Need Help To Buy NP2092

I humbly request help from the members here to help make up my mind to buy the following:

Sager NP2092 Price: $1,299.00

Display: 15.4" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) Glossy LCD w/nVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT w/512MB
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo T8300 2.4GHz Processor w/3MB L2 On-die cache - 800MHz FSB
Arctic Silver 5: Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound
System Memory: 4GB (2 SODIMMS) DDR2/667 Dual Channel Memory (64bit Vista Required)
Hard Drive: 320GB SATA II 3GB/s 5,400 RPM Hard Drive (8MB Cache Buffer)
CD/DVD Read/Writer: Combo Dual Layer DVD +/-R/RW CD-R/RW Drive Memory Card Reader: 4-in-1 Memory Card Reader (MS/MS PRO/SD/MMC)
Wireless Networking: Built-in Intel® PRO/Wireless 4965 802.11a/g/n
Bluetooth: Built-in Bluetooth Wireless
Battery: 9-cell Smart Li-ion Battery
Operating System: Windows Vista Premium - 64-Bit installed
AC Adapter: Full Range Auto Switching AC Adapter
Sager Limited Warranties: 1-Year Parts & Labor, Lifetime Sager Toll Free Support

This configuration of the Sager 2092 looks like the best deal for me because it is on sale. Since I am in the Philippines , the 3 year warranty doesn't make much sense, because it will be to costly for the two -way return shipping that I will have to pay since it is not included.

Besides I don't imagine having any problems (less than 1% defect rate?), and even then I can get repairs done here. (Technician's rate is $5.00 per DAY!).

Final Questions:
1. CPU - Is the T8300 already fast enough, or will I really notice the 10% increase in speed for the $65 to get the T9300?

2. HD - Why would I even consider the 200GB @ 7200rpm, when the 320GB @ 5400RPM stores more, runs cooler? and quieter?, uses less battery? and is FASTER?

I look forward to any expert advice on these questions.

 

1) the T8300 is more than enough for gaming, don't spend more for the T9300.
2)the 320 /5400 is as fast as the 200/7200 , and has 120Gb more and runs cooler => better battery life.So there's no reason NOT TO GET the 320/5400.

 

1. what r u gonna do with so much of power? there is no use spending more money
2. yes the 320/5400 is faster cheaper more space and produces less heat theres no reason y not to buy it

and congrats on the buy!

 

Hi eleron911,
Awesome! And thanks for your instant reply. Your reinforcement is a great relief.

 

Hi filza,

Thanks for your help.

I need to render Photos, operate up to 10 browsers with up to 10 tabs,
listen to itunes, Excell, Word, all at the same time.

And , oh yea, play games, but not hard core.

Should I skip the Robson Turbo?

 

I have the T2300(core duo 1.66) at the moment on my HP, I have 33 tabs opened in opera, 2 Gb of ram and a 120 Gb drive and there's no problem

SKIP THE TURBO MEMORY , better get the tv tuner ...

 

I would say skip the TV tuner and save the cash.Nothing beats a TV.And most probably you are not going to use it either.

 

1. Depends on what you're doing with it. I got a T9300 instead of a T8300 for my last laptop because I do a lot of source-compiling, encoding, rendering, etc... in Linux and there's quite a big performance difference between the two cpu's (mostly due to the cache difference).
But as eleron and others have already said you won't notice the difference in gaming so it really comes down to what you're going to use it for.

2. A 200/7200 drive is only slightly faster than 320/5400 and the difference is not really noticeable.
I have used both the 7K200 and the 5K320 from Hitachi on the same laptop and the only time I noticed that the 7K200 was slightly faster was when it was working on huge numbers of small files.
I chose the 320/5400 for my new laptop because the 120GB increase means more to me than a nearly non-existent performance improvement in daily tasks and it also runs cooler and quieter, of course.

 

Wouldn't it speed up the time for Vista boot time and games? Since games are cache'd on the hdd, wouldn't the performance matter? I mean, on desktops the performance changes significantly when changing from 5400 to 7200.

 

Not by a noticeable time.

 

Does anyone have any numerical benchmarks that i could look at to compare the 2 types of HDDs? Cause i too am locked in the eternal struggle of deciding between the 320/5400 and the 200/7200. (PS i am aware of the 320/7200, and its a tad too pricey )

 

Hi Nirvana,

Where the heck did you find this thing ...

If I am reading it correctly ... then I messed up ordering my Sager NP2092 with 320GB 5400RPM ... I should have gone with 200GB 7200RPM HDD ... would have been much "Faster"!!!

Did I decipher your Tom's Chart correctly!?!?

Thanks,

G!

 

Much faster? 7200 only has .1 faster minimum speed .3 average speed and a lower maximum speed by 3.2

 

320 gig 5400 ftw. cooler and quieter.

 

Now why is it that the 320/5400 is just as faster as the 200/7200?

 

No, you didn't.

 

In a nutshell its because the 320GB drive is more dense. So while the rotation is slower, more data can be gathered per revolution, which in comparing these two drives gives the 320gb better real world performance.

 

Now the 200GB has a 16mb cache and the 320 has a 8mb cache. Does this make a difference?

 

Hi folks,

@ Nirvana ... THANKS for easing my mind.

@ pukemon ... THANKS for the "Moral" support.

G!