Is it worth getting the 2.53GHz over the 2.40GHz for $70CAD more?

Hey!

I just placed my order at Lenovo for a ThinkPad T400...

I choose the 2.40GHz but I want to know from the community if I should call back and take the 2.53GHz with 6M L2 Cache?

How much is this CPU better and how will I notice it?

Its $70 more than the 2.4.... Since I wanted a good and powerful laptop as cheap as I could, I selected the 2.4....

What's your taught?

Thank you!

SPECS:
2.40GHz
2GB (1DIMM so I can upgrade to 4GB later)
Vista Home Basic (Will do a Clean install of either XP or Vista... not sure yet)
ATI Mobility 3640 256MB
Bluetooth PAN
Intel WiFi 5300
100Go at 7200RPM
LED screen
Camera
9-cell batterie

else is STOCK !

I talked to the tech and she said they would ship it the 23 and would arrive the 29! (I know this is crap but.... can only hope!)

I also ask her if I could have the guarantee that I won't have the Samsung screen... she said that they were installing the part they had in stock.. So I could not know what Screen I would have

 

There is no point wasting money on that little performance difference, it will be unoticable, and it would make a lot more sense to save the money for a upgrade or new laptop in the future when this one is lagging behind.

 

If the +70CAD CPU is the T9400, not a very wise choice, as the CPU has a higher power consumption, and will affect the power efficiency of your notebook slightly. Though CPU intensive tasks will take advantage of the extra 3MB Cache. The P9500 is a better choice. (maybe not offered with the T400)
Else stick with the P8600.

 

Alright! Thank you guys! That was what I thought...

anyway... keep posting your opinions!

 

didn't consider the GHz, $70 for 3Mx2 L2 cache, a bargain!

 

For an increase of performance of almost nothing. Yeah!

 

I disagree...double the cache is worth the extra amount from a performance perspective.

 

For a definitive answer, this article is worth a read:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Intel-Centrino-2-CPUs.11100.0.html

It is worth noting that despite double the cache, T9400 is only marginally faster than the P8600 while the latter has a "higher bang for buck".

 

Also the p8600 is cooler and uses less power.

 

Yes, the P series uses less juice and is "cooler", but the differential in power draw on the T series to me is marginal in actual day-to-day use.

While benchmarks are fine, you will notice the doubled cache (3MB vs 6MB) If you are a heavy laptop user. I just think for $70, it's worth it, considering you'll never upgrade the cpu in a laptop.

I would not buy the T9600 (2.8ghz); not would $200 more - those folks are just paying for Intel's R&D, and the performance increase is not inline with more $$.

 

OMG! I'm gonna open Word 2007 0.1 second faster!

 

You aren't funny, just ignorant.

 

Stick to the P series and youll be fine.

 

Not sure what this means, you don't have to have 2GB in 1 slot to be able to upgrade later. Even if all slots are spent, you can take the sticks out of the slots and put your own in (incase you didn't know). I bought 2GB 2DIMM rather than 1DIMM since it was cheaper and upgraded it to 4GB myself for +75% cheaper than what Dell charged. I plan to upgrade to 8GB sometime this xmas.

Also, I have the T9400, it's pretty cool for me, but will heat up when you stress it. I didn't buy it cause I wanted the better numbers (even though thats a part of it), I bought it cause it was thrown into the discount .

So if you're not getting some sort of discount (by phone or something), go with the P series.

 

INTEL CPUs get more benefit from the extra L2 cache than AMDs. You will feel significant difference in some Apps as 3D games ,Video encoding etc .

 

Thank you all for your time to reply.

My main usage will be to programs some apps (Visual Studio), make some movie editing, image editing and some BF2 Project Reality gaming!

@ I♥RAM: Do you think 4GB (2DIMM) cost less than adding only one 2GB (1DIMM) on my current 2GB ? I think Ill save some money..

 

Sure, you might save money.

But it's generally said to not mix RAM from one manufacturer and another. Even though, everything will probably be just fine if you do. I just like to choose the cheapest RAM offered, and purchase 2 sticks from the same company. But thats because I'm a perfectionism freak.

