3.06ghz dual core in the W500

I just saw it in the new psref guide config# 40625FU has it and great specs otherwise. I think I found my next computer

 

Is there any particular reason you want/need a 3.06Ghz CPU (T9900, I assume)?

 

I'm going back to school and likely won't be able to buy a laptop until I finish (4 years for a Bachelors and Masters. I want as much power as I can have in a thinkpad and I can't afford a W700

 

Why do you need so much power...

Are you doing computational modeling that is super CPU intensive?
Really most people hardly need the CPU power.

 

Unless you're running specific programs that you know are bottlenecked by the CPU (video conversion, certain mathematics programs, etc), such a CPU will not give you any benefit over, say, a P8700.

I would suggest investing the cost of upgrading to a better CPU in a good SSD, which will provide noticeable every day performance differences.

 

I use mathematica. I'm trying to finish my degree in actuarial science.

 

That is not an answer to the question.

 

I beg to differ.

 

The question was do you think you need such a high end CPU? Saying you run Mathematica or linking to their page tells me nothing.

 

For your problem, it is a point of cost versus benefit. Personally, i would get the cheapest cpu of a particular range. The reason for that in the recent CPU design, mhz is not as important as a large L2 cache and new coding like SSE4, etc. So for the most economical upgrade, you would get the cheapest T9xxx CPU. I am still using my T40 (nearly its 6 th birthday) for mathematica and matlab.

Also, from a point of view of CPU upgrade, the speed increase say from a T2500 to a T2700 isn't all that great, but from a T2500 to a T7300 is a leap forward.

More cores and more L2 cache is far more important than what increase in couple hundreds of mhz is ever going to achieve.

So save the money, and get the cheapest t9xxx cpu that you can get.

 

I would go with a T9600----the main benefit you should look at is from the series; like Lead said....you'd be fine with any T9xxx CPU.

 

i would agree getting a T9xxx cpu, but not necessarily the T9900. all things equal (cache size, fsb speed, etc), a faster clocked processor isn't really _that_ much faster. cache size plays a bigger part (and therefore the 9xxx-series) i would also agree with the ssd route. that would make the whole system (but not mathematical unfortunately) feel a lot faster

 

This is information I can bank on. You've most likely saved me a couple of hundred dollars. It'll probably end up getting spent on a SSD though. I have an 80gb intel in my x200 tablet.

 

small difference in performance between the T9600 and t9900

 

Just FYI the windows performance index should never really be used as a solid benchmark.

 

What is the configuration number of your new machine? I'm looking at a 40625FU. It's the cheapest I can find with with the wuxga screen and a 64bit OS

 

it is 4058 ctr (t9900) and 4058 cto (t9600)

 

all with vista ultimate 32 bit
now i have order windows 7 ultimate 32bit

 

windows performance index is a joke. ignore it.

 

cereal...as in fruit loops. I love your username.

As for being on topic Id say you'll have a sweet machine, Id recommend getting the WUXGA screen but that's just the resolution junky in me. Another recommendation I would like to make is to wait if at all possible for the i7 refresh on the thinkpads, which I believe are coming early 2010.

 

I actually thought about that but I have a guy who's company deals with Lenovo servers that owes me a favor. I'm getting this at near cost. it's the only way I can afford to get something this well equipped.

The WUXGA is a dealer breaker for me. It's the same with the 64bit OS. Lenovo has two top seller models that come with just about everything as well as Windows 7 pro. Look up in the current psref for 4062-5FU and 4062-5GU. I was previously considering 4061-32U

 

If WUXGA is available in a notebook size it is a MUST have for me.

 

I do a lot of CAD and raytracing, and my next computer will be at least a 3ghz dual. I'm also looking at making portable lunchbox Quadcore desktop. I can build 2 3.2gHZ quads for less than a w500.

 

Notebooks are inherently more expensive. This is hardly a benchmark. And ghz is not everything. The new Intel chips will be very interesting.

 

Agreed. If GHz was everything the terrible P4 netburst chips would still be king as they came from the factory at up to 3.8 and overclocked super easy. As for the new i7 Im excited to start seeing more benchmarks of the i7 mobile platform compared to C2D. Id love to have a 17in workstation again, and the though of a nice quad core i7 sounds great.

As for comparing desktops to laptops youre always going to get more powerful hardware in desktop form then a laptop. Its always been that way and will remain this way for some time. But the fact still remains carrying a shuttle like desktop will never compare to a laptop as youll be limited to places that have the hookups you need whereas a latop will be ready to go anywhere.

 

" If GHz was everything the terrible P4 netburst chips would still be king as they came from the factory at up to 3.8 and overclocked super easy".

But it isn't everything which is why we have benchmarkers.

Renee

 

I don't see the point to this reply... he isn't saying that it is everything, hence the IF and sarcastic tone.

 

This is similar to cars.... people chase up the ultimate power output using turbos, superchargers, water injection, nitro....... but on the real road, absolute power doesn't always mean absolute speed..... that is why we have various test tracks, with mixed obstacles to test the handling, braking, acceleration, chassis stiffness.... etc.......

Benchmarkers are obsessed with numbers.

 

I'm not obsessed with numbers at all. You have seen me quote very few in forums. I'm obsessed with results.

Renee

 

And some people are obsessed with paying the least for the best product option. And if you look at the recent posts, most people asks whether some upgrade are worth it. Not how much money more i can spend on a Thinkpad, Elitebook or Latitude.

So are these concerns not just as valid, as pure speed benchmark results?

 

That is one of the best points I've seen come out of these two threads.

 

See even synthetic benchmarks are limited in what they tell us. Real world use is the real test of hardware and software in my opinion. Putting too much emphasis on tests that are set with certain thresholds and within limited boundaries leaves the data too narrow to show something really significant.

I have benchmarked all of my rigs, and I have seen laptops that scored the same or higher perform less in real world tasks then the other. Dont get me wrong synthetic benchmarks have their place, but nothing Id 100% rely on. Just my $.02.