Sager NP8662- Is the Quad really worth it?

I've been doing some research and I'm not really sure what processor is best for gaming. Now that the Q9000 came out would it run multi thread games better than the Dual Cores? After doing some research I found that the P9600 2.66Ghz 25 watt runs better on a 64bit computer than the T9800 2.93Ghz. If so would that make the P9600 the best gaming processor for the NP8662??

There is a new game coming out that I'm going to be playing called Arma II which is quad core compatible but just because its compatible does it mean it will utilize its power better?

I know that there aren't many multi thread games out there but my greatest fear is that if I but a dual core it might be better right now while the quad core might be better later.( hope that makes sense )

Basically I'm trying to ask which combination of Operating System/Processor is best for gaming and future-proofing.

 

i would get the t9800 ifyou can. the q9000 clock speed is way to low, unmless you do heavy multi threading apps.

 

In the xoticpc forum Justin said that the P9600 is made to run on a 64 bit OS while the T9800 is made to run on the 32 Bit... I haven't saved the thread but I'll look for it again.

 

I'm exactly in the same position as you, choosing if I get quad or no on my NP8662.. So far I will say that people's opinions are about 50/50 on wether to get P9600 or Q9000, while the T9800 isn't worth it (price/performance ratio). To be honest, I am almost certain to go with a P9600, since the Q9000 has a really low clock speed that could possibly lower alot of the performance of most of the stuff I'll do. That is considering that I WILL NOT be using heavy multi threaded apps.
Hell, if everything becomes optimized for quad core in a year or two I figured I'll just upgrade to an i7 there

 

The thing about quads is that there only as powerful as the programs that utilize them are. As of now most programs are built around dual cores. If for example there isn't much difference between the P9600 and Q9000 while playing GTA 4 I'd rather get 9600.

I found the thread that I was talking about.. if you exclude price/performance ratio would the T9800 be better?

http://www.xoticpcforums.com/showthread.php?t=3799&highlight=8660&page=2

 

It is a shame that the Quad in the NP882 will be clocked at 2.0 Ghz. I have been looking at another (older) Sager 9262 Quad core laptop where each core is clocked at 2.83GHz and that is great (expensive). However, I think you will gain more benefit than disadvantages from the Quad Core at 2.0 Ghz.

My next laptop, without a doubt will be Quad Core but I might go for the higher clocked one, but even at 2.0 Ghz, I would still get that over a higher clocked Dual core. I will also be playing GTA 4 though.

 

i use the t9800 on a 64 bit system just fine and i have no issues at all with it. and i agree the q9000 is clocked to slow to be a viable solution at least for me, id take the near 3.0ghz of the t9800 way before i take a 2.0 q9000

 

If only they would offer the Q9100 or higher! But seeing the thread in xoticpc's forum about the T9800 being a 32-bit processor, I really see it as almost a waste of money, but hey if you have plenty to spend and want a tiny bit more performance, go for it. It runs hotter, but I don't know if that will make somewhat of a difference..

 

The discussion on our forums was related to a Intel Spec sheet that said it was a 32-Bit CPU. We confirmed with Intel it is indeed 64-Bit as the rest of their mobile processors and was a typo on their spec sheets.

 

Thanks justin, I was about to mention that

 

Thanks for clearing that up... thats what happens when you don't read the whole thread...

In the end the P9600 is still the best bang for the buck and you gain an additional 10watt of battery life over the T9800 which I'll probably need.

 

Robeeto, I also went with the P9600, but had seriously been thinking about changing it to the Q9000. I think if the clock speed was higher, it would be a no brainer. It might go a long way to "future proofing" the laptop too.
However, at this point I think am going to stick with the P9600 because, like you said, it is the best bang for the buck.

 

I just noticed that Sager's website is offering a lot more variety of processors and other retailers like powernotebooks and exoticpc don't...whats the deal with that?

 

they just need to update their sites.... the notebook is still new with the quad-core features.

if you contact any of the vendors directly, they would be able to configure any of the CPUs that you see on Sager's site.

 

Just when I thought I had it all figured out...well in that case is the T9600 worth buying over the P9600

 

If you're using the notebook for gaming, and will therefore be using it plugged in 90% of the time, the T9550 is the wisest choice. Why waste $35, when the increased battery life means nothing to you?

 

Because $35 is not all that much... and its also going to be used for college.


Now I'm trying to decided over the P9600 and the T9600.... if there is a significant deference in performance between them I'll probably go with the T9600... any suggestions?

 

Well its already pretty future proofed...you can just replace the CPU when reasonable quad cores come out later on...right now quads are just so unreasonable. I am just to get the P8700 and than replace it with a quad in a year.

 

Once your good with 2-3 hours of battery life. Then this laptop would be good for you.

 

It's only a 5% increase in clock speeds, so I say skip it. For the price of the T9600/T9800, I'd take the P8600, then get a Q9100 engineering sample off of eBay.

 

That is a very good point!!

 

If the NP8662 supports quads, I guess we could fit in a QX9300 in there right? But that would probly void warranty wouldnt it?

 

Do we actually know that other quads will work on this laptop... I'm not sure how it works but would the laptop be able to handle heat from more powerful quads??

I'm not really interested in upgrading my laptop after I make my configurations thats why I want the best thing I can get now....even if the Q9100 can be used for the laptop I still think the duel cores would still be better for most of my computer needs.

@Kevin_Jack2.0
What is 5% increase in clock speed.... would that be noticeable in games??

 

5% increase in clock speed will not change anything in games, since the gpu is the bottleneck. Plus 5% isn't really worth it imo

 

M860TU has support for Q9100, i´m more interested in Q9200.

 

Alright now that I've got everything sorted... unless anything changes within two month I'm most likely going to get the P9600

 

I've been thinking...

If you're sticking with a Core 2 Duo setup, why not stick with the P8700? it's cheap, but still running at a swift 2.53ghz. Back in my day, you had to drop change on the P9500 for that kind of performance. The P9600 is only 5% faster, and you'll never notice that in a game.

So the real question: is the P9600 worth the $110 over the P8700?

 

So the T9600 is 5% faster than the P9600 which is 5% faster than the P8700...where does it end!?!?

I think I'll still stick with the P9600 since I'll be playing Arma II which is very cpu intensive...the game doesn't demand much from the gpu since it a combat simulator the game emphasizes more on the realism than the common fps type game.

 

Don't forget that the P8700 is 3mb cache vs P9600 that is 6mb cache. To be honest, I have no idea how much of an impact this has and if it changes anything in-game, so if someone could share some knowlegde on that, it would be great

 

I'm gonna take T9550 exactly because of L2 cache. It's some kind of RAM, but for CPU. More RAM u've got, faster CPU is.

 

It makes a difference in some games. I recommend you get the entry level processor of the highest cache (P9500 and around that area) than the highest level processor of the lower to medium cache (P8700).