Which processor/accessories to push a 280m?

I've been looking at the Sager 17" with the 280m and I think it's the best bang for the buck right now. But main question is, which processor should I get for it? The standard 2.4 or whatever it is seems plenty enough, but I haven't kept up with intel chips because they have thousands of different ones. Is it worth an upgrade? I'm really trying to keep the whole system under $2000. I'll be running Ubuntu/Kubuntu and windows 7 when it comes.

Are there any other upgrades worth considering like the higher resolution and ram? Is 4gb worth it? I'm not the one to throw away computers after a new gpu comes out. I typically use my systems at least 3 years before I buy new ones.

 

Even a 1.8Ghz won't bottleneck the GTX280M. You need to tell us what do you use the computer for mostly.

 

To piggyback on this a bit, you should be as specific as possible. If you will do "some gaming"...share the games you play since whether someone recommends a dual core versus a quad core, nevermind what Ghz speed, will shape what they'll recommend. For example, GTA4 leverages multi-threaded procs whereas Empire Total War does not (....yet, but that game is so busted atm, my desktop 295gtx and qx9550 still stutters with it). You get the idea though...

 

I would not put anything less than a 2.5GHz C2D in it. Get 4GB RAM. For the best experience, Get the QX9300 or the X9100. The faster the system can push data to the GPU, the better the experience.

 

I'm for sure gaming on it but not like super hard core. I do want to get into higher end games for sure, ones based on UE3, and like Fallout3, etc. I do play a lot of source/steam games too. I honestly don't know what games I would be playing because I haven't had the graphics to push it. I am looking at OFP2 or equivalent, L4D, Bioshocks, maybe deadspace, and maybe diablo 3, but also DoD:S and Red Orchestra. I'm big on realistic FPS's and cool fast paced rpg's. But at the same time, I don't spend hours on end playing. I do usually play online.

This is a desktop replacement. I had/have a tower- amd 64 3000, 6600gt, MSI K8N mobo. That was mid range about 3-4 years ago. I'm going to be doing everything, school work, burning dvd/cd's, photo editing, messing with linux, but also some gaming to kill some hours when I have free time. Hop in on a server, get out when I need to.

 

To be honest, I am still torn between getting a QX9300 from ebay or upgrading to a P9700 @ 2.8 Ghz with the lower power consumption. So the choice can be difficult. I would say in your case go for a X9100 or a T9800/T9900, quads are still not in the game and you can always upgrade later.

 

My P9600 runs really cool (40-45C while gaming) and I've gotten good scores with it. It's more than enough processing power for dual core games. If you need quad power, look for an ES QX9300 on ebay... that's what I'll get eventually when games benefit from it more.

 

Before we reccommend him a Quad Core Pocesser, I think that it is neccessary that he states what he is going to be doing with it.

 

I thought I already stated what I was going to use this for. Is there any specifics you need? I'm not doing any video editing. I just need a machine that can handle most simple tasks but take on some later games.

@ Blacky:
As for the x9100 is WAAAAY out of price range. I may be out of line here but an extra $710 on a processor is outrageous. I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to new intel procs though. I was thinking about upgrading to like t87, t95, or t96, or maybe that quad q9000. But with those, will I see any significant performance increase to justify the extra $100 or so? I guess cpu intensive stuff would be dealing with a big music collection, transferring files (but that left mostly to hd's), photo editing maybe, playing movies on my tv from computer or syncing with the xbox, but I don't know how cpu intensive that is.

I'm currently using vista on a Asus N10 with a 1.6ghz Atom. With this configuration and my last computer, 2.4-2.5ghz dual core procs seem to blow everything out of the water. It's like there's a certain point to where processor speed doesn't matter.

Wait, can you actually upgrade laptop cpu's? If that's the case, would it be a good idea to go cheap now and buy later when I need it? For the record, I'm not looking to over clock anything. I probably don't need turbo memory though, right? I'll be on ubuntu a good portion of the time.

