P9500 vs T9600

[Jahar]

Hi,

I'm going to be buying a new NP8600 and I'm trying to decide which processor to get. While money isn't an issue, I don't want to be spending an extra $195 on something that's only marginally better, so my question is whether or not the increase in performance is noticeable in real world games and apps and if it justifies the cost as well as extra heat produced.

(I've seen all the benchmarks but I'm looking for people who've actually tried both)

I'll be running Vista x64 with 4gig of ram and getting the 160Gb 5400RPM hard-drive and I'm wanting to use this laptop for at least 2-3 years. My primary use will be games like Crysis, WoW, Diablo 3 and Fallout 3 (when they come out).

Cheers

[robamb2002]

I haven't had a chance to see either of these processors in action, but I can tell you that a 0.27GHz upgrade will be slightly noticable (I've heard "rule of thumb" 0.2GHz is barely distinguishable in real world apps)

I would also note the wattage difference. If you are looking for better battery life, the P9500 would be worth looking into.

but as you say, if money isn't the issue than its pretty clear. get the best :)

your best bet would be to call sales and talk to them... they know what they are talking about and have seen these machines in action. also, they won't sell you what you don't need.(unlike some big name companies I won't name here)

[Zatara214]

Its pretty much the old question 'how fast is too fast' when comapred to price. I personally went with the P8600 (but I got a 320 GB 5400 drive), and it loads everything instantly, no delay like with my other laptop with the T7500 in it. The T7500 was a 65 nm processor, running at 2.26 Ghz. In upgrading to the 45 nm processor at 2.4 Ghz, I can tell you that it made a WORLD of difference. HOWEVER...

In my desktop, I took the liberty of upgrading my C2D 65 nm processor at 2.4 Ghz to a 65 nm at 2.66 Ghz. I can tell you that THAT difference was barely, if at all, noticable. Likely, the only difference in processor speed that you are going to see today is in upgrades per generation, not in clock speed.

That being said, they both have 6 MB L2 cache. The only difference that I think you will see is the heat output and power consumption, to which the 9500 tops the 9600. The 9600 may be able to play Crysis at 3 extra fps, but when it comes to real world applications, especially with 64 bit Vista and 4 GB DDR3 RAM, the actual computing performance will be, as I said before, barely, if at all nocitable.

So if I were you, I'd get the P9500, and maybe upgrade the hard drive to the 320 GB 5400 like I did. Or the screen, or whatever lol...

[Jahar]

Thanks Robamb and Zatara,

I think I'll get the P9500 and I'll probably up the hard-drive and meh matte vs glossy is kind of a personal preference. I had a matte before and wasn't hugely impressed although the upped screen res is nice. Thanks again!