X9100 Vs T9900

Có thể bạn quan tâm

Menu Log in Sign up

Home
Forums
Intel
Intel CPUs

#1 · Mar 6, 2011 Hello all! If you'd kindly look at my systems info I have a custom built laptop there which uses the ASUS Z97V barebone platform. I use it in my office and I take it occasionally to LAN parties for some serious gaming. It has a PM45 chipset and a P8600 CPU. I just ordered a new 160GB Intel X25 M and while on it I thought I should also consider upgrading the CPU, graphics card, RAM and maybe buy a turbo memory module. I've made countless talks over the phone to the company who assembled the thing 2 years ago for advice. But like all typical retailers, they don't know squat. At least they informed me about the impossibility of replacing the 9650M GT with a 9800 (incompatibilities with the MB and PSU), said that the turbo memory stuff works only with Vista (boo!) and 2x4 GB DDR2-800 SODIMMs are worth a fortune so I gave up on that. But they're not sure about the CPU. They said that Quad Core is out of the question (I confirmed it from several other sources) but when I asked about the X9100 they were like: "Huh?". According to the very out-of-date site of the manufacturer (http://asmobile.whiteboxworld.com/z9/Z97V/overview.htm) max supported CPU is T9600? I don't think so. I think that I can at least put a T9900 in there. Am I right? And since T9900 is the upgraded, cooler variant of the X9100 I figured it should also work. 45W is what concerns me the most. I think I should be fine with that awesome Delta fan I just saw when I removed the guts of the laptop. See less See more Sort by Oldest first Oldest first Newest first Most reactions #2 · Mar 6, 2011 If their info is outdated, than the only way to find out is to try it out yourself. In most cases, if it fits it works. #3 · Mar 6, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazzyRussian;12635371 If their info is outdated, than the only way to find out is to try it out yourself. In most cases, if it fits it works. Click to expand...

That's what I'm counting on. But since I'll be getting the CPU off eBay with no possibility of selling it back it's a risky business. I don't even think I can sell my current one in Turkey. #4 · Mar 6, 2011 It all depends on the motherboard revision. For example, the revision of my lappy does not allow me to put mobile C2Qs in it. You need to find the motherboard revision and use that to know if whether or not quad-core CPUs are supported. If they are, I'd most likely go for it. I'd be kinda worried about the cooling requirements, though. Your P8600 is rated for only 25W, while the quad-cores are rated for 45W TDP. For the quad-cores, the Q9100 seems like the best proposition because it's relatively high clocked (2.26GHz) plus you get a lot of computational performance not to mention the price to buy one is under $250. For the dual-cores, I think you'd be better off with the T9600 or the T9800. I did the calculations myself and the T9900 is only 7% faster overall than the T9600 while costing several times more. You can get the T9600 for under $200, while you can get the T9800 for under $250. I don't think this justifies the price difference because the T9800 is only 3% faster and you can OC the T9600 to 3.0GHz easily. So, I am pretty much in the same boat as you. But from what I can see, I'll probably get the T9600. EDIT: Just to let you know, if it supports the T9600, it supports the T9900. They're the same revision. #5 · Mar 6, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by LOL_Wut_Axel;12635547 It all depends on the motherboard revision. For example, the revision of my lappy does not allow me to put mobile C2Qs in it. You need to find the motherboard revision and use that to know if whether or not quad-core CPUs are supported. If they are, I'd most likely go for it. I'd be kinda worried about the cooling requirements, though. Your P8600 is rated for only 25W, while the quad-cores are rated for 45W TDP. For the quad-cores, the Q9100 seems like the best proposition because it's relatively high clocked (2.26GHz) plus you get a lot of computational performance not to mention the price to buy one is under $250. For the dual-cores, I think you'd be better off with the T9600 or the T9800. I did the calculations myself and the T9900 is only 7% faster overall than the T9600 while costing several times more. You can get the T9600 for under $200, while you can get the T9800 for under $250. I don't think this justifies the price difference because the T9800 is only 3% faster and you can OC the T9600 to 3.0GHz easily. So, I am pretty much in the same boat as you. But from what I can see, I'll probably get the T9600. Click to expand...

Whoops! I meant to buy the X9100 not Q9100, correcting now... I've done my research and 100% sure that my MB is incompatible with quad core CPUs. Also, my BIOS doesn't allow overclocking and I don't want to anyway. The reason I'm not going for a T9900 right now is that X9100 is cheaper and scores slightly higher in benchmarks. #6 · Mar 6, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by Juzam;12635612 Whoops! I meant to buy the X9100 not Q9100, correcting now... I've done my research and 100% sure that my MB is incompatible with quad core CPUs. Click to expand...

