Go for Core 2 Quad Q9000 2GHz or Core 2 Duo T9900 3.06GHz??

So I have the option of getting a Q9000 or the new T9900 to swap out my T9400 with.

What do you guys say? The T9900 will just give me more clock speed with the same L2 cache and FSB, and the Q9000 is over 1GHz less clock at 2GHz, but it's a quad-core, vs. dual-core. L2 and FSB are the same all around.

I'll make a poll out of it for those who just want to click and go, but I'd love some opinions as to why you vote for the one you think is better suited, considering it's a laptop, albeit a pretty good size one.

Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz, 6MB L2 cache, 1067MHz-FSB (T9900)

OR

Core 2 Quad 2.00GHz, 6MB L2 cache, 1067MHz-FSB (Q9000)​

Thanks very much for participating!

 

Although it really depends on what you use your computer for, generally, more clock speed is a poor upgrade because the performance benefit isn't worth it for the cost. If you are doing anything that requires CPU power and has multicore support, the quad core will dominate any dual core.

 

If your apps are properly multi-threaded and can max out your CPU for a long period of time go for the quad, if not go for the higher clocked duo. It's as simple as that.

 

Personally, the gap in CPU speed between what you listed has me favouring the T9900. I'm skeptical of any application so efficiently written to take advantage of multi-cores that the 1 GHz difference in CPU frequency can be neglected.

 

Thread-jumpr, I know. But I did have a Lenovo back then.

Anyways, the Quad core has a higher TDP, right? I don't know how much it could be undervolted, but the heat you're gonna shave off won't really be that much since it'll still run hotter than the T9900, plus the quad-core benefits would only be obvious for super-CPU intensive applications..

Perhaps for me it's the T9900.

 

Accidentally voted the dual core.

Definitely would go with the quad core.

I don't run my CPU at full speed that much, so I'd get more out of 4 processors running 1.6ghz than I would 2 processors running 1.6ghz.

Plus, I use my laptop for VMWare, which a quad would help out immensely with.

 

What's the difference in cost?

 

@pem69: No difference for me (because of a Lenovo screw-up...long story), but the Q9000 is the more expensive one by $300, if I'm not mistaken...

@NecessaryEvil: No worries. Thanks for letting me know. By the way, nice assortment of notebooks. How is the 320GB 7,200, and who makes it? Is it from WD? The use of your SDHC also interests me. What is that comparable to? Intel's Turbo Mem? lol...

 

What are you using your notebook for?? What programs will you be using?

 

Without knowing what software you're using, it's hard to say. I voted for the T9900, but that's because the only program I might use that would utilize either CPU to its maximum capabilities is Dolphin emulator, and it craves speed and supports only two cores.

 

Hello all,

Since everyone seems to be asking about what programs will be running...I am about to graduate in MIS so I will be doing light programming in simple languages, but I like to try and learn other program languages plus and I will be using adobe programs (recreational). Which processors from this thread do you think can suit me better.

I was looking to get the HP Pavilion dv7-2180us NoteBook to replace my Dell xps m1330 1.67ghz or should I just go with the T9900 versions. Looking for desktop replacement.

Thanks in advance,
delsl0w

BTW im still a newbie in the I.T./computer area/field

 

The T9900 would be faster than the Q9000 in most applications. The Q9900 would be better if you run certain games or applications that use many threads. Not many typical desktop productivity programs are multi-threaded. You would get the most use out of a quad with newer multi-core compilers and some video editing encoders.

 

Get a P9700 instead lol (opting for the one that is not asked...hahahahah)
No option C P9700? Much ore battery friendly?
No?

Well, no worries. T9900 FTW. Faster performance unless using TONS of multi-thread softwares at the same time.

 

I would also consider how long you intended to keep this. If this is a long term item I would assume that the quad core would give it a longer service life.

 

Your usage doesn't suggest you would benefit from a faster dual core. You won't be utilizing the speed most of the time, so SpeedStep will kick in and your CPU will run at like 1GHz most of the time. If you plan on keeping your laptop for a while a quad will be better. You won't notice much difference in day-to-day tasks. Despite what you hear, if a program is truly multithreaded, it can take advantage of all 4 cores, so you don't need to use multiple multithreaded programs simultaneously to take advantage of a quad core.

 

Thanks guys. T9900 it is then. I don't work with graphics, AutoCAD, and I'm not a gamer, so I'll go with the T9900 for the insane speed. I read it's overclockable to 3.33GHz lol, so I can always do that if need be.

Another reason is that several of you asked as to how long I will likely keep the system. Again, I don't qualify for the Q9000, as I swap into new Thinkpads once every 2 years (never more than 2 1/2 to 3!).

Lastly, I'm not sure that I use any multi-threaded apps most of the time, so again...and the ones that I do, well, the T9900 is still a 2-core CPU, just not a 4-core one, right? Is that logical and even correct to think that way, or am I off on the last one.

Great insight, guys! Thanks very much!

 

Your logic is fine. Very few apps can effectively leverage 4 cores simultaneously. The most notable are video editing, compression, and encryption; all three of which are very scalable and can max out a CPU for minutes, hours, or even days.

 

I'm wrestling with this same issue for my new Sager NP 5797. I'm more of a gamer, but torn between the Q9000 ($158 less) and the t9900. Is there a significant performance trade off between a 2.0ghz quad and a 3.06ghz dual when it comes to gaming?

 

I agree with this. Best combination of power and battery life. The Q9000 and T9900 will be battery-suckers in comparison, and they'll run hotter.

 

IMO, with the exception of the lowest P series (Penryn-3M), the rest of the P series isn't worth the cost. Most users never stress their CPU on the go, hence the power consumption and heat difference btw P and T series are negligible, especially when both are undervolted. In fact, most users never really need much CPU power, so high end CPUs are rarely worth the cost.

The situations which warrant a high end CPU would be if users do lots of number crunching and their program is single threaded, where the T9900 will be best (not many programs for this purpose are single threaded, and the high cost would be offset by the money saved for their work). For users who work with professional software in research and stuff and require CPU power (such as MATLAB, or even CPU intensive games such as GTA IV), these programs all fully support quad core and even the much cheaper Q9000 would be noticeably faster than the T9900.

 

Alright, so it's done lol...I used the 2nd out of three W700's, and just shoved the two 4GB sticks in, after doing a mirror copy of my SSD to my Seagate Momentus 7200.3, just in case something was going to go wrong, but Acronis has never let me down.

I got way fewer options for this model. I no longer have the 2GB Turbo Memory (this way I won't have to disable it lol).

I no longer have the 5350 w/ WiMAX (so I won't have to disable the WiMAX portion of it). Just a plain ol' 5300.

I no longer have the integrated camera that I never got to work (and didn't care). I see that it's running 20 fewer processes. Coolness. I'm glad I got two, instead of one year of warranty on this one. Peace of mind is definitely worth some dollars.

Thanks for the votes, and the many high caliber explanations. I feel confident that I made the right decision in getting the T9900. That's one sick bada$$ processor.

A quick afterthought. With all the options I chose not to get for this unit, will that afford me the opportunity to open it up and install something else?