Ordering the sager np9262. Need help with processor choice. Thanks

I'm going to order the sager np9262. I spoke to a sales rep and he told me that the e6850 was better for gaming than the q6700. Is that true ?

I thought since the q6700 was more money that it was better. Well this machine will be used 90% of the time for gaming. Any help would be greatly appreciated ?

I had the alienware m9750 didn't like the performence i got from it. Games not running well. so I sent it back. I was going to wait for the m17x but its taking to long. Then i was looking at the xps m1730. I was going to get it but i saw the sager uses desktop processors. so i figured thats a really close desktop replacement..

Do you think I should stick with the sager np9262,,,, wait for the m17x or get the xps m1730.

Im like 90% on the sager..

Oh one more thing,,,,, sorry guys,,,, Should i get it raid 0 with two 100 gb hard drives.... Does it show up as 200 gb total or 100 gb. thanks again

 

get the q6600...its a better deal than the q6700 and more future proof than the e6850. Raid 0 would show up as 200gb, not 100gb, thats raid 1

 

Thanks for the quick reply...

 

No problem

 

I'll second the Q6600 for bang for the buck in overall performance and future proofing.

 

i third it.

I just got the d901c last week and couldn't be happier.

I also got the q6600

I just got finnished putting on my as5 and it was a learning experience... good to know though. got to know the laptop and took off the thermal sticker crap.

 

it really depends which games you want to play. Most games will run a bit better with a faster clock speed (e6850), but a few can take advantage of multiple CPUs and benefit from quad.

Also, consider that although most people in this forum wait for 8800 gtx sli, few games can actually use it ... so unless you play a game that is known to work with this, you can save yourself a bundle buying a single 8800 ...

last but not least there are vendors selling the 901C with a quad 9650. This certainly pushes the limits of the motherboard/power supply (also adds some hurt to the wallet , and I would like to hear from people who have tried this, but it looks that there is an upgrade path open

 

List of game that i will be playing on this machine

1. bioshock
2. cod4
3. jericho
4. crysis.... I know this game can't run at full
5. stranglehold
6. gears of war
7. unreal tournament 3

Thats just a few.

I have those games already that i bought when i had my m9750.

And i'm ordering this machine with the 2 8800's. I'm just confused with the processor.. Why would the sale agent tell me to get the e6850 and not the q6600 or the q6700.. wouldn't they want the extra money

 

all of them will use SLI.

I am playing Jericho right now getting 38-55 fps 1900x1200 every single thing maxed and vsync on.

Crysis I get 32fps constant @1680x1050 all setting high.

My card is overclocked to 600/1350/850

 

dude get the q6600 it plays games 100% fine. every single one you listed I have and get wicked fps with.

plus if you want to encode a movie or rip etc etc. transcode... it works better than any other.

 

The Q6600, no doubt!

 

More cores is better even if the application are not optimized for quad core only for dual core. Windows will always eat one core, play with 2 core and the remaining can be use for some other actvities like virs scan or encoding something. When only core the E8650 wins, but on the overal performence quad core will be better on average.

 

I'll fourth it. Do we have a consensus yet?

 

I would stick with the Quad. Future games will only be utilizing multi cores more and more.
cheers

 

id say if you have the money go QUAD^^