 

short answer: a cad application is not the type of application where you'll have noticable performance improvement with the bigger l2 cache, clockwise there is also no noticable difference between 2,4 and 2,53 ghz.

the long answer is that it highly depends on the actual type of application. the bigger the l2 cache the more memory from the ram can be cached into the l2 cache. if a memory fragment can't be found in the l2 cache (cache-miss) it has to be loaded from the ram - this is slower then (but still does in no way mean that 6mb is twice as fast as 3mb).

the cases where a 6mb cache delivers a noticable improvement over 3mb are server applications with multiple threads (ie many parallel users, many scattered data fragments) and some database related operations like string comparisons (cpus have special hard wired instructions (ie mmx and sse) for ie comparing and finding text on huge data heaps).

so in conclusion if you don't have an actual need/application for a bigger cache, don't even worry about it. it's not worth it in your case.

 

You do see a difference on Intel CPU with larger cache, no doubt.

Here's an article on it: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709-8.html.

Mo' cache mo' betta, esp. with the Intels.

If the $70 is going to break someone, then go for the lower one; it's still a good chip and will perform. But if you want a boost and can afford it, the cache is worth it.

 

Not so fast...that is not true. Games, compression, and other things will benefit from the cache. Not 2x faster, but still noticeable (5% or more, depending on app.) Add to that the extra cycles (~6% more according to wPrime), means that it wouldn't be surprising to see 10% improvement (in some areas) of the T9500 over the P8600. You can feel that difference, and it may (or may not) be worth the $70.

It should be put in context of the overall price for the laptop. He/she should take the total price of the laptop with the config and the P8600, and then divide $70 by the total. Seem if that percentage "increase" in the cost of the laptop is worth it for "10%" more performance.

 

I would agree...just get the max RAM you want now, and don't worry about cracking the case later. Sure, it always gets cheaper, but I generally want max performance now, not later (when CPU and other advances pale the RAM.) It used to be that vendors would stick it to you on RAM, but not anymore; Lenovo charges about $150 for 4GB RAM; if you bought from Crucial, it would be $200. So they really don't stick it to you.

 

And if you buy from G.Skill on NewEgg like I did, $65.



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0260381 50008476 1309121118&name=4GB (2 x 2GB)

 

DDR2 RAM is not compatible in ThinkPads T400/500 though as they use higher priced DDR3 RAM. :/

 

Boo thinkpad boo!

 

it won't be 10% in his case and i have reasons to question the acuracy of the article. there are other differences in the cpus there in the article, more than cache size.
I agree with the 5%, that is reasonable. but that's also what I call "not noticable". same with 10%. the computer magazines i read often claim a barrier of 15-20 % to feel a difference in daily computing, that's on par with my own experience (as long as you're not in the hobby of counting frames in games). see also that 3dsmax didn't see improvements in the test you've posted, and before i wrote my last post i've checked performance differences in cad applications between intel cpus with different cache sizes. thus i claim again, cad isn't a typical type of application for seeing improvements.

you can always get more performance if you're willing to pay. i'd rather take the 70 bucks and save it for fuel - in his case.

 

We can agree to disagree. My point is not that you can get more performance if you are willing to pay, but rather the % increase vs % more dollars. (And why I think the high-end T9600 is not worth is at a $300 premium.) Obviously, the perception of "faster performance" is both objective and subjective, depending on the person. I know people (use their laptops a lot) and can notice 5% very easily.

In many things in computers (apps, databases, etc.), cache is king. the bigger the better. Also, having a bigger cache increases the chance of the needed data being in the cache (all other things being equal). So to me doubling the cache is worth $70. (although given the way prices drop, it will probably be $50 next week and $0 at the end of the month! ;-) )

But hey, at least there are choices. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have the conversation.

 

Just remember that cache size and CPU performance only come into play when the CPU is the performance bottleneck.

When contemplating a CPU upgrade you need to sit back and honestly look at how often the CPU is really the bottleneck for system performance in your usage; in many cases it may be other subsystems such as disk and not the CPU.

