Question for Justic@XoticPC

Well, the wait is finally over. M17x was released a couple days ago and was subpar in comparison to my expectations. So I have decided to buy the Sager 9262 from Xotic PC instead. I do have a few questions though that I was hoping you would be so kind to answer for me. If anyone else has the answers I would more than appreciate hearing what you have to say as well.

1.) Next to the Video Card options it says "(User Upgradeable)" and I have read what it means. However my question is what difference do these cards have from normal PCIE desktop cards?

Meaning, would I be able to purchase the laptop with the lower end FX1600M and buy the higher end cards elsewhere? (just an example, I would rather not open the notebook)

2.) Which is better when comparing the Intel X9000 processor and the Q6700?

Thank you for your time and understanding.

 

2. As far as I can say, the Q6700 quad would be FAR more future proof than the X9000.... and even though in current games the X9000 would perform better than the quad, neither of them would be anything close to what you could call, a bottleneck.... so there should be zero problems!

 

better is a subjective one here, games now: x9000, games future: q6700, audio/video: q6700

 

Yea I figured that the x9000 was similar in performance with current software technology. (I was told that there are few to no software that utilize quad core as of today)

 

1. Upgradeable video cards are MXM, not the normal PCIE ones you find at the stores. If you look at the size of the PCIE 8800 GTX, you'll know it'll never fit in a laptop.

Buy the best video card you can afford since MXM cards can be hard to come by.

 

Relowe, the "user upgradeable" cards in a laptop are not quite so handily available to aquire as a desktop card. The easiest way to get one would be to go through the vendor you purchased the laptop from and then you have to hope they have them in stock.

As for the X9000 compared to the Q6700......aside from the obvious that one is a quad and the other a dual core, it depends on what you need. (this has all been debated many times in other threads but here it is sweat and simple for the time being)

Get a quad core if you do alot of video/photo/3D editing or use software that will take advantage of multiple cores.

The faster clocked dual cores still do better for gaming. I have an E8650 in my laptop and it rocks. I am about to upgrade it to an E8400 and stick the E8650 in an old desktop. I just love that fact that I can stick a desktop CPU in my laptop. Makes my parts just a little more interchangeable

I hope this helps some.

 

The video cards used are mobile video cards that are not as easily available as Desktop video cards, as ashveratu stated. The machine is upgradeable to the current video cards offered. If you preferred to start out with the FX1600 and upgrade to the 8800M later on you could contact us, Sager or any Sager reseller for the video card.

ashveratu, hit the nail on the head with his response to this.

You are welcome to email me if there are any other questions I can answer for you.

 

Justin,

Any word yet on the Q9450?
Seriously, I am waiting on that processor before you sell me a fully loaded 9262.

Chris.

 

Hi Chris, Sager is still working out the bugs with the bios and these processors. We should see a update soon on this.

 

What's the latest verdict of Intel Robson?

 

What about it ? It sucks!.... with 2GB RAM or more....

 

Just askin' if it's worth it that's all. Otherwise, I'll go for the Express Card MCE Remote & Receiver.

 

No, it's not "worth it" even if it were free.... as I read in a review, with 4GB RAM, it DECREASED performance, due to it's slow USB bus as opposed to that of the RAM itself!

 

'preciate it, sir!

 

Anytime, mate!

 

i dont see any decrease myself. imo the system benches and runs just as fast with it installed as it does without it and i have 4gb of ram. i dont see any added benefits though myself.

prasad007 where was that review you read id like to read that one..

 

I was looking for a link to that when I posted my last reply.... I'm sure to post it here as I find it. The review clearly stated a small decrease in load times, but a decrease still.... I think it was on one of those big popular sites... can't remember.... will link and post if I stumble accross it again.... I had seen it long before I even placed the order for this laptop. And I'm sure I read posts from other members mentioning decrease in performance in this forum myself...
EDIT: Dude, just google it! I found a couple of links that indicate decrease in boot times and load times with Turbo memory installed on modern Vista systems.

 

hmm i see some of them.. but im telling you i have taken it out and then replaced it and i see 0 difference with it or without it. intel did release some new drivers a while back as the originl ones sucked.. maybe thats the reason.. not sure. but imo i would not spend the 35$ on it again if i did it over.

 

So that $35 could definitely go toward something else in the configuration. What else can you get for $35 in a laptop with Sager.

 

Well, so long as you have the 8800M in your configuration, you can get 4 GB of RAM for $35...a much better value than the Robson memory

 

^ yes, it does not help the performance much, hopefully 2.0 will be better.

 

Wow damn lol! You're probably not searching the "decreasing performance" keywords.... I'll just post link(s) later

 

Robson helps with bootup. Not matter how much RAM u got, it can't store info for bootup.
Maybe the software will make better use it of in the future.

 

When you say you don't "see" any difference, are you using a benchmark to judge, a stop watch, or just your perception.

I ask because the degradation in performance would be very difficult to perceive without some sort of measuring tool.

 

Yes, but if the difference is not perceivable, then why does it matter? Why pay 35 dollars for something that is theoretically faster when you yourslef cannot perceive it in any given scenario? Rather that 35$ can be spent on something else right?

 

Like a good pair of headphones

 

That is our recommendation anytime anyone asks us. Spend your money somewhere else where it will do some good...like Eleison's recommendation in post #20 above.

We are hopeful that 2.0 (released with the Montevina platform) will be much better

 

ive benchmarked it both ways and its within a few points either way nothing that will help / decrease anywhere unless maybe you have 1-2gb of ram. i think im actually going to pull mine out just because..

 

Read this http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6188522.html

Seemed to make sense to me, and was enough to make my mind up.