Better Processor vs Better Screen

Well my bugets limited and i'm having a hard time choosing between

Upgrading from a
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor P7350 (2.0 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB, 3 MB L2 Cache)
to a
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor P8600 (2.40Ghz, 3MB, 1066MHz)

Or upgrading from a
15.6in Widescreen High Definition (1366x768) WLED with TrueLife
to a
15.6in Widescreen Full High Definition (1920x1080) WLED with TrueLife


I wish I could afford both but i'm afraid it has to be one or the other.

Do you think a 2.0Ghz processor would be enough for general usage, some photoshop and 3d work, and some middle-ish demanding games.

Or would the 1080p screen be a benefit even though I will not be getting a blu-ray drive. I could always use a HDMI cable to connect to my TV though.



Thanks for your advice.

 

The 1080p display is not only a benefit for watching movies, it gives you more room on your display - so if you are going to do photoshop & 3D work then I'd probably say go for the better screen. You'd not notice a huge difference with a 400MHz faster CPU I would expect

 

Definitely get the screen.

 

The 1080p displays is definitely where I'd put my money! In addition to the higher resolution, it is also brighter than the standard 720p display. You'll definitely appreciate the difference- get the 1080p and use it for a bit, then go to a store where the Studio 15 is sold (retail versions all have the base display) and you'll be glad you got the 1080p!

The P7350 is a very good processor and it has the same FSB speed, L2 cache memory and energy-saving benefits as the P8600. The difference between 2.0GHz and 2.4GHz clock speed isn't going to be noticeable except in the most cpu-intensive tasks (not very often).

 

I would also opt for the 1080p display.

 

definitely the 1080p screen.

 

Unless you have a $2000 gaming laptop, your FPS in games will drop like a rock with the higher resolution though.

 

I would go for the processor if you want to do ANY moderate gaming on it.

Keep in mind that playing in any other resolution than the native one will decrease quality a lot.

 

No, it doesn't. It can't defy the laws of physics.

 

400MHz difference in CPU speed is not going to impact gaming anywhere near as much as the fact that the GPU is not really a gaming GPU.

It can hold it's own; but if you want to play serious gaming you'd spend 3 times as much on a proper gaming notebook or buy a desktop. Whilst the Studio is capable of playing some games, it is sold as an entertainment notebook for a reason.

The 'P' CPU is not faster; they are simply Intels more energy efficient processors in comparison to the 'T' processors. IMHO any notebook above 14" is going to be used (for the most part) where there is an electrical outlet easily available - so any argument about T vs P is going to be obsolete for the vast majority. I only went P because it was the fastest Dell offered with my particular notebook. I've maybe used it 20 times on battery power out of 6 months of daily usage. That's 6 x 30 = 180 days total use 20 / 180 = 11% of the time on battery, but in reality if you add up the amount of physical time, it would be more like 3 or 4%.

Now with the P8600 vs the P7350, the only benefit is an additional 400MHz clock speed. This is fine if you are maxing out on the CPU for large proportions of your day, but for the rest (and again majority) of notebook users, this simply is not going to be the case.

Gaming wise, you might need to turn down a few of the physics related graphics (i.e. the ones the CPU is heavily utilised in). However, I seriously doubt you'd actually notice any difference between a 2.4GHz core 2 duo and a 2GHz core 2 duo. Even playing [prototype], which claims to require stupid CPU requirements, I can watch my processor usage (as I have two displays), and if it ever hits 100%, or even above 85% then it's for the briefest of moments. BTW 85% of 2.4GHz = 2GHz (or therabouts).

Regards

 

The screen is the better upgrade. You'll have increased productivity as a result, and that is not something that a slightly faster CPU will do for you. Gaming will not be negatively affected by the "slower" processor unless that game is horribly coded or uses a lot of physics. Even then, unless your games are max'ing out your current CPU you'll probably never notice the difference.

Plus, it is a lot easier to upgrade the CPU in the future should you need to. The screen is a pain in the butt, assuming you can get a compatible part at all.

 

Get the screen. It is much easier to upgrade to a new CPU and sell the old one (for much reduced cost) vs. upgrading to a better screen later on.

Seriously, get the screen. This decision shouldn't even be contested.

 

When I'm in a predicament like this I always look at the depreciation value.

The 1080p screen will hold value longer for your laptop than the 2.4ghz cpu will.

 

This should be an ez one. Screen all the way.

 

1080p would be better option. You wont see much difference in the processor performance unless you keep benchmarking all your applications and games to compare both processors.

 

I have already been offered almost the same amount of money for my 1737 because the 1920x1200 RGB LED screen holds its value, not to mention 4GB RAM and a 6MB cache Core 2 Duo T9400 (which can be swapped out)

So the screen is what helps stop the depreciation of value.

you have to be able to say to a buyer key phrases

- 1080p display
- easy CPU upgrades
- 3 hours of battery life
- affordable