Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 duo vs Quad Core Help Please

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 11, 2009 4:29:14 PM

Hey I've been trying to do a lot of research before I buy my new laptop. I'm buying an Alienware laptop. I've done a lot of searching for different suggestions but I'm having the hardest time finding more information on what I will truly see as far as perfomance goes wether it be Gaming or Editing video whatever. Here are the choices I have for processors. I budget is to be around 3grand which would allow me to buy the Core 2 Quad Q9100, I see that the core 2 extreme x9100 is for the same price. I'm just looking for some basic suggestions and information regarding the differences I would notice. I plan on buying the Q9100 but will it be worth the extra money? Or should I just downgrade to the T9600 and save 350 bucks or to the T9400 and save 600 bucks... I'm willing to pay the money for that quad core but I'm just trying to justify it. All ive really come to conclusion with is that the Quad core will make editing video, and doing more things faster. I mainly play World of Warcraft, and I like mixing music and graphic design occasionally. I want this laptop to last me a while aswell. Especially if im dropping 3grand. Any information will be highly appreciated any information at all, your thoughts on what will be a noticable change between the processors. Here is the basic setup i have for the computer I have if interested, aside from the CPU. Dual HD 3850's 4gig DDR3 ram, vista 64. Bunch of other uneccary crap too lol. THANKS!

Intel® Core™2 P8400 2.26GHz (3MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$850]
Intel® Core™2 P8600 2.4GHz (3MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$750]
Intel® Core™2 T9400 2.53GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$600]
Intel® Core™2 T9600 2.8GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$350]
Intel® Core™2 Extreme X9100 3.06GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [+$0]
Intel® Core™2 Quad Q9100 2.26GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

More about : core duo quad core

January 11, 2009 5:08:16 PM

For those who click on my post and found it scary to read everything. The general question I had was which is better quad or core 2 duo? What performance diff will I see? Is it worth it?
January 11, 2009 5:48:01 PM

Get the quad core, if your video editing, it really does benefit from the multiple cores. If your on a tight budget tho, a 3.0 dual core is about 30-40 less than a 2.4 quad. Take your pick tho, in my opinion. you would benefit from a quad.

How come your getting a alienware? i always found cyberpowerinc. to be a better deal..
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2009 5:55:44 PM

You have to consider that, in a perfect world, you could multiply the speed of the CPU by the # of cores to get a gross performance measure (the Q9100 would "only" be twice as good as the P8400). In the real world, only media encoding and "branch calculation" (like chess) can get close to that efficiency; for games, you get, at best, something like 20-25% (based on Supreme Commander, one of the most multi-core optimized game yet, E8400 vs QX9650 both 3GHz). So for games, fewer faster cores are still often better, but recent releases like GTA4 tend to make better uses of more cores.

However, you have to consider the price. For that reason, for laptops, I think the answer to "Is it worth it?" is very often "no", not matter what the question is :p . You would spend as much for the 3GHz upgrade as someone would probably spend for a whole E8400 gaming system ... and the later might perform better. Personally, I think you would have more for your $$$ if you would spend half the budget for your laptop, but change it after only 1.5 year.

Do you absolutely need a laptop?
January 11, 2009 5:57:39 PM

I'm going Alienware because I've always wanted one. They look so sexy and the features appeal to me. With that I just got a new job making about 3k every couple weeks, so I have the money to burn on a nice laptop. Money isnt much of an issue. But I want to save money on the CPU if getting a Quad core wont really benefit me. No point in spending an extra 850 bucks on something that wont make a difference. So I was just curious if I truly will notice the difference between a quad core or just getting the p8600 or something. I appreciate your information! will the quad just allow me to do more things at once and the things I do will move faster in general?
January 11, 2009 6:13:05 PM

Yes I need a laptop. My desktop is getting old, just running a prescott 3.4ghz cpu 512mb x1800xt 3gig ram. But things are lagging to **** now =(. I travel a lot now with my new job, so it will be convenient for me to raid and pvp on wow during those travel days. not to mention my area is almost done with the new Ymax stuff, so Internet will be available anywhere. I appreciate your information zenthar!
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2009 6:45:10 PM

I had to ask because sometimes people don't realize what they are asking (no offense). For example, people would want a laptop for school, but also want to play game, so they will spend 2500$+ for a gaming laptop, but it would cost them less to buy a gaming desktop and an "office" laptop.

