9300 vs 9400 - Gaming Perspective - Page 2

Also on wikipedia, A WSXGA+ display is commonly used on widescreen 15.4 inch laptop LCD screens with a resolution of 1680×1050 pixels.

The 1.66Ghz Duo would be fine for gaming. And the 7800Go is substantially better than the 6800Go.

To me the 7800go is about 1500 3do5 marks better (O/C) than the 6800go (O/C)

apparently the coming Oblivion game will utilise dual core processing. read it on gamespot.or issit ign.com.....will check out.

"Some of the optimizations for the multicore Xbox 360 processor made it over to the PC side. It should perform faster on a multiprocessor system [PC] than a single processor system." As to how significant those differences are, Bethesda could not say....from ign.com

http://pc.ign.com/articles/683/683157p1.html

i guess having dual core will make a slights difference, not as big as having a significantly better graphic card though.

Anand's Yonah article shows that a Pentium M @ 2.0Ghz is about the same as a Duo at 2.0Ghz in regular applications. In games it's a 1 or 2 FPS difference, sometimes with the Pentium M being higher.

That said, a 2.13Ghz Pentium M should monkey stomp a 1.66Ghz Duo butt. The Duo can't overcome a 500Mhz, or 30% difference in clock speed.

It'll cost you another $200-$250 to get a Duo that will compete with the Pentium M you have now.

As already advised, get a 7800GTX upgrade. That's whut I'm doing.

By and large, the CPUs in most modern laptops are more than sufficient for any game... It's the GPU and the Memory that make the most difference nowadays and, depending upon how your machine is setup, the CPU configuration (ie Dual Core will perform significantly better if you have stuff running in the background, such as anti-virus software).

I have yet to hear a single comment on the 9300 boards claiming that a CPU upgrade made any significant improvement in performance of a game (or indeed, almost anything else).

This makes sense since the CPU is powering away at stuff until it is done and then goes to sleep waiting for the slow part of the system (the disk and, even slower, the human) to respond. If it takes a fast CPU a quarter of a second to do something, a slower CPU taking a thid of a second is still fast enough to qualify as 'instant'. Of course, if you are running something that takes 10 hours to process, you will care about the extra 30% performance, but this is not going to be a playable game !

In practice, even the GPU has limited impact on performance... going from a 6800Go to a 7800GTX will perhaps double the performance, but all of the games I know of are functional on the 6800Go... the 7800GTX is used to improve the quality of the image more than to improve gameplay, I gather. Still, a 100% improvement has more potential than the 30% going from a 1.6GHz CPU to a 2.13GHz one, especially since the 1.6 has the potential to multi-task much more efficiently...

Also, although games are rarely written specifically for dual core systems, I would expect them to sometimes spawn child processes which the dual core system should be able to optimize. This is especially true of games that are designed for multi-player use, but which are being used by a single player against computer opponents. I would expect the game machine to be one process sending and receiving messages from a process per 'player'.

In my opinion (backed by no personal experience at all), I would go with the E1705. It should currently perform around as well as the 9300 and, in the next year or two, should perform better.

Then again, I wouldn't buy an E1705 for another 3-6 months at least, since I don't trust Rev 1.00a of anything. And then, the 64 bit version will be released, so I'd then wait another 3-6 months... Keep the 9300 for a year and save your money until March 2007.

Take a look at the benchmarks here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2648&p=6

As expected, the core duo kicks butt when multithreading or multitasking is involved and it's about the same as the Pentium-M for single threaded apps.

Of course, now that everybody has dual core procs, you'll start seeing many more multithreaded apps, including new games.

The same was said back when HyperThreading Came out
And 64-bit
And 3D-NOW!
And MMX

Though this will probably catch on better, but not soon enough to warrant switching to dual core right now.

64-bit is definitely overhyped, but dual core is already pretty useful. For example, on a single core system, it basically grinds to a halt when I'm ripping a DVD, but on a dual core system, I can do something else at full speed during the rip.

I have no idea if multithreaded games will become the norm, but it looks like 3dmark06 already takes advantage of dual cores, so if nothing else, it'll give you a bigger e-penis.

well being an i9300 owner the faster cpu helps out, and i do suggest you just upgrade to the 7800gtx

yes.



OK so is the 1.86 better thenthe 2.0 duo core?

I dont know...

From Tom's hardware mobility site.
"Gamers, who look for notebooks with dedicated high-end graphics chips to let them indulge their passions, should wait for dual core technology notebooks in any case. That's because 3D games (such as Call of Duty, Quake 4, or King Kong), which normally overwhelm even fast graphics processors and high-performance single core CPUs, run flicker-free on the new dual core processors."

http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/01/...se/page25.html


Only problem is from what I know we cant put a gf 7800 gtx in the 9400.

cant put the 7800 GTX yet that is lol people will figure out how to its just a matter of time