P8400 vs. P9500

So which processor did you guys pick with your NP5796/NP8660?

I chose the P8400 because it was $130 cheaper and the extra power of the
P9500 shouldn't show up too much in games. Maybe a few more fps.

 

Shouldn't matter.
IF it was a T series compared to the P series then you should ask. Nonetheless I understand and that little bit of clockspeed won't make a difference for your games in any shape or form.
Hpoe this helps

 

^--^
So how would you answer if you were comparing a T series to a P series?

 

this is a little off topic but how would you compare the P9500 at 2.53G to the T9600 at 2.8G is their a big difference between the two. How much more performance do you think i can get at of the T9600. I was going for the P9500 cas it was only 25watt but if i can get a significant performance boost from the T9600 then i may go for it. Any info and opinions will help thanks.

Edit: also i forgot which are the new CPU for the new platform P or T?

 

I believe they both are. The difference between the two is that P means it's got a 25 watt TDP and T has a 35 watt one.

 

so the T9600 is going to run hoter and suck more power i pretty much knew that. How much performance boost will i get out of it though i know its clock a couple points high just trying to see if its worth it to upgrade and how faster it will be

 

As Concr3te said. See it for yourself:
P8400 3 mb L2 Cache: http://processorfinder.intel.com/Details.aspx?sSpec=SLB3R
P9500 6 mb L2 Cache: http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB4E

 

The T has more cache.
Yes it may not be useful for games, but it sure is for simulation programs such as cad. Or anything involving heavy computatoins.

 

the T has more cache than the P8400, but not the P9500

 

Honestly, I would stick with the P8400. It has more than enough power for any game.

A year or two down the line, it won't make any difference if your processor is a few hundred megahertz faster. Example - my Sager has a 1.86GHz Pentium M. Would it matter today if I had the 2.0 or 2.1GHz version? No. And it didn't matter when I bought it either.

 

Just to add to that, even if it's still bothering you a couple of years or two down the line, you can always upgrade it then for cheaper.

Also be aware that Intel plan on releasing a few more CPU's for the line in the upcoming months, so getting the best CPU now doesn't mean it will continue to be the best possible chip for the board you'll have.

 

For Montevina the ones that they plan on releasing are the power saver ones like 1.8gigs 2.0gigs etc.. The only better ones that we will see until Nehalem is the Quad Core mobile

 

i feel like chaz was the only one that gave me a straight answer(or at least one i clearly understood haha)
any more opinions if the upgrade from p8400 to p9500 due the increase cache is worth it?

 

Ok, what do you plan to do with your system?

 

mostly gaming(latest games like crysis, cod4 and future titles)
photoshop work.
computer science work.
worth 130$ increase?
(would the os and programs noticeably load faster? better noticeable frames in games?)

 

To further what I back up before about the higher-clocked CPU not being worth it, see my post here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3656348&postcount=237
. . . and this one:

 

The P8400 can accomplish all that easily and there would be no difference at all with the P9500.

Just get yourself 4 GB of RAM with that $130 instead and you are set man.

 

In my opinion the things you should prioritize for a gaming laptop is,
1. GFX Card
2. Ram
3. Hard Drive
4. Proc

 

I'm always converting videos from XviD to h.264 to watch on my iphone, will the extra cache of the P9500 make a difference compared to the P8400?

 

i personally think so...but i dunno much.
i know that ghz difference makes just about no difference, but from what i remember in my system architecture class, cache makes a difference.
either way, i figure processors are harder to upgrade than ram. so spend money on good processor now, add a stick of ram in later.

 

Look at the links Chaz gave. Cache doesn't matter in just about all situations. The only situation where it could come in handy is if you're running very heavy mathematical software.

But I do agree on your last sentence: a processor needs to be future proof

 

Is P9500 enough for a developer?

 

It's one of the most processors on the market, so yeah, I think it should be sufficient...

 

Thanks for you post, like the last quote I'm probably not going to upgrade my system (only 2GB to 4GB ram) (NP8660 btw) So I'd rather get the P9500.

 

I basically use the same programs and the same operating system I’ve used for the last 2 or 3 years ago, and the added performance I get when doing things then and now does make a difference going from 1.73 to 2.26 (Dell Latitude D810). Heck, it’s even more prevalent now than back then. Of course the hard drive has a lot to do with that but encoding a movie which took 58 minutes with the 1.73 and 45 minutes using the 2.26 does make a difference, even today. Now of course the 18 to 20 minutes it takes to do the same thing with the T9300 makes even 45 minutes seem long, but some might be still using just one Pentium M computer, in which case that 13 minutes saved might come in handy. And it’s not just that program; it was given as an example. Office and Adobe software loads faster with the faster processor. Now how that will equate with the two mentioned CPU’s, I don’t know. I’m just going by the Pentium you’ve used as an example.