I think the P8600 is a good choice for the price.
January 11, 2009 6:54:33 PM

Right yea that totally makes sense. I would totally agree with you, but the situation im in, laptop would really benefit me =P. So I just dont understand Zenthar, forgetting about the price difference between the p8600 and the Q9100. What will be the main differences I will experience performance wise with those to chips? Will one just allow me to run photoshop and all the uncessary crap in the backround while playing an intense game? Or will one improve the gaming performance more than the other? Not to mention thing of its life. Wouldnt a Quad core last me a longer time before my next upgrade period? I guess im still just mainly confused on what is the true difference between the two, not so much which on is a better bang for my buck.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2009 7:18:50 PM

Some games will benefit from more cores, but right now, very few do. The best know ones are GTA4 and Supreme Commander (compare E8400 with Q9650 for 2 vs 4 same-clocked cores and E8400 vs Q6600 for something close to the 2 priciest laptop processors you were considering). You will notice that they both get a big boost from 2 additional cores, but the clock difference is just too big for it to matter in gaming. For games like Crysis which aren't that much optimized for multiple cores, adding 2 additional cores will have no direct impact at all.
January 11, 2009 7:47:23 PM

Interesting. Now somebody was talking to me about that quad core have a slightly lower speed will cause the 2 hd 3870's to bottleneck. Is this true? I find it hard to believe that a quad core will bottleneck 2 video cards. But prove me wrong, or please explain what he was probably thinking of or incorrect about. You are very helpful Zenthar! thank you so much!
January 11, 2009 8:08:35 PM

Hello,

I am not sure what are the prices now for the laptop quads, but I think that the price difference is exagerated unless there is a specific need for the quad. From the prices you mentioned the T9400 or the T9600 seem to be better option than the extreme processsor or the quad. Unless you need the quad for some speific task the T9400 is the winner.
I guess.

PL
January 11, 2009 8:57:48 PM

There are 2 mobile CPU quads. The Q9100 & the QX9300 Extreme. Assuming I went with the T9400 the Q9100 (the quad im interested in buying) would be an additional $600. You saying unless i need the quad for a specific task still doesnt help my situation and my question still partially stands. Is the true power of the Quad core only proven through running multiple tasks at once? Or will the Quad core improve performance overall? through specific tasks. If this is the case, What differences would I see performance wise, between the core 2 duo's wether it be I buy one of the T series chips, or a P series. What tasks performance wise would I see?

I like mixing music, graphic design, and gaming. Would I quad core allow me to do all at once if I wanted to with high performance? while one of the core 2 duo's would allow me to run one of those programs at a high performance the quad would put out for multiple tasks at once?

I guess im still partially confused what would change? What are the pro's to owning a quad core/what are the cons? What would be the pros (if any) to owning a Core 2 duo OVER a quad, and vice versa, what would be the pros to owning a Quad over a core 2 duo. Does one do certain things better than the other? Single task perfomance etc.

Regardless of price I'm just trying to understand the true differences between the two, So I have a better understanding of the Quad. If somebody comes up to me in a coffee shop and asks me about my laptop and asks, why did I go quad? I dont want to say cause it has a Quad sounds fast lol.

One more question I would like to repeat so it doesnt go unnoticed. I got a reply from somebody on another forum that the quad core im interested in Intel® Core™2 Quad Q9100 2.26GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) would bottleneck the dual video cards Dual 512MB ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 3870's. Is this true? Would it really do that? Im finding it hard to believe that such a cpu, would have such an effect on those 2 video cards.

Thank you all for reading my questions and any information at all is highly appreciated!
January 11, 2009 9:20:45 PM

i have been reading this and i have came up with a idea. i would recommand a custom notebook over Alienware. with a custom notebook you can change the gpu/cpu/hhd/mem and get a better computer out of it. here is the notebook i found for around $3,000 give or take and it has better options to it.

here are the spec's i am just trying to help you get better bang for your dollar.

