Which Sager 5797 config is better?

I was wondering which Sager 5797 config do you think is better? both are around $2100. I will be playing games like Crysis, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, (once they come out), The Witcher, Cryostasis, Prince of Persia, etc.

-WUXGA (1920x1200)
-C2D P9600 (2x2.66GHz) 6MB L2 cache, 25W
-4GB DDR3 RAM
-GTX 280m
-320GB 7200rpm 16MB cache
-Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit

-WSXGA+ (1680x1050)
-C2D T9800 (2x2.93GHz) 6MB L2 cache, 35W
-4GB DDR3 RAM
-GTX 280m
-320GB 7200rpm 16MB cache
-No OS (I will try to "find another way")

How much might the increase in CPU GHz effect games?. Additionally I know I might be able to max games like Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 at 1920x1200, so I don't know which to choose!

 

option 1 with no OS is my vote.

anything past 2.66ghz (2.53 even) is horrible on the bang/buck department

 

if you didn't notice he said they're both the same price, the only difference is he'll have a much bigger processor without an OS. It's easy to find an OS for cheap/free though. Definitely go for the 2nd one. there's no point in having a great graphics card with a gimped processor.

 

Yep, thanks for clarifying that, though there are some sacrfices made.

I see, so is the P9600 considered "weak"? for the more intensive games? additionally I'm not only losing the OS but I'm also losing the WUXGA screen. I know for games like Crysis and Far Cry 2 I will be playing them at 1440x900 and lower...but games like Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, I can almost guarantee those games I can max out at 1920x1200. This is a dilemma..

 

Go with the 2nd choice (unless you get BlueRay) and like terrytownpc said, with today's demanding games the CPU will most likely bottleneck the GPU also the lower res screen will give higher FPS in games ( I know you can always lower the resolution but to me reading text at 1920x1200 is a too small for my tired "old" eyes for everyday use)
1680x1050 is fine, + I have noticed images and games look better when using a screens native resolution.

 

the P9600 isn't exactly "weak" , but like IKAS said, that's the first thing that would bottleneck on that system. Not to mention processors are the most difficult thing to upgrade later due to the chip set about to change to the i7

 

You guys have it backwards...In this system the GPU is bottlenecking long before the CPU. The 280M is pretty strong, but Core Duo's are still packing heat. There are a few games that standout as CPU bottlenecks, like GTA4 or FSX, but they are few and far in between. Most CPU intensive games do better with a quad, if you plan to play them you may as well get a Q9000.

If you want to ensure image quality with the most amount of games; maxed settings, 4x AA, 16x AF, and buttery frames, all at native res, choose the WSXGA screen. WUXGA is overkill for 17" IMO, and it will lessen the number of games your system can max out. Crysis and anything similarly demanding will start you at high settings at WSXGA with 30 frames, AA being out of the question. WXUGA is just too much for single GPU's, and the CPU whether 2.5 or 3.5 ghz won't make a frame's difference in this case.

You could just do what I did, save a buck, take the P9600 and WSXGA screen, and wait for the rumored qx9700 or a great deal on a qx9300. Dual cores will be old news eventually

 

To add on, yes others were wrong. There are a few games, like anothergeek said, GTA4, but they are rare. The C2D have been said to be ahead of their time, truly what bottlenecks every system right now is the GPU. CPU technology is way past GPU, therefore, GPU's are still weaker than today's C2D's... well not weaker per se, but it's the GPU that bottlenecks most of the time.

 

I see, now the choice has gotten even harder!

One thing I would like to point out. Yes, games like Crysis and Far Cry 2 I will play at low res of 1440x900 and lower. BUT how about all the low-intensive games? Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 (its Blizzard, so yea low reqs), Neverwinter Nights, Red Alert 3, etc. doesn't those games justify a WUXGA screen too?

 

The P9600 is not "weak", and it will rarely bottleneck a 280M. Or, if the P9600 is "weak", then so is the T9800, because it's only a 9.22% increase in clockspeed. That's not enough of a gap to make or break anything, and it certainly isn't worth the $200 difference. I recommend going with the P9600, then you can always upgrade to a quad-core down the line.

I wouldn't be so certain about maxing Starcraft 2 @ 1920x1200 though.

 

he's trying to decide between:

1) 1920x1080, 2.66, OS
2) 1680x1050 2.93, no OS

what i suggested was a mix of 1 and 2. 1920x1080, 2.66, no OS. hell, even a 2.4 would be fine. the 2.4-->2.93 difference alone ( near 400 bucks) will buy you a 3ghz quad core in just a few months. (so to speak).

no need to get an OS either, since he can "source" it cheaper.. besides, win7 is just around the corner.

thats just me

 

I would stay with 1680x1050, because I could run games for longer time on native res.

 

I think this decision would be much easier if I knew more about the upgrade potential of the Sager 5797. I would immediately get the WUXGA 1920x1200 if I knew the 5797 will be compatible with the future GT212 40nm. If not compatible and the GTX 280m proving to be the most powerful card for the Sager 5797 chassis, I would stick with 1680x1050.

 

Impossible to know unfortunately.