Also for sound, would an upgrade in the x-fi sound card boost music quality? Would I need it for a 5.1 system?

 

those QX9300's on ebay from china are so tempting. how can they get and sell them for so cheap when it costs 3 times as much for companies like sager to buy them.

 

Because they probably paid $0 to nothing for them, so it's all profit. At this point getting processors from anywhere but eBay is not a smart move.

 

There's the rub. The answer is yes...and apparently it is easy to do even for a novice. Given what I've read so far, I'd suggest the dual core 2.66ghz processor with the 25W power draw. It'll play the games you want it to, without spending the bucks on the quad cores which you can do when the prices come down.

 

So there is a significant difference between 2.4 and 2.66? What kinda of numbers (fps or 3dmark or whatever) are we talking here? And would this be classified as an upper or mid-range system?

 

260MHz across two cores isn't going to make a huge difference, but for those looking to pinch every ounce of performance and get the best bang for the buck, the 2.66GHz falls as one of the best CPUs available. The jump from 2.5GHz to 3.5GHz for me only meant an average of 4-5fps more performance, depending on the game. (FSX actually recieved a good 10ish fps more with the faster CPU)

 

So with an extra $100-150, I'm looking at about 2fps increase...maybe? and like maybe faster video/mp3 encoding and stuff but not that it'd be noticeable? That honestly doesn't sound worth it at all, especially when upgrading CPU's later is so easy. It seems like that increase is not enough to break the playable/unplayable barrier in like 3 years. If I was building a computer from scratch maybe I'd take a look at it but a 2.4ghz dual core cpu seems overwhelming still. I think I'm mainly looking for the cpu that's not going to bottleneck since it is an upgradeable component.

also, what about the turbo ram and the sound card?

 

turbo ram is not worth it....

for me, i'm not an audiophile so the base / standard sound card is what I go with...

 

Oh you would definately notice a difference between a 2.4 and 2.66ghz CPU in a side by side, but without a direct comparison, you'd likely not notice a difference. Games that rely heavily on the CPU (Such as FSX and GTA IV) will benefit greatly from the increased frequency. Increased CPU power also equates out to a higher performing GPU, as it can pump data to the GPU much quicker.

I like my Turbo Memory. Finally works in Win7, and I love it. Especially good for rigs with less than 4GB RAM or a 5400rpm drive. It essentially puts your essential system files and most used apps onto a high speed SSD. Its not about increasing performance, its about decreasing load times and improving battery life.

 

What's weird is that there are more options on xoticpc than sager's website. If I order it from Sager, I'm getting the bare minimum soundcard?

Just to make sure, there's 2 cpu's at 2.66ghz. One 25 and 35 watt. I'm assuming the lower wattage is less electricity consumption and longer batter life?

And the External Monitor Video Adaptor. What exactly is this? I'm planning on hooking this up to TV's, possibly monitors, and maybe projectors. Will I need this adaptor or is it for something else. I thought it had an HDMI port already and like something else.

 

The external monitor adapter allows hooking up 2-3 external monitors. Your system will come with HDMI out. If you've got an HDMI compatible monitor/tv and dvi compatible monitor/tv, you can hook up to both at the same time.

 

Ok well I'm in a new dilemma. the 5797 is not top dog anymore with the ridiculous 9280. But it's awesome. But do I really need that extra power? The only stressful cpu stuff is going to be gaming so will that help it out at all? I've heard of an 18.4" with dual video cards but not as good cpu but I haven't found it, unless its the Asus W90VP-a1... which is awesome but out of my price range. The 9280 is almost out too, but I'm not going to get the extra HD's so I'm kinda thinking I might just upgrade the cpu? Good idea?

Btw, are laptop coolers necessary? It's not going to leave my desk very much.

 

The 5797 (M570ETU) and the 9280 (D900F) are at least in my opinion laptops of different classes and different purposes. It has been so before as well.