Model: SAGER NP9262
Lcd: 17" WSXGA+ "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1680x1050)
Cpu: Intel Core 2 QUAD Q9550 2.83GHz w/ 12MB L2 Cache - 1333MHz FSB
Video:nVidia GeForce 9800M GTX 1,024MB PCI-Express DDR3 DX10 (User Upgradeable)
Mem:4,096MB DDR2 800 (2 SODIMMS) Dual Channel Memory
Drive:Combo 8x8x6x4x Dual Layer DVD +/-R/RW 5x DVD-RAM 24x CD-R/RW Drive w/Softwares
Hdd 1st 250GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300) 2nd 250GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300)
7-1 card reader/Bluetooth/Wifi Wireless N/Bulit-in camera
Laptop bage Basic Black Business Case - Included
Battery Smart Li-ion Battery (12 Cell)
O.S Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit Installed (64&32-Bit CD Included)

Warrteny 3 Year Parts/Labor Warranty 24/7 Tech Support w/ LCD Accidental Damage Protection

Total 3131.16

you get eveything you want for around the same price but more. because you can upgrade alot. the socket would be 775 so you can put any socket 775 cpu in there

here is the link to the laptop if you wanna check it out http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np9262-ultimate-custom-lap...

but if i would have to choose on that laptop i would say the Q9100

Just my 2 cents
January 11, 2009 9:27:51 PM

Thank you so much for taking the time to do that research and put together a computer similar to the specs im interested in! I appreciate your time!
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2009 10:14:46 PM

This has not been addressed yet, but a laptop implies portability, and maybe a need for use with battery power. The quad will suck down the battery pretty fast, the faster T____'s will also. The P____ processors can be pretty fast and still be efficient with battery power. If you are going to take the laptop somewhere and plug it into the wall, then maybe the quad would be fine.

Besides battery life, you should consider the apps that you intend to run. Take a list of your primary apps and find out which ones will make use of multiple cores. Most apps will be fine with a dual core, and probably prefer a higher clock speed dual core, but a few apps do utilize a quad, including some video editing apps.

I needed a fast laptop to run CAD apps when I travel, but I use it frequently on battery power alone so I was sensitive to that. I bought a Dell with P9500 CPU, 2.53GHz. I just got a new desktop workstation at work with E8500 CPU, delivered at stock processor speed. The laptop can hold its own against the desktop, less than 20% slower, and still gets over 3 hours battery life. I oc'd the desktop to 3.8GHz so it's a little faster than that now.
January 11, 2009 10:19:14 PM

Yea battery life doesnt mean anything to me. Its always going to be plugged in anyways
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2009 11:06:24 PM

I'd like to point-out that killz86's build would really be awesome and give you much more bang for your bucks. The Q9550 is an amazing CPU, I'm personally waiting for a little price-drop to get one over my E8400. Moreover, the fact that many components are user-upgradable greatly improves the life of the system specially when gaming.

To come back to the dual vs quad impact, there is no easy answer, you have to understand a bit about programming and internal CPU work to really understand. Hopefully, there is the wonderful world of analogies :p . Have you ever looked at an MS Project Gantt chart? That is exactly how a program should be seen ... as a project with multiple tasks needed to be done, some with dependencies and a limited number of people (cores) to do the job. Now imagine multiple projects (programs) being done in the same office by the same limited number of people. Some projects are divided into tasks that can only be done sequentially, adding more people won't change a thing. Some other projects consist of completely independent tasks (ex: evaluating the validity of 4 different sub-contractor proposal for a building) that could be done by numerous people simultaneously. And finally many projects are a mix of the 2; some task need to be done before the bulk of the people can start working on it.

In your case, the comparison isn't even than simple because you are comparing a 2.24GHz quad to a 3.06GHz dual; it's like comparing a Ford F-350 to a Mustang. How much time will each one get you from point A to point B depends on the road and how much weight you are pulling.

Most people with a Quad describe their experience as "much smoother", if something runs in the background, there is much less impact on what they are doing (much like adding weight to a F-350 doesn't impact the speed as much). If you want to encode media WHILE playing game, then the Quad is preferable; some application might be slower, but you can run more of them without impact. Moreover, if the way your encoding software works benefit much from the Quad, it will even run faster if you don't do anything else. If you are the kind of guy to do a single thing at once (like me), then a faster dual-core might give you better overall results since many applications (and games) still benefit more from fewer faster cores.

Summary
========
X9100 Pros:
  • Faster cores = generally better gaming/application performance.
    X9100 cons:
  • Will loose much performance if heavy multitasking (ex: encoding while playing games).

