P8600 vs P9500

So I've noticed that the P9500 (2.53ghz w/6mb cache - 25 watt) seems to be the processor of choice for most of the people on this forum. From what I've read, the difference between that and the p8600 (2.40ghz w/3mb cache - 25 watt) is pretty much negligible, and that the performance boost is only really noticeable in benchmarks and maybe in cpu-intensive strategy games such as Supreme Commander. Assuming this is true, is the P9500 really worth the extra $110 for a higher 3Dmark score?

I'm also wondering if someone can explain the whole 3mb cache vs. 6mb cache thing because I don't really get it.

 

simple: 6mb cache is better

Id adivise you to get the p9500, it will give you a good boost in speed

 

Um, 3mb is only half as big as 6mb.......therefore it can only do half as much....yeah, I have no idea really. I am just replying to raise my post count.

I like to think that if you have to ask, then it is ussually not worth it to you. Most people that spend alot of money for the extra 5% performance gain do so without alot of thought because they have money to spare.

Example:

Q9550 @ 2.8gig for $320
vs
QX9650 @ 3.0gig for $1000

Not worth it all to me, but if I had an extra few thousand dollars lying around and no bills to pay....I would get one.

 

You may never see much of a difference in gaming. Even in 3dmarks, I've scored within 50 points of someone with a P9500.

With that said, I still wish I'd gone for the P9500. Why? I don't know; probably just because everyone else did.

 

One reason (aside from price) that I went for the P8600 is that it doesn't have the half frequency multipliers that RMClock can't handle.

I also believe that more cache = more power drain. Good battery time is one of my criteria. Doubling the cache may have a significant benefit in some applications and negligible in others. See the difference between these desktop CPUs:

Running 3DSMax (negligible difference)

3DMark06 (small difference)

Search through those benchmark results for one which shows the cache size makes a big difference (note that the 4MB cache has a slightly higher clock speed).

John

 

For the differences between performance with 2.4Ghz/3MB and 2.5 Ghz/6MB cache read this:

The performance increase due to the clock speed and cache size increase varies from 0% all the way up to 11.7%, with a maximum of around 4% of that being due to the clock speed increase alone - the added L2 cache does have a benefit.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3246&p=12

(not exactly the same cpu's but valid anyway.)

 

Everyone looks at perfomance improvements in such a single tunnel vision way..

You won't notice much of a difference in a game, but what if your doing more then gaming? Like gaming and need to alt tab to read some info online or check an email? Or maybe your an uber-geek and your running 2 instances of City of heroes(cough*this guy*cough cough)

You will see the improvement from the cache while alt tabing and running mutilple applications, not while just playing WoW

If all you do is 1 thing at a time, then you are probably good with the processor.

Me i want to run City of heroes and Spore (when it comes out) at the same time... lol

P9500 and 9800gtx ftw

 

The cache can help in more complex programs like when you are doing huge effects for a photoshop picture or a 3d render. For gaming, I do remember a benchmark with the initial peryln processors showing in games where it did matter (Crysis perhaps), the last 3mb cache and the first 6mb cache processors were lengths apart and before and after them there was little increase/decrease.

For me, I took the p9500 because I remembered that graph and I interpreted it as the T9300, the first processor in the lot where there was a big performance increase before everything became a blantant e-peni_.

 

So basically if you know you are a multi tasker and demand each program work at its optimum level, get the p9500.

If you work on a single program basis, with the infrequent lightweight multitasking of surfing, chatting and checking email, stick with the cheaper montevina processors.

 

Still, are there actual numbers on that? I mean sure it might be a difference but do you get to feel it so often? I'd still go for the 9500 but that's cause it "feels" better but I have no numbers to say I'll gain x% if I do this when I have word, powerpoint and photoshop opened and I'm trying to prepare for a presentation...

 

The CPU isn't like a car engine where 50 extra horsepower matters. I have done side-by-side performance tests on a P8400 2.26GHz/3MB vs. a T9400 2.53GHz/6MB. In Cinebench10 and 3DMark06 CPU test, there is a 10 - 15% difference, which is not significant and will not be noticeable. Don't spend money on upping the CPU . . . it will never pay off. If the P8400/P8600 can't run something, then the P9500/T9400 won't be able to either.

Put money into the hard drive and RAM. A 7200RPM hard drive will make a big difference in everyday performance.

Those applications are merely sitting there if you have them "open", not actually taking up CPU. The only one of those apps that would benefit from a powerful CPU would be Photoshop, and that's only when you're actually editing photos. Any Core 2 Duo is fine. You should invest your money in RAM since that's what all those programs are going to do . . . take up RAM.

 

Hehe, thanks for the info. Any thoughts on 9800GT vs 9800GTS? We're debating it in the buying thread .

 

so basicaly a

P8600+320GB 7200RPM HDD is better than a P9500+320GB 5400RPM HDD ???

