Q6600 vs T9300

I'm deciding between a Sager 9262 and a Dell 1730. When configured the same the price is pretty much equal. The main difference is:

*Sager with Core 2 Quad Q6600 at 2.4ghz 1066fsb 8mb L2 cache
*Dell with Core 2 Duo T9300 at 2.5 ghz 800fsb 6mb cache and Physics Accelerator

well that and Dell can ship faster due to their sli 8800's being ready now.

Would there be any real performance difference in these chips?
Quad core is more "future proof" ?
Battery life does not mean much to me if that makes a difference.

Thanks

 

If you have programs that can utilize all four of the Q6600 cores, you'll definitely see an advantage over the T9300.

But I'm guessing you'll be gaming if you're getting a 9262 or a 1730 and from what I hear most games these days aren't optimized for quads. Subsequently a higher clocked dual-core (like the E8400) would be advantageous for gaming.

Then again, the T9300 isn't clocked that much faster than the Q6600 though it has more cache per core. Also, it's a laptop processor which'll be somewhat slower than a desktop equivalent. Since battery life isn't a concern, I'd probably go with the Q6600.

Neither chip is really "future proof", but the Q6600 is probably slightly more so. Like any piece of hardware, they'll both be obsolete in a year.

 

It's not 'Sanger', it's 'Sager'.

I'd go with the Dell myself, mostly because I really don't like the look of the Sager nearly as much as the Dell, and generally games will run faster on the dual than on the quad. I don't much like the idea of desktop CPUs in laptops myself, I have to imagine the extra heat would effect the longevity of it all.

 

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that statement. Calling a 2.66 Quad Core 2 Kentsfield "Obsolete" in a year in a NOTEBOOK? I would say more like 2-3 years.

 

thanks, spelling fixed.
I've read that heat isn't a problem with the sager. It makes sense to me that the desktop processor would be a little faster than the mobile one, but then there's the quad vs duo thing. Sometimes after researching these things you end up more confused than you were when you started.
I don't have any programs that will use the quad core that I know of, and yes I'll be using the machine for some gaming. Looking forward to Conan when it comes out and not sure what else I'll play. I know that whatever I'll buy now will be replaced with something better within months. But when you spend the kind of $ these things require you want to meet more the just the "minimum requirements" of a game for as long as possible. Thanks

 

Definitely with respect to power consumption, heat output, and form factor. Probably with respect to overall performance as well. Intel is already releasing a Penryn notebook quad this year and I can imagine Intel releasing a Nehalem notebook quad next year.

So yes, I maintain that a notebook with a Q6600 will be obsolete compared to notebook hardware in one year. Whether software can effectively utilize a quad or whether you even need a quad in a year is up for debate.

Also, of less importance, the Q6600 runs at 2.40GHz, not 2.66GHz.

 

Well I've used both processors in the last few months. I don't run anything really CPU intensive so I can't really say much just that I love my T9300!

 

Obsolete is a strong word...it won't stand up to the latest and greatest hardware but it will still be plenty fast enough to run any new applications. For gaming it won't be as useful, and I know this is what the laptop is obviously going to be for, so maybe close to obsolete in gaming terms...for general computing it will be just as fast as it is now...but not as fast as the newer hardware...

 

Please don't revive old threads...