    Q9100 Pros:
  • Great for heavy multitasking (ex: encoding while playing games).
    Q9100 cons:
  • Slower with applications that do not benefit from multiple cores.
  • Slower if doing only 1 thing or light multitasking (ex: word + excel + Web).
    January 11, 2009 11:22:42 PM

    i will keep a eye on this thread and see where it goes. and if you need help just pm me i will glady help out. all i need to know is your budget you want and i can see what kind of custom laptops i can come across on the web
    January 11, 2009 11:32:39 PM

    This was very very helpful! I just have one more quick question to confirm I understand what your saying is correct. Basically the x9100 has a higher clock speed 3.06GHz. There Q9100 has a clock of 2.26GHz. So basically When it comes to single applications the x9100 will be faster than the Q9100. Not so much that the Q9100 will be slow or programs will lag, but just talking about straight perfomance the x9100 will be better because of its speed. But when it comes to multiple applications the Q9100 would be the better option because simply thats whats it is built for.

    Just wanted to clarify with the cons you stated for the Q9100. There both fast processors and would suit me well either way just the x9100 is better for single applications and the q9100 is still good for single applications but also better for multiple applications.

    Thanks again to anybody who took the time to reply and read through all of this. I truly appreciate it!
    January 11, 2009 11:34:56 PM

    In response to your post Killz, my budget is around 3grand. I already had my eyes on my AW laptop ive wanted. I mainly just wanted to know the main differences between the processors and if Quad core could be justified.
    a b à CPUs
    January 12, 2009 12:03:58 AM

    The Q9100 will be faster for both multi-application or highly multi-threaded single-applications (like some media encoding software).

    And sorry to come back to that, but you should consider killz86's build very carefully. At 2.83GHz, the Q9550 will give you nearly the same performance (no more than 8% performance drop) as the X9100 in a single single-threaded application, but up to 26% more in high multi-tasking (or highly multi-threaded applications) than the Q9100. Look at this comparison(http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q...[2181]=on&prod[2185]=on) (the E8400 @ 3GHz being as close as I could find to the X9100 @ 3.06GHz), the Q9550 equals or beats the E8400 is all tests. You would have the best of both worlds and, with a user-upgradeable GPU, could perform well for gaming for a while with minimal $$$ input.
    a b à CPUs
    January 12, 2009 12:09:41 AM

    The Q9550 has a problem though. It is a desktop quad, and by itself can take more power than most entire laptops. This means that battery life will be next to nothing. Unless the computer will never be used on battery, it really isn't the choice to make IMHO.
    January 12, 2009 12:24:33 AM

    the Q9550 on stock is 95watt's. if you want to get the AW get it but i would still you look over a custom notebook over a AW they over priced compared to a custom notebook.

    that notebook i gave the specs are just like a custom desktop but its a laptop. but if you want the AW then get the Q9100 but sorry ot say this again but i would get a custom notebook over a prebuilt one. because it will have more options then a prebuilit notebook

    also you could put a GTX260 in the SAGER. if you dont belive me look up a forum called notebookreview.com they are all about laptops. i have a fujitsu N6470 but i perfer custom computers over Prebuilit laptop or desktop. but thats my personal option. but if you want the AW get it its your money not mine
    January 12, 2009 12:28:36 AM

    This is my first Laptop. What your saying makes total sense, I didnt really think the customization was available like that. I never followed up on laptops until now. I've built 3 desktops for the reason alone that places like Dell or something doesnt have what I know I can really get for the price I would be paying. Or what I would like to see my desktop have. I just wasnt aware that the customization was there for laptops like that. I have been looking at the specs on your build I like what I see, def giving it consideration. :) 
    a b à CPUs
    January 12, 2009 12:43:27 AM

    killz86 said:
    the Q9550 on stock is 95watt's. if you want to get the AW get it but i would still you look over a custom notebook over a AW they over priced compared to a custom notebook.

    95 watts is too much. Typical notebooks draw less than 65 watts in total, for everything.

    I agree that Alienware is overpriced, but I would stick with a notebook made with notebook components, not desktop components.
    January 12, 2009 12:48:26 AM

    being the q9550 wasn't engineered for the notebook i wonder how long it would last with a notebook CPU cooling solution.
    January 12, 2009 12:54:36 AM

    Thats a good point Roofus. I wasn't thinking about that when I was considering that notebook build.
    January 12, 2009 1:04:39 AM

    i am sure it is a beast but how long will it last would be a concern for me personally.
    January 12, 2009 2:51:33 AM

    the sager's are made to have desktop cpu's in them. sager's are 1 of the best laptops you can buy today. here is a review of the laptop i am refering to

    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4391

    and here is other review with that same laptop

    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4222

    Sager's have very good cooling they can stand the heat. also you would get a 3 year warrarty so if something did happend you would have the 3 years to fall back on. they have 1 fan for the cpu only and 1 fan for northbrigde/ram and 1 gpu fan. if you go sli they will put 2 fans for both the video cards.