 

Get the GTS, right now its like a 1% or less difference. Of course, there may be a big difference later down the road for something that would require the X amount of shaders or whatever the GT has but if you're on a budget, definitely get the GTS.

And yes, hard drive speed always counts since its the slowest component of your laptop (if its not SSD).

 

Is not really about the budget but the principle. If the difference is small but the price is 80-100usd higher I'm reluctant to pay for it . Plus gts is clocked higher (don't know if that's a good thing temp-wise though).

 

@ioaniro

I completely agree with you, i too am going to get this laptop but really see no point in the GT because the difference from GTS is negligable, although every1 (almost every1) on this forum has a GT , thanks for clearing this up

 

Where are you guys planning on buying the GTS from? Is xoticpc eventually going to have it as an option?

 

I'll take the second option, ty!

 

okay for me if i order this, or another laptop (maybe the whitebook) i would go with the t9400 @ 2.53GHz. is there a real difference between the two?

i was also debating on getting 4GB of ram and a 2.40GHz processor, but decided to go with the t9400 processor with 2GB of ram, as i will upgrade it myself.

do you think its better to upgrade the processor now and the ram later and is it worth the 65$ (or w/e it is) for the p9500 processor?

 

I suggest, you just get the cheapest solution possible, and go from there. If you decide you want more, upgrade.

 

That's exactly what I did. I don't know that much about hardware but all the research I did about the issue suggested that the main performance bottlenecks in most systems are the GPU and hard drive rpms.

I later found out that the 7,200rpm 320GB Seagate kind of sucks compared to others it the same category though. Hopefully it wont hurt performance too much.

 

Kobe ... makes a lot of sense ... I am with Kobe ... Especially with HDD and CPU ... that can be upgraded anytime.

Well .. Hard Drive change is a lot easier than changing out a CPU ...

CPU change may be a little too intimidating for someone who has never done it before ... and the fact of applying AS5 and the whole nine yards!

G!

 

So lets say you were willing to spend an extra few bucks... AND an extra 20-30 minutes of battery life didnt matter. Would you guys get the T9400, 320GB HD 7200RPM? over say, the p8600 and a 320GB HD 5400RPM? Would anyone rather that little bit faster system for a few more $ and a bit less battery life?

 

you could get the cheaper P8400 and use windows in safe mode

 

This, exactly. I'm aiming on buying one of these in the next 6-9months, and they're all better (and cooler) than 7200rpm drives, so I went with a slow drive (and a slow cpu, for said cooling power, esp considering the cpu's not the bottle neck AND I plan on underclocking the cpu anyway when idling). So yeah, cheapest option that you can live with is the best way, imo.

 

lol that sounds like fun!! but i'll pass.....

 

Hi Amaracuracuf,

You can out-guess yourself to death ...

If it was me I would definitely get the 320GB 5400RPM HD ... no way that I would pay the premium for the 7200RPM ... prices will go down ... and the performance difference is not that much DEPENDING on the task that you are doing ... but overall minimal.

For CPU go with T9400, which is a 35 watt CPU. I had T9300 which also is 35 watt (but 800FSB) and I had no problem with Heating what-so-ever. Ran cool as a cucumber and power drain wasn't really that much ... but then again I don't run on Battery too long. But if you want and have your heart set on a 25 watt chip ... then pay the extra $35 and get P9500.

I hope this was helpful!

G!

 

Here is a german CPU test, but you can use the benchmarks !
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Vergleichstest-Intel-Centrino-2-CPUs.10258.0.html

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Intel-Centrino-2-CPUs.11100.0.html

 

Well, P8600 wins I think. 2 frames per second difference in Crysis, 1 fps in Supreme Commander is hardly indicative of the difference in price.

But I'm still buying an X9100, once my warranty has expired.

 

I am debating between the p9500 and p8600 or simply trying to justify the step up in price for the option on a MBP.

I'm wondering if there are any benchmark tests that include using Dragon Naturally Speaking v 9 or 10 - I've been trying to integrate dictation with my studies.

 

Id prefer P8400 just to save price lol and replace it later on

 

But replace it with what, and when? Processors like the T9600 is currently 569.99, T9800 will be more, and wont be cheap for a very long time. Look at the older processors: T9300 and T7700 are still $329.99; T7250 is $206.99. Heck, the Celeron M is still over $100.

You guys aren't saving money by waiting; it'll be years before you can buy a retail P9500 at the price you can upgrade to during initial configuration. Buy the maximum you can afford now.

 

i picked up a t9800 today for 309.. i could have saved 100$ or more but figured for the price why not. i say get what you can now because the i will be coming so how many times will you replace it before they come out??

 

Hopefully with the i7 core coming out, the cores that are available and expensive will drop in price drastically. Hey, zfactor, let me know how the T9800 performs in CPU intensive tasks when you get a chance please.

 

will do. im going to test it pretty good when i get it. i have a x9100 here (not mine testing for someone) so ill compare it to that