Are following features available for Sager?

Hi All;

I am thinking of getting a Sager 5793/9262,though the final decision is still away.These are some questions,I wish to ask.

1)Is it possible to get a lighted keyboard like an alienware m15x for a sager?

2)Intel Q6600 is not a real quad core right?As form friends the only real one is Phenom.But none of the reselers offer it.Is it because AMD doesn't make those for notebooks or is it physically impossible to put one in a notebook?

3)8800M GTX is currently the best graphics card.Is there a possibility of 9800series coming in next 3 months?And is the performance much different?

4)The earlier sager series came with Audio DJ and a small LCD display.That is not available in the new models.It was a good feature.

Thanks for the time.

 

Hello

1. No lighted keyboard available
2. The Q6600 is a "real" Quad Core
3. The 8800GTX was just released. There is no info and not likely going to be anything better then the 8800GTX for a while. (They are usually produced on desktops first. Once available on desktops they are usually about 6-9 months (if not more) behind for the mobile version)
4. The Front Digital Display Audio DJ is no longer being used on the current Sager models.

 

Thanks Justin,for the quick info.

But the Q6600 is a sandwiched 2 C2D right?So not making it a real Quad and too much heat unlike Phenom with 4 cores in a die?

Thanks

 

Phenom sucks big time. A Core 2 Quad Q6600 is faster that the equivalent Phenom.

 

yea phenom is AMD's attempt to get back a market share in the quad core processor market. unfortunatly they are several months behind intel, and there is no performance increase from thier "true quad core" to intels quad core. its a marketing scheme saying its the first real quad core that is all.

amd went outa fashion as the premium cpu a while ago, theres no need to hold out for a amd chip go with intel they are way better now.

 

The Core 2 Quad has evolved to the point that it is considered a quad-core when compared to the AMD Phenom.

The Core 2 Quad performs slight better and is cheaper... so the Phenom may be a native quad-core... but it needs work.

 

It will still be outpaced by a Q9300 (according to XbitLabs), which is faster than a Q6600 (it will retail at 266$).

 

I have a friend who is a hardcore AMD fanboy...he just refuses to believe that anything built by AMD is slower than the Intel competitor.

He gives me these ridiculous reasons as to why AMD is "better" than Intel. Kinda sad

 

haha. I might have this same friend. I worked with someone at best buy. I know I know... best buy... anyways he would not give up on AMD. He said they were better cause you didn't need a new mobo every time they put out a processor.

 

Which sometimes they do. Even the new CPUs kinda have a new socket (AM2+).
Meemat, AMD is slower than Intel these days, and it's going to stay that way for a while.

 

From what i understand the Intel quad core is actually 2 dual core chips
wile the AMD quadcore is 4 cores. wile this makes little performance difrence
for AMD now if AMD built a 16 core chip the cores would work better together
the Intel equivalent 8x2 core chip. The real problem for AMD is that the new Intel chips use a new architecture witch preforms better the the AMD .
(Im no expert so feel free to correct me )

 

The thing is that the old Kentsfield technology used two dual core chips (and it still does), but it's still faster than AMD's native quad core. No AMD CPU can match what Intel currently has to offer, not even talking about Penryn. AMD is long gone...

 

Regrettably true - one wonders how long this can keep (i.e., no competition) before Intel reverts to form and starts pushing poor-quality merchandise again just because it can.

 

No, that's not it. It proves that even though it's not a native quad core it can still kick ass after so long.

 

who gives a damn if it's a native quad or a compiled quad... as long as the performance is killing

 

I totally agree!!!

Remember when Apple made the switch to Intel? Everybody said the PowerPC processors had a better architecture than Intel's cpu's. While that may be true, the performance was still worse and that's why Apple made the switch. It's not always the better technology that wins. It's all about performance per watt in the cpu world.

 

ya and commercial deals of course