 

exactly. despite the claim of the previous poster, it's not worth to bother about a marginal faster cpu when everything you throw at it will be done in a fraction of a second (and not noticibal). in the OT's usage scenario, a fast hdd and the graphics card is the bigger bottleneck. the money would be well spent if he'd get the cheapest available hdd, sell it at ebay and get something like a seagate 320gb drive with 7200 rpm. i just couldn't believe my eyes when i saw it for 79€ (~110 USD) at my local store in the internet right now.

 

True, disk drive is usually the bottleneck, but after that (assuming you have sufficient RAM, it's CPU and cache. There are plenty of cases where CPU is _can_ be the bottleneck, including encoding data, video, virtual machines, and games.

But I would agree in principle - I would rather have faster disk than bigger cache. However, all things being equal, cache will help. (Because it avoids going to RAM and possibly disk in the first place.)

 

Marginal is a relative term. As I agree, disk (and graphics) are chokepoints, but that does not diminish the value of CPU and cache in a relative performance comparison.

 

the question was if it's worth for his usage, and then the answer is closer to no. in the performance comparison linked on the first page, you can see how close the cpus are - also when encoding video and rendering. i for one would take both the p9500 (so not the t9500), maybe aftermarket, and a seagate momentus.3 320gb 7.2k rpm.

 

His usage "will be to programs some apps (Visual Studio), make some movie editing, image editing and some BF2 Project Reality gaming!"

He already has a 7200rpm drive, so disk is addressed.

So it's not just open and shut. I think you would need to run both and see (I assume you meant P8400, as there is not a P9500). Of course, it's tough to do that when you are ordering sight-unseen.

 

you can't compare an old 7.2k rpm 100gb hdd with a new hdd with a new one with higher data capacity/inch. and even it's a drive with just one plattern, it would still perform slower that an 320gb model (i dount it anyways, because it would be a 150gb or 160gb model than).

and no i really meant the p9500, the 6mb 2,53ghz version with 25w tdp instead of 35w of the t versions. i get the w400 preconfigured with it here in germany.

i just did a check at storagereview and did a head to head comparison with the wd 320gb (seagate wasn't in the db) and the hitachi travelstar with 100gb and 7.2k (which was the fastest notebook drive for a long time).

http://www.storagereview.com/php/be...&numDrives=1&devID_0=365&devID_1=343&devCnt=2

as you can see, the new drive(s) blast away the old ones. see here:
Maximum Transfer Rate (WD 320GB) 82.2 MB/sec; (Hitachi 100GB)53.0 MB/sec
Minimum Transfer Rate (WD 44.2 MB/sec; (Hitachi) 29.8 MB/sec

 

sorry for the many typos in my prev post. but i think you get it.

my calculator says performance improvements are > 60%. your class mates would be jealous if they are still waiting for solid edge to load and you are already finished with your work ;-).

 

Wow... you guys are awsome... alot of information there.

Before I started looking for laptop.. my budget was max $1000CAD.... with reading this forum, I found that I should put more $ to have a some what very good laptop for the price.

The current configuration I got go up to $1200CAD... $200 more than my budget.....

I know I should get the best CPU, the best HDD, the best ram... but for the money I have... I think 'ill just stick with what I got for now and hopefully it will do the job as long as it can!

I appreciate your time to respond... continue the discussion if you like too... but for now... I think I should just stop searching for the perfect setting since I don't want to spend more money on the system...

Thank you again!

 

C'mon...we all know higher denisity drive will perform better, but a 100GB 7200rpm the OP listed is decent enough for discussion purposes. Also, that review was comparing SATA to PATA, as well as 16MB buffer to 8MB buffer. Apples and Oranges, my friend.

Thanks for the clarification on the P9500; unfortunately, it's not available in the config for the T400 in the States (yet). I guess if you are buying in Germany, then this whole discussion loses steam because $70CAD is a little over $40 Euros. (I'm don't know how much laptops are in Germany compared to the US and Canada, but I imagine it is a higher cost.)

The real question: Are the 320GB Scorpio's better than the Hitachi 320GB? That's the shoot-out I'd like to see...

 

Since $ is the driver, then I would say stick with what you got. You might even be able to chip that number down a bit. Even the base CPU and hard drive will be servicebale.