m17 processor choice

which of these processors will produce the best GAMING results? i dont care about the price difference i just want to make sure im not getting a quad core that will only help with like openGL and other stuff like that i just want the best gaming processor for the m17

intel core 2 extreme X9100 3.06GHz (6MB Cache, 1066 MHz FSB)

or

intel core 2 extreme quad QX9300 2.53GHz (12MB cache, 1066MHz FSB)

thx in advance

 

Depends on the game really. Some games can't take full advantage of the quad core, but I can safely say the quad core will give better gaming results - especially with the higher cache and 4 cores.

 

I'd go with the quad core. A 2.53 GHz dual core is plenty fast for most things, so even if it cannot use all the cores you're still going to have a faster processor than most people. And it's a quad core in a LAPTOP!!!!

 

The X9100 will do better is almost any game right now (only games I know off the top of my head that will do better with the Q9300 is Age of Conan). The future however is uncertain, it may develop that games can take advantage of all the cores in the next year or so... personally though, I'd choose the X9100.

 

Are both CPUs overclockable ?
The QX9300 OCed @3Ghz+ will pwn the X9100.

 

I've read Alienware locks the BIOS and does not allow overclocking (would be wise to check this).

Also, an increasing number of games are taking advantage of multiple processors (the ones I can think of right now):
-Supreme Commander
-Age of Conan
-GTA IV

Between the two, I'd get the QX9300. Hope it helps your decision!

 

I should mention that I only keep computers for a max of 6 months, so I rarely look to future proof myself, and that influences my decision. In the here and now, the X9100 will perform better, so that's what I would get - even if in 6 months you will game better on the QX9300.

 

Supreme Commander is another game that would probably do better on the QX9300.

At any rate, for most games, the X9100 will do better. The QX9300 will probably outperform the Q9100 as more multi-core enabled programs come into prevalent use, but that might be a while yet.

 

thank you for all the replys im deff trying to futureproof because ill be in iraq for 15 months soon and with a kid on the way when i get home im gonna be really into time with the family and not so much into gaming. but eventually ill want to power back up and still have a impressive rig that can play the latest games.

thx again

 

What is price difference? And as hard as you try? Future proofing is impossible beyond a year or two no matter how much you spend. And some might say I am pushing it with even one year.

 

I can only dream of swapping laptops/computers every 6 months...

With some luck (and Obama) you'll be back faster than that. But seriously, if u start playing games again in 3 years time, you're better off buying a midrange laptop, invest the rest of the money (some shares going for really cheap now) then buy yourself something proper once you feel like gaming again.

In 3 years time, this will be old tech. Still very decent but probably equivalent to the performance of a 8800 GTS now. Which is to say you probably won't be playing games on all high at 1900*1000 res.

 

Yeah I think a year is the most you can futureproof, maybe 18 months if tech's been slow (which it has been the opposite of recently)

I am by no means rich. I'm 19, and though I do work full time, I don't make a whole lot. You just have to be smart with your purchases - I only lose about 100 dollars every 6 months on my technology - I buy something for an amazing deal (sale, build a barebone, outlet, etc), and in 6 months, the current market value is about what I paid. I sell it for a bit less than I paid, and buy my next system.