Intel x9100 - u can oc!
4gb 1333mhz RAM
2x 3870
2x 320gb
4gb turbo memory
bluetooth

all for $3637



now xotic pc

Intel x9100
4gb 1066mhz RAM
2x 3870
2x 320gb
bluetooth
soundblaster x-fi

only $3467

so far it looks cheaper. i say that if u take out the x-fi you save $100. the xotic pc is good, but it lacks 1333mhz RAM, not that you need it because the CPU is 1066mhz, but just for overclocking and it also lacks the 4gb turbo memory.

so i think go for either one, i just wanted to give you an idea of what id configure it as and the price. they seem about evenly priced though.

 

No harm meant steven.. I was trying to offer assistance to dude55, seeing as I assisted him with his current x305. And, I was also offering you my feedback on the 2 CPUs.

 

I like to take credit for my stuff, but ill give you credit this time since you helped with 1 thing:

1. GPU clocks

thanks for those. and e wrecked i think u got confused, im not lookin for a laptop, steven is. i told him about the cpu's.

 

Go for the Q9200. At least it'll leave you with more upgradibility, probably to a QX9300 or something that has the same pinout.
All new apps (and some old ones) are multi-threaded....and can easily make use of 4 cores or more. And whe running "true" multi-threaded apps, the Q9200 will destroy the X9100.

 

How about gaming, is the Q9200 the winner there? also, Even going with the X9100 now, I can always just upgrade to a quad at a later point wen they have come down in price, and become more advanced.

 

Well let me tell you this:

1. the q9300 is the best bet for quad as well as the most future proof, where it could definitely compete with the x9100 in areas that don't efficiently utilize all cores. why would you want to spend the money on a q9200 then hope to upgrade to a newer quad? that would be buying 2 processors potentially, even if you do sell it because it is used. but still i think the x9100 will come out on top either way. its the cheapest anyway.
2. the q9300 or q9200 has two dies, which would probably require a different heatsink
3. core i7 is going to be released soon enough so either wait or get it now




i would talk to killer notebooks and ask them these questions:

1. could you upgrade to a quad in the future?
2. do they use a different heatsink for quads because of both dies?
3. is there evidence (benchmarks) that a q9200 will be better than an x9100?

 

I hope the next BIOS update for the Whitebook would be an additional multiplier level. For futureproofing, the quad-core would be of choice. But I reckon the X9100 will outperform it significantly in games due to the fact that it can be clocked a full ghz higher.

 

Core i7 for notebooks is almost a full year ahead and I don't think it will be compatible with the Whitebook, unless OCZ/Flextronics releases a motherboard replacement.

 

Consider the wPrime scores: X9100: 26secs, QX9300: 16secs

 

but in game X9100 doing it works better. benchmark not everything

 

Plus you can overclock the X9100 much higher, if your into that

 

I think it comes pre-OCd to 3.33ghz

 

Yep it does from K|N. I clocked it back down to default initially while I set it up and made sure it was stable, then went back to 3.3Ghz. I'm actually not noticing any difference in heat really at all, both idle and under load look very similar.

 

I vote Quad!

 

Which proc gives you faster loads in games? It's not about the benchmarks. It's about it's performance in games. You don't buy NBs because they kick butt in benchmarks. You buy them 'cause they kick butt in games.

 

x9100 will be better in everything evcept encoding so it depends.

 

and i plan to game more than encode. what is encoding?

 

like "crunching numbers" think wprime 32m

 

How overclockable is the Q9200 vs. QX9300? Is the Q9200 like the Qx9300 or is it really not designed for Ocing? Is Intel planning to manufacture the Q9200 in large numbers or was this just a pre-fab test and concept chip? Intel's mobile chip roadmap attachment contains no Q9200 reference.

More info:

http://sg.vr-zone.com/articles/intel-clarksfield--ibex-peak-m-chipsets-in-q3-09/6138.html

 

The extreme cpu's are the only ones with multiplier unlocked...Q9200 would have to be overclocked via FSB... Which is not the best option for a notebook.