Okay. Does your motherboard's BIOS support over-clocking? If not, you can just use SetFSB, but still... IF your BIOS supports over-clocking, then the X9100 may be worthwhile because of it's unlocked multiplier. From what I've seen, most people can get around 3.4GHz out of it on stock voltage. Same thing goes for the T9900, but that's more expensive. The X9100 is quite a power hungry best, though. I don't think it's additional TDP requirements merit its performance. You can probably get 3.2GHz out of a T9600. I'd go with that. EDIT: seems most people are getting 3.4GHz out of the T9600, too. #7 · Mar 7, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by Juzam;12635612 Whoops! I meant to buy the X9100 not Q9100, correcting now... I've done my research and 100% sure that my MB is incompatible with quad core CPUs. Also, my BIOS doesn't allow overclocking and I don't want to anyway. The reason I'm not going for a T9900 right now is that X9100 is cheaper and scores slightly higher in benchmarks. Click to expand...

Well, since you can't OC from the BIOS, you can use SetFSB to do it. The X9100 will run quite a bit hotter and will also consume more power, so beware. #8 · Mar 7, 2011

#9 · Mar 7, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by reflex99;12640267 X9100 is a quad Click to expand...

Nope. #10 · Mar 7, 2011 ninja hax right there.... #11 · Mar 7, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by reflex99;12640267 X9100 is a quad Click to expand...

Anyway, I'd go for a T9900. Also, your motherboard CAN accept a Quad mobile, even if it's not official it'll just show as 'Unknown CPU', but clock speeds will remain at default, because they use the same socket. http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Intel-Core2-Quad-Mobile-Q9100-2-23GHz-1066FSB-12M-/110626791458?pt=CPUs&hash=item19c1dee022 #12 · Mar 7, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

NO. Quad-cores use a different revision from the dual-cores. My motherboard, for example, does not support the quad-cores; I already tried. All it did was POST and then it would shut down. Just because the socket is the same doesn't make it compatible. This is the same case for the OP. The T9900 is way too expensive for the performance it gives. Twice more for a CPU that is only 7% faster doesn't sound like a good deal. #13 · Mar 7, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by LOL_Wut_Axel View Post

Ah right I see, that's odd. Thanks for the correction

. Well the OP said that the T9900 was cheaper than the X9100, so maybe he found a good deal? #14 · Mar 7, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Ah right I see, that's odd. Thanks for the correction

. Well the OP said that the T9900 was cheaper than the X9100, so maybe he found a good deal?

Yeah, there's good deals on that CPU on eBay. Thing is, like I said earlier, because it's an Extreme Edition CPU it comes with a higher TDP and that means more heat that the heatsink has to dissipate plus a lot lower battery life. T9600-T9900 are 35W TDP; X9000-9100 are 44W TDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ook_processors EDIT: My reading comprehension skills just got tested. If the T9900 is cheaper, then by all means go for it. It consumes less power and delivers the same performance. #15 · Mar 7, 2011 Quote:

Originally Posted by Juzam View Post

...The reason I'm not going for a T9900 right now is that X9100 is cheaper and scores slightly higher in benchmarks.

The X9100 I found ships from UK (3-7 days to arrive) while the T9900 I found ships from China (15 to ∞ days). Both have free shipping and X9100 is $20 cheaper than the T9900. #16 · Mar 7, 2011 Grr... I'm still debating the issue when my thermal paste and SSD are on the way and the laptop lies on the floor with it's guts all over the place. I'm going for the X9100. Cheaper and faster. I rarely use it on the move and have a Zalman NC-2000 anyway #17 · Mar 26, 2011 Installed the X9100 along with the SSD (Intel X25M G2 160GB) and WOW! It's like upgrading from a pentium 4 to an i7! Windows boots and shutdowns faster than my desktop lol. No heat/power problems whatsoever although the CPU runs a bit hot (50ish on idle 70ish on load). One thing I've learned from this experience is that Velociraptors suck. I'm getting two more X25Ms for my desktop RAID array as soon as I'm able to... This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread. Insert Quotes Post Reply

27.9M posts
550.7K members
Since 2004

A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more! Show Less Full Forum Listing Explore Our Forums Intel CPUs NVIDIA PC Gaming Water Cooling AMD