The M570ETU is lighter, more portable, can give up to 2 hours of battery life. It is still a big laptop but retains some of the mainstream characterisitics of laptops.

The D900F is a mobile workstation. Is not really designed as a laptop, rather it as a works station that you can carry around easily.

You get what suits your needs. I for example didn't know what laptop to get 6 months ago. The OCZ Whitebook or the M570TU. In the end I went with the OCZ because although I wanted a powerful laptop, I still wanted/needed it to be a laptop.

 

You guys were talking about how do the Chinese get these cpu's so Cheap...I wouldn't doubt if they aren't copied...Believe me if the Chinese can get their hands on it then it will be copied...I'm in China right now and I see this stuff everytime i go looking around...I have seen copied gpu's, Motherboards, all the way down to clothing...especially things electronic...So when you go buying things from China on E bay for these unbelivable prices, don't forget that it may be copied, Trust me I just bought 2 nice watches the other day in Shanghai and they quit working by the time I got back to the hotel room 45 minutes away

 

I'm in the same dilemma. Can't pull the trigger on a new laptop. None of them have just what I want. But the 5797 was never really top dog. That title belonged to its big brother 9262, which was just discontinued last month. The 9280 has replaced the 9262 and gone a step higher with the desktop I7 processor, but it is not SLI like the 9262 was. (RJTech may still have some 9262s). Part of my dilemma is that the 5797, while it has the GTX 280M like the 9280, uses the MXM 2.1 mount for it. The 9280 is using the newer MXM 3.0. So while the 5797 will likely be good for a couple years, you may never get to upgrade the GPU to anything else. (planned obsolescence) The 9280 may be upgradeable to new cards as they are released. If you don't care about upgrading the GPU, then the 5797 will serve as long as you want it to. Right now, in single card configurations, the 280 is Top Dog. Of course that may not be true by next week! Next month?

 

If I was shopping right now, I'd be looking for that MXM 3.0 slot. The implications for future upgradeability are huge.

 

That's exactly my issue, I'm about to pull the trigger on the 5797, and I dont need an i7.

I hope Clevo is going to provide a 5797 with MXM 3.0...

 

Not going to happen.

This model is it for the Montevina platform.

it will probably happen for the next platform.

 

Well, he's using Ubuntu, so it can't be that much.

 

Ouch, this doesn't help any. I checked out the 9262 and supposedly it doesn't have HDMI, so that's a no go.

So I want MXM 3.0? The 9280 has it. It has everything, except semi-lightweight. I actually really don't need the lightweight but there could be times where I want to set it on my lap without my thighs being set on fire. I guess I could set it off to the side or something if I was watching tv and use a mouse and keyboard because that's more comfortable anyway. So is everything upgradeable on the 9280? Like everything? I usually use my computers for 3 years at least without upgrading until I realize that it's time. But by that time, formats have changed and the amount of money to upgrade is way too much for the performance gain. With this in consideration, would I be better off upgrading later and keeping it alive or will MXM 4.0 come out in 2 years making my system obsolete once again? And how is the 280m right now? Middle of the road performance? The core i7 is cool and all, but pointless if I upgrade later too. And all ram is upgradeable to right, even that triple channel that I never heard of?

I'm studying abroad right now but I might not have a very exciting summer if I have to get surgery on my knee so I was hoping to get a computer asap when I get back, so i'm kinda in a time frame. If stuff is coming out Q4 then I definitely can't wait that long because I have school to go to by then for sure.

Sorry for so many questions.

 

The i7 will be the fastest processor in any notebook, and the 280m is the fastest (debatable) gpu in any notebook right now.

 

Ok, sorry to resurrect a dead thread but I figure this is better because it has my previous thoughts and whatever.

