Processor Questions

Is it just me, or are the intel processor 'specs' ridiculously complex and convoluted? Sure all the little details are well and good, but what I really want to know is how much small differences will ACTUALLY MAKE on games / everyday computing.

For instance, I am going to be buying a new laptop soon, and I have it narrowed down to 2 laptops, which are almost exactly the same... here are the differences

___________________________________________________________________________

MSI MS-1719

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Mobile T7250 Dual-Core Processor @ 2.0GHz 800FSB 2MB L2 Cache

NVIDIA GeForce Go 8600M GT 512MB with Turbo Cache Technology

OR

Alienware m9750

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5500 1.66GHz 667MHz FSB 2MB Cache

512MB NVIDIA® GeForce® Go 7950 GTX

___________________________________________________________________________

I'm going to be running XP, for the record

As far as the video cards go, I know the Go 7950 GTX practically rapes the 8600GT, so for that I am leaning toward the m9750, but I'm iffy about the processors

This is what I really want to know: Will the 2GHz 800FSB (which was labeled a centrino duo, by the way... i think this is just the older version, but I'm not sure) provide an evident and noteworthy performence increase (games and everyday computing) over the 1.66GHz 667FSB?

Also please don't be bias and bring the brands, etc. into this. I've owned Alienware and MSI products before, and I was happy with both of them.

It's not a simple question. In terms of performance the 2GHz CPU will definitely outperform the 1.66 GHz chip. Whether this will make a big difference in game is another matter. That's because a game doesn't just use the CPU. Everything matters. The GPU also makes a huge difference. One thing to watch out for GPU wise is that while the 7950 is a higher performing, it is DX9 while the 8600 is DX10 (I think). The only way to get actual comparisons is to look for benchmarks.

Looking at those 2 laptops, I would lean towards the 2GHz CPU one. Faster CPU and it's got a DX10 card so it's more future proof.

Heres a great article on laptop graphics chips:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

wow your not so smart with comps are you?

first alienware sucks for laptops and desktops an xps laptop is better then an alienware laptop

second 7950gtx doesnt "rape" an 8600gt i have no idea where you got that from idk if its cuz it says gtx and 8800gtx is a good card but there is a difference between 7 series and 8 series cards

third the T7250 is a faster processor and you will notice a difference when dealing with clock speeds on laptops maybe not on desktops tho

It's not a simple question. In terms of performance the 2GHz CPU will definitely outperform the 1.66 GHz chip. Whether this will make a big difference in game is another matter. That's because a game doesn't just use the CPU. Everything matters. The GPU also makes a huge difference. One thing to watch out for GPU wise is that while the 7950 is a higher performing, it is DX9 while the 8600 is DX10 (I think). The only way to get actual comparisons is to look for benchmarks.

Looking at those 2 laptops, I would lean towards the 2GHz CPU one. Faster CPU and it's got a DX10 card so it's more future proof.

fynne

Your not going to run DX10 on that anyway. For 1 it would rip the performance to peices and he will be using XP.

DX10 is neglidable.

again, I will be running xp, so I will not be using DX10 anyway, just DX9.

and for the record, the 7950 GTX outperforms the 8600GT in every benchmark and test I have ever seen. if you don't put any faith in that look at their specs. The 7950 GTX is 256bit, DDR3 and the 8600GT is 128bit and (in this case) DDR2 --> believe me the 7950 GTX is better, considering I will be using DX9 only. With DX9, the highest 7 series mobile card is still better than a mid/low 8 series card! Believe me, I own an 8600GT in my desktop and while good for the cheap price, it really isn't that fantastic... it is held short by its 128bit interface

but lets get back to the topic... my question had nothing to do with the video card or the brand of laptop... and remember these laptops are EXACTLY the same in nearly every other aspect. My question simply was... Would the difference between the 1.66GHz 667FSB and the 2GHz 800FSB be anything truly noticable in everyday computing, and also, would the 1.66GHz 667FSB bottleneck the 7950 and cause problems when playing newer games?

btw thanks fynne for the link =D

No problem.

In everyday computing....400Mhz probably won't be noticable. Are you really going to miss that extra .00001 seconds when formatting a Word document or recalcing and Excel spreadsheet? Probably not. It's only on the CPU intensive stuff that you'll really see a difference. I use my laptop to encode movies for my PSP so for me every Mhz counts. Games are also CPU intensive.

As for the issue of whether you need DX10 or DX9, you're right and wrong. Sure you may only plan on using DX9 but what if the game you want to play uses a GPU feature that your video card's driver doesn't support? I had this happen to me on 2 games so far (BioShock and Gears of War). I initially ignored the error on Bioshock but I eventually got to a point where the game would hang in the exact same spot. I'm talking about the kind of hangs that required holding down the power button to shut the machine down. Fortunately there was a new driver that allowed me to get by it but I was worried. It was really old and I haven't seen a new driver since then.

Gears of War pops up a warning msg on install and I'm hoping that it's only because it doesn't understand it's going on a laptop. If it hangs then I'm screwed since I don't know if I'll be getting any more drivers for my 7900GS on XP. Must...resist....Vista....