    Alot of people own these laptops. you can go to notebookreview.com and you can ask and they will tell you. i can also see if i cant find other laptop if you think this 1 wont work for you. but i put my rep on the line when i say this is a good laptop. and Xotic pc has rep's on the forum i listed above called notebookreview.com.

    there is 3 fans total on the laptop. and 1 more if you go sli. this is a very well bulit laptop.

    a b à CPUs
    January 12, 2009 4:09:39 AM

    killz86 said:
    the sager's are made to have desktop cpu's in them. sager's are 1 of the best laptops you can buy today. here is a review of the laptop i am refering to

    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4391

    and here is other review with that same laptop

    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4222

    Sager's have very good cooling they can stand the heat. also you would get a 3 year warrarty so if something did happend you would have the 3 years to fall back on. they have 1 fan for the cpu only and 1 fan for northbrigde/ram and 1 gpu fan. if you go sli they will put 2 fans for both the video cards.

    Alot of people own these laptops. you can go to notebookreview.com and you can ask and they will tell you. i can also see if i cant find other laptop if you think this 1 wont work for you. but i put my rep on the line when i say this is a good laptop. and Xotic pc has rep's on the forum i listed above called notebookreview.com.

    there is 3 fans total on the laptop. and 1 more if you go sli. this is a very well bulit laptop.


    I wouldn't question their build quality or cooling. I would question why anyone would buy a laptop that has a one hour battery life on a good day. It completely eliminates the usefulness of the computer when away from a wall socket.
    January 12, 2009 4:33:22 AM

    because its a DRT Desktop Replacement. but you can take to your buddies house for games and lan parties it would be easy to just take that then a desktop
    a b à CPUs
    January 12, 2009 12:04:13 PM

    killz86 said:
    because its a DRT Desktop Replacement. but you can take to your buddies house for games and lan parties it would be easy to just take that then a desktop

    +1

    I think what the OP wants is a "portable desktop" more than what we perceive as a laptop. I think most people use laptops that way. Would be fun to make a survey about that.
    a b à CPUs
    January 12, 2009 12:12:44 PM

    For reference, here is the poll ;) .
    January 12, 2009 5:59:54 PM

    Yea basically all I need is a portable desktop. It's going to be plugged into the wall all the time anyways. Battery life and such doesnt even cross my mind, ever.
    January 12, 2009 6:59:11 PM

    stick with the dual core that way you have $600 more for your WOW adiction.

    and yes people AW is over priced but come on they do have cool cases and thats what zeriah is after.



    becides if they sold more units im sure the price will come down some day LOL
    January 12, 2009 8:54:52 PM

    Ryry at first I appreciated your comment about saving 600 dollars. But now I think that you just want me to get an AW so they get cheaper and you can get one! WTF!? :p 
    January 12, 2009 11:05:25 PM

    also if you like ATI video cards here is other laptop from the same site.

    it has a notebook Cpu and Crossfire. has all the same specs but for the Cpu which is a Q9000 for laptops and the 2x 3870's in crossfire. also has DDR3 1066. also has bigger rez of 1920x1200 instend of the 1680x1050

    Model: OCZ FORCE EXTREME 840
    Lcd: 17" WUXGA "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1920x1200)
    Cpu: -Intel® Q9000 45nm "Montevina" Core™2 Quad 2.0GHz w/6MB L2 On-die cache - 1066MHz FSB
    Video:CROSSFIRE ATI HD3870 (2) 512MB (1,024MB Total) PCI-Express DDR3 DX10 (User Upgradeable)
    Mem:4,096MB (2 SODIMMS) DDR3 1066MHz Dual Channel Memory
    Drive:Combo Dual Layer SuperMulti 8X DVDRW Drive w/ Software
    Hdd 1st 250GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300) 2nd 250GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300)
    7-1 card reader/Bluetooth/Wifi Wireless N/Bulit-in camera
    Laptop bage Basic Black Business Case - Included
    Battery Smart Li-ion Battery (12 Cell)
    O.S Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit Installed (64&32-Bit CD Included)

