Ordering 9262 in a week

Hey once again,

I will be most likely ordering my 9262 in one week from xoticpc with these specs:

SAGER NP9262 Ultimate Custom Laptop (Built on Clevo D900C / D901C) SAGER NP9262 Ultimate Custom Laptop (Built on Clevo D900C / D901C)
- 17" WSXGA+ "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1680x1050)
- Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound
- Standard Dead Pixel Policy
- ~Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz w/ 6MB L2 Cache - 1333MHz FSB
- 512MB PCI-Express nVidia GeForce 8800M GTX DX10 (User Upgradeable)
- None Standard
- ~ 2,048MB DDR2 800 (2 SODIMMS) Dual Channel Memory
- Standard Finish
- ~Combo 8x8x6x4x Dual Layer DVD +/-R/RW 5x DVD-RAM 24x CD-R/RW Drive w/Softwares
- ~ 160GB 5400RPM (Serial-ATA 150)
- HDD Raid Settings - OFF
- Internal 7-in-1 Card Reader (MS/MS Pro/MS Duo/MS Pro Duo/SD/Mini-SD/MMC/RS)
- Internal Bluetooth 2.0+ EDR
- Built-in Intel® PRO/Wireless 4965 802.11 a/g/n
- Built in 2.0 Megapixel Camera
- Sound Blaster Compatible 3D Audio - Included
- Basic Black Business Case - Included
- Smart Li-ion Battery (12 Cell)
- Full Range Auto Switching AC Adapter - Included
- 3 Year Labor* 1 Year Parts Warranty Lifetime 24/7 DOMESTIC Toll Free Tech Support
(Year2 & 3 Labor Warranty through Xotic PC)

That is for $2,372.00 with no discounts.

There are still a couple things I am not sure about, the main thing is the processor. I have listed the Core 2 Duo 3.0 Processor instead of going for the 2.4 Quad. I am not sure if its worth it to buy the quad or if I would be better off with the 3.0 because the Quad is not fully utilized yet. Also, I may change the resolution to 1920x1200 if its really that big of a difference as well as I need an OS and I will be getting 4 GB of ram eventually as well as a 1 TB external.

Advice and comments welcome!

 

go for 4gb ram for sure. also quad core is more future-proof imo.

 

yea but can't he just go with a quad later? or is it two different mobo's?

 

it's only + $35 for quad 2.4ghz

 

calm down eleron this = that people are getting smarter,which is good

 

Yeah I know thats why I am debating. Would I get the most out of the 3.0 or the 2.4 in terms of speed and performance now...I'm not entirely sure how the cores are used. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have released the Quad Core if it really didn't make an impact on the overall performance of the machine. Basically, what would benefit me more?

 

i'd go for the quad if its a miniscule amount. it will be used eventually. it depends what you do though. Just gaming duo is fine but if your into audio or cad stuff then quad is the way to go.

 

I'll be a senior in high school that programs. I will be majoring in Computer Science in college... so Programming/Gaming/General Computing/Maybe some slight graphics, video editing, and rendering.

 

99% of programs today are only utilize 1 core, and rarely 2 cores max.

 

currently most programmers for games and applications are working to make upcoming products multi-threaded.

I would go for even the lowest quad-core.

 

Would that slow the overall performance to that of a 2.4 core duo until applications and games start to utilize the quad core? Would the notebooks overall general performance be at the speed of the 2.4 core duo? Or does it depend entirely on what you are doing at the time?

 

2.4 is a fast CPU regardless if it`s a duo or quad.
I have a 2.2 C2Duo and it`s very fast and plenty for games.
Think of it this way : when programs will utilise more cores, you`ll get a boost, and until then, 2.4 is fast enough anyway.

 

Yeah my old gaming laptop had a 2.4 Core Duo. Yeah I guess that is true. I will be prepared for the future considering I'm looking for this thing to last me quite awhile.

What about resolution? How much of a difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200? My old laptop had 1680x1050 and I know it was amazing.

 

Since resolution is really a personal preference I would recommend finding a 1920x1200 resolution on a friend's computer, or at a store, or computer lab, or ?? and look at it. IF the image is too small for comfortable reading then stay with the 1680x1050...but if you like the extra screen real estate and can read it comfortably, go for the 1920x1200.

 

Well, 1920x1200 is a very sharp resolution for a 17 incher,and makes everything very detailed.
IF it`s too small,you can increase the DPI to adjust it.
My vote goes to WUXGA (1920x1200).

 

Ya the original fonts and sizes for 1920 x 1200 were to small for me. But then I chose a custom DPI which made the fonts and images alot bigger, still giving me the same amount of detail and screen real estate

 

I actually kinda regret for not going with 1680x1050

 

Nobody`s stoping you, Z can let you have a better and brighter screen if you want to.

 

Just set your desktop to 1680x1050 then?

 

it's huge different with native 1680x1050

 

I don't see any diff.

 

do you have a native 1680 to compare it to? Usually the interpolation from using a non-native resolution on LCD makes things look jaggy and fuzzy.

 

I mean I see a little difference, not much though, on the laptop screen...
Nothing to call a HUGE difference..

I have a 1680 wide, 1600 normal and a 1920.. All external though..

 

It is better to leave the resolution Native, and then enlarge your font size with DPI increase, and go to larger icons. Then everything is still sharp.

Also, go into Display Properties>Appearance>Effects and set the second selection from the top to ClearType.

 

In Vista , increasing the DPI will still look ok, whereas in XP if you increase it ,it will look sort of out of place. But oh well.

 

Ok, I'm going to go up to the local computer store (microcenter) and see what they have to say about the resolution as well as to see if I can compare the 2 types.