Will I notice a performance difference between these?

[Anewbus]

I know by human standards of detection, there is virtually no performance edifference between a 1.6 GHz chip and say a 2.4 GHz in a desktop. I haven't noticed much that is. In desktops its mainly the memory on both mobo and vid card, BUS and HD speed that make the difference.
However, I think a lappy may be a different animal of sorts perhaps.

In comparing the Sager 2092 and Force 3298 V2 I'm looking at two different chips

Sager = Intel Penryn Corre 2.1GHz w/ 3MB cache
Force 3298 V2 = Intel T5450 Core 1.6GHz w/ 2MB cache

Will I really notice a performancce difference between these two?

I'm just weeks away from ordering and really leaning heavily towards the Force 3298 V2 due to the superior warranty, better screen and as an added bonus, it's $45 less than the Sager now after my configuration. If there is going to be a significant performance difference though I will need to re-think it.

Thanks so much for answering my questions as we go.

[xpcdude]

The 2.4 is more indicated for gaming, encoding and power activities,whereas the 1.6 CPU is better on battery life and more suited for minor tasks like browsing.
It's a 50% increase in CPU power, so it will be noticeable if you run CPU dependant activities.
For today's tasks, a Core2Duo CPU with at least 2.0 Ghz is suited for any regular user.

If you have any other questions,feel free to ask.

[Anewbus]

The 2.4 is more indicated for gaming, encoding and power activities,whereas the 1.6 CPU is better on battery life and more suited for minor tasks like browsing.
It's a 50% increase in CPU power, so it will be noticeable if you run CPU dependant activities.
For today's tasks, a Core2Duo CPU with at least 2.0 Ghz is suited for any regular user.

If you have any other questions,feel free to ask.

I had a feeling it would be a different story in lappy world. Hmm...Perhaps I better rethink because it is going to be a desktop replacement which means more than just browsing. I'm not a hardcore gamer or anything, but I do play on occasion and I am going to be hooking the lappy up to the TV for that very function plus playing streaming video over the TV and running sound through my receiver of course. I'm not clear on what constitutes CPU dependant activities as it is generally involved in all activities at some point. I could upgrade the CPU but that's another $100 which translates into waiting another 2 months. I've been saving up for two years and I feel its time to get one. I fear if I wait just two more months with things being what they are in the economy, it may move way out of reach of my budget rendering it unattainable forever. It could be worth finding some way to get the money to get the CPU upgraded a notch. I'll look into that.

[xpcdude]

You can always upgrade the CPU later on with any of the CPUs currently available for your system if you need it now

[Anewbus]

You can always upgrade the CPU later on with any of the CPUs currently available for your system if you need it now

Thats an idea, but I fear it would be more expensive to do that. I'd have to buy the new chip and then pay to have it installed and by the time I'm done I would be looking at three times the cost. (I'm not about to pop the hood on a lappy either! Desktop - yes, hand me the screwdriver, but I know next to nothing about messing about inside a lappy).

I think it would be cheaper to upgrade at time of order if I need to. That would also save me from suffering with a potential expensive paperweight for a while due to the CPU or something being inadequite. I'd rather have it ready to go right out of the box by whatever means I can muster.

[xpcdude]

Then the recommended CPU for you is the T9300

[Anewbus]

Then the recommended CPU for you is the T9300

Woah! $235!!! I can't afford that in any way. I'd have to wait another 4 to 5 months and by then with this economy the whole unit will have moved far out of reach and shipping would be $900 or something. No, I think one small notch up to the next CPU should be more than enough. I hope. It might be better to discuss it at order time. It wouldn't be so bad if we had Euros instead of dollars.

[[email protected]]

@Anewbus

You can also view the different performance levels and benchmark scores for the CPU's you are interested in here

[xpcdude]

Woah! $235!!! I can't afford that in any way. I'd have to wait another 4 to 5 months and by then with this economy the whole unit will have moved far out of reach and shipping would be $900 or something. No, I think one small notch up to the next CPU should be more than enough. I hope. It might be better to discuss it at order time. It wouldn't be so bad if we had Euros instead of dollars.

Then go with the T8300, 2.4 Ghz is only a bit slower than the T9300 2.5 Ghz.

[Anewbus]

I'm considering the T8100 possibly. I'm looking at the benchmarks on all 4 of them. That extra $100 may even not be realistic for me. I can only work with the money I have fearing the "pay me now or pay me later" situation. If it's a huge difference I'll hopefully find a way to make the jump to the T8100 at least so that I have a system that works for me out of the box.

So far it looks like the T8100 would be a better choice and not much different from the T8300.

[xpcdude]

Well, what I initially sugested was to get a decent 2.0 CPU now and upgrade later, but you said that you`d prefer a good one now to last.
The compromise between the best and the cheapest is the T8300.

[Anewbus]

Well, what I initially sugested was to get a decent 2.0 CPU now and upgrade later, but you said that you`d prefer a good one now to last.
The compromise between the best and the cheapest is the T8300.

My original choice was getting the standard 1.65 GHz chip to save money, but looking at the bench marks there is quite a difference between that and the T8100 which is a 2.0 GHZ. The difference per the bench marks between the T8100 and T8300 is not that pronounced to justify another $100 plus. I must stick to budget ya know.