Anyway all the new computers came out it seems like, the 9280 and of course the 5797 so after reading and seeing the new 9850 18.4" thing, I'm dismissing that one because of the price. Basically from what I can gather is that the only difference between 9280 and 5797 is basically the processor and MXM3.0 stuff. The core i7 can't really keep me because I'd be getting teh lowest model to save money and supposedly it doesn't help out in games so much. Maybe 2-3fps right? That's teh only thing I might need CPU horsepower for - gaming. The thing that makes me want to go for teh 9280 is just for the MXM 3.0. But how long is this going to stay around? The very earliest I would upgrade would be in 2 years...which is plenty enough time for it to become obsolete. And the only reason to upgrade is to delay me getting a new computer. Given this info, is the 9280 worth it? Or should I upgrade the processor of the 5797 and deal with it for the next 3 years+?

 

Get the 9850 with 1x GPU and upgrade it to SLI later when you've got more money. It's MxM 3.0 and even with 1 card it's as good as the 5797. Plus that way even if MxM 3.0 only lasts a few card, 2x slightly outdated cards still perform better than 1x latest and greatest.

 

I see that you can buy cpu's off ebay so I guess that's upgradable as well. But I haven't seen any 280m's on the internet anywhere. Am I looking in the wrong places? Depending on the price, I might just get the dual now but I have nothing to compare it to. Or if they're not available at all, I'll probably just get a 9280. Are they not for individual sale yet or will they ever be?

 

Ask a Clevo reseller for one.

 

And they'll do it no problem?

 

I don't know. That's why we ask them these questions.

 

RJTech might-

 

xoitic pc will usually sell gpus by themselves

 

Suppose I get the 2 gpus in the 9850. The stock p8700 core2duo is going to be a bottleneck right? Can a t9600 push it or should I get teh stock model and buy a cpu from ebay from china, like the qx9300? I think they're from shirley right? Are those decent, and is it a hard job to switch it out?

 

This is ridiculous. Where are all of you getting the idea that the CPU will bottleneck the GPU? A C2D clocked at 2GHz will not bottleneck the GPU, or two GPU's in SLi. Show me some proof that there is indication of bottlenecking on these setups.

 

Ok, this is slightly extreme but this is what my idea came from. I'm not too knowledgable on modern hardware because I only try to catch up when I'm looking to purchase. Last time Was 4 years ago. anyway http://www.guru3d.com/article/intel-core-i7-920-and-965-review/18
that's why I kinda assumed but I guess I was wrong. So any c2d is plenty of horsepower? good news on my part. Before, people said get the t9600

 

Those are desktops sporting i7's and G200's. It's a totally different league and should not be compared to in any way with our mobile C2D/C2Q's and G92's.

Any T or P series C2D is more than enough to push two GTX 280M's in SLi. The people who have recommended you to get a T9600 to overcome CPU bottleneck need to get their heads back in check. They have never conducted a test or have any scientific evidence to prove any noticable bottlenecking on the current mobile platform.

 

so what's the advantage in spending extra in a faster cpu?

 

Are you seriously asking that question? You already know the answer to why we buy faster CPU's.

 

No, we buy faster CPU's for bragging rights.

God help us if we ever used it for anything practical.

 

It depends on the game(s) or application(s) as always, but for most games, yeah, most modern CPUs will push those cards nicely.

Unless you are a massive GTA fan or addicted to EQ2.

Make a list of your critical applications and do some research as to what benefits them the most (GPU/CPU or both). Unless they are more CPU dependent than GPU, you can get by with just about anything.

 

haha, that question came out too simply for what I was meaning. I just don't know the capable power of the core 2 duos. I'm on an Atom right now, and my desktop before was an amd 3000 64 so this is like lightyears ahead. I mean, occaisional photoshop, maybe other photo software, any steam games/mods, bethesda games, bioshock, online fps's, etc.

So basically if I have two gpus with only a p8700 c2d, that CPU won't directly reflect the size of my e-(or IRL) correct?