    3 Year Parts/Labor Warranty 24/7 Tech Support w/ LCD Accidental Damage Protection

    Total 2857.82 Cheaper by $273
    January 12, 2009 11:29:19 PM

    I like the 1920x1200 rez lol. Everything seems good, but does it have a HD monitor? One of the reasons I also was planning on that AW laptop, was to turn it into my travel movie player too. So the 1200p clear view monitor, HD tuner, here you know what I'm going to post the setup I was planning on buying one second
    January 12, 2009 11:34:11 PM

    Intel Core2 Quad Q9100 2.26GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)
    Dual 512MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870
    17-Inch WideUXGA 1920 x 1200 LCD (1200p) with Clearview Technology
    Illuminated Keyboard with Numeric Pad
    Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit Edition) with Service Pack 1
    Internal Digital / Analog (ATSC) TV Tuner with Adapter
    4GB« Dual Channel DDR3 SO-DIMM at 1066MHz – 2 x 2048MB
    500GB 7,200RPM
    Dual Layer Blu-ray Disc Reader (BD-ROM, DVD±RW, CD-RW )
    Internal Intel Ultimate N 5300 a/b/g/Draft-N Mini-Card with MIMO Technology
    3 Year Warranty

    Total $3,049
    January 13, 2009 12:17:38 AM

    after looking at a wiki and reading some the 17" WUXGA "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1920x1200) 1920x 1200P see the last 4 so if its 1280x 720P or other one 1920x 1080P see where i am going with this lol.

    the 17" WUXGA "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1920x1200) is in fact 1200P

    also i you want you can add a blu-ray for around $315 more so the total would be $3163.17 but your getting better support and you can upgrade the gpu in it which is kinda hard to come by now adays
    January 13, 2009 5:27:24 AM

    Yeah it would be nice if the price fell like a grand or so.

    I got my eye on a EEE PC right now just dont know what modle yet , but that is a hole new thead


    good luck in your shopping
    a b à CPUs
    January 13, 2009 3:25:57 PM

    I understand about the desktop replacement part, carrying to LAN parties, etc., but this carries a very high price. Price an equivalent desktop machine with a similar sized monitor and you could probably buy 3 of them for what the laptop would cost. I have seen people get creative with cases for the sake of machines that they could easily carry to LAN parties. If you want a powerful machine, I don't think it would be that big of a deal to carry a little more hardware and set it up. But this has to be a decision that the purchaser makes. If a person wanted laptop protability, would always plug it in, was happy with the price, then the AW sounds like the way to go.
    a b à CPUs
    January 13, 2009 3:46:26 PM

    @cadder
    If it was only that he wanted to carry his PC to occasional LANs and things like that, I would agree with you. But in this case the OP has to do lots of business trips and therefore, I don't think carrying anything bigger than a laptop is an option.
    a b à CPUs
    January 13, 2009 4:24:41 PM

    I find all laptops to be greatly overpriced, especially custom built ones (Alienware is really bad as of the last time i checked...). Make sure you shop around before you buy (WidowPC, DigitalStorm, etc.) to make sure you don't get hosed.
    January 13, 2009 4:51:55 PM

    The op wants a laptop so i was finding him some good deals. xoticpc has some A++ support. and they are very good laptops they have. alot of people use xoticpc because you can make the laptop how you want for a good price. I would say get the OCZ or sager for your laptop because you can upgrade the gpu/cpu/mem/hdd and other things on it. so with xoticpc you get more bang for your buck with a laptop and alot of people use xoticpc
    January 17, 2009 3:27:24 PM

    I really appreciate everybodys responses to this topic. I wasn't sure how much help I was going to get but every one of you voiced there own opinions and a special thanks to Killz for researching different laptop setups and Zenthar for Answering my specific questions the way I requested. It was very helpful! Thanks Everybody! For thos who care, when the time comes in about a month I'll post again and let you know what the outcome is, and which way I decided to go.
    January 17, 2009 4:39:08 PM

    Glad i could help you out :D 
    January 20, 2009 10:15:01 PM

    I would ge the T9400. Because the FSB is he same on the more expensive processors, and really FSB is what makes your computer fast. And with the extra money you could get some Bose speakers or a large external drive. Plus, as far as the procs go, how often is 2.53gHz going to slow you down compared to 3.06gHz??? Not often and if you really wanted to, you COULD overclock. I wouldn't cause the cooling won't be sufficient. But it doesn't really seem worth the extra money.
    !