NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Business (Vostro, Latitude, Precision) › T2500 and T2600 - substantial difference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

T2500 and T2600 - substantial difference? - Page 2

post #21 of 36
3/16/06 at 9:06pm
sounds like a lot of people have my back on this one (:

overall, spending the extra 300$+ on the 2.13 is not worth you, OR YOUR COMPANIES money!!!

thanks guys.!!!
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 36
3/16/06 at 9:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevyrulz099
sounds like a lot of people have my back on this one (:

overall, spending the extra 300$+ on the 2.13 is not worth you, OR YOUR COMPANIES money!!!

thanks guys.!!!

It depends on what you do for you company...if you do word processing...you are right.

But I'm in the same basket as Scotland.
VS 2005, SQL server 2000, and a ton of other progs. I usualy have about 10 windows open. Plus I use virutal PC to run some tests. My boss prefers to pay the extra 300$ if it means that over the life time of the machine...it makes me save the equivalent in time/salary.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 36
3/16/06 at 10:06pm

Difference

As you guys know a single Pentium IV from the Northwood series, like a 3.2, is *faster* in floating point operations than the core duo 2.16 (I tried Mathematica Benchmark 5.2 in the Acer 8204 core duo 2.0 and it was a disaster ...).

You guys can come up with tests like the Superpi but that is not really important. The proof is that the Opterons don't like that test and they are faster in anything else.

Now, if you really want power you don't buy a tiny machine with a 2.5'' disk. I am writing this from a dual Xeon 3.6 with two WD Raptor (10K) disks in RAID0. It is still not sufficient from my job.

A laptop is just a simple tool to write a letter, browse the web, listen to music, write a paper and show some results. That's it. Not adequate to do massive calculations (have you seen my melted Acer?).

Now the price difference is not huge and in reality you're getting 333 MHz plus. I also find the difference between the 1.83 and the 2.0 pretty large.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 36
3/17/06 at 12:12am
i dont think .13 ghz is justified by 300$. be it faster, youre really reaching on it.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 36
3/17/06 at 12:37am
My T2500 is faster than my Dual 3.0 ghz Xeon workstation at work. 1:14 Super Pi 2M vs 2:14! Those dual Xeons aren't so hot. I'm wondering about what an AMD 4800 X2 will do.

Best Super Pi 2m for T2500 - 1:12
Best for T2600 - 1:07 (I think)

This from other threads I've seen.

I regret not getting the T2600 when it would have cost me only $240 more. But that money went to 2 extra batteries on ebay + money left over for a USB drive.

I think Super Pi isn't the best CPU test program though.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 36
3/17/06 at 12:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh4078
The T2600 is much faster than the T2500. Anybody who says there is no difference either is being intentionally obtuse or simply has no understanding re: how cpu's work (among numerous other issues).

In simplest terms, the faster processing power is essential for gaming and other heavy processing tasks. Some of those tasks have been previously mentioned by some of our more learned posters.

Among other advantages, you will certainly realize a higher frame rate with games. Of course, if you play games (or use other applications) that do not require serious processing power -- this will not be a significant issue.

Note that if you are not using the computer for games or any other tasks requiring processing power, the T2500 is probably overkill as well. For those persons, a solo core may indeed be perfectly acceptable (and you can save even more money!!)

To claim "it does not make any difference" between a T2600 and T2500 is really just silly and is intellectually dishonest. Yes, it is more money. Yes, it will make your machine more powerful and faster. Yes, it is worth it if you require the processing power. People who purchased the T2500 or lesser powerful cpu's made purchasing decisions for machines "right" for them. That does not mean people who require something more powerful are wasting money. People with the T2500 (who claim there is no difference) need to get over themselves already, wake up, and stop letting jealousy impact sound intellectual thought.
Settle down Turbo, he's asking for people's opinions on the matter. Noone's claimed to be an expert until you popped in here.

Apparently you don't spend much time comparing the benchmarks and how CPU processing doesn't scale with FPS as much as it does with GPU increases, especially when you increase the core speed by .16GHz. Here, I'll make it easy on you:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2668&p=8

CPU power is being marginalized by the GPUs coming out now. Show me some real-world benchmarks that prove me wrong in the gaming arena.

You make it sound as if "people who require something more powerful" are being steered wrong here, but I'm sure these "power users" know who they are and can make the decision for themselves. Fact of the matter is, anyone that doesn't use a computer to its full potential often (a vast majority of users) won't appreciate the extra incurred cost .vs reduced processing time. This is just a logical conclusion, not jealousy.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 36
3/17/06 at 1:28am
Thread Starter 
Edit: chevyrulz099's right, this post was uncalled for.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 36
3/17/06 at 4:07am
i never said you wasted your money.

furthermore, maybe you shoulda invested in anger management bud

you can point your finger all you want, but if you read each of my posts, and cool off, maybe the post will get somewhere.


again, thanks to everyone that sees my point. I understand makemedie's point that he couldnt get anything else but 2.16. Im super happy and all you got a 2.16, but to the general public, its not worth their dough.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 36
3/17/06 at 4:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevyrulz099
i never said you wasted your money.

furthermore, maybe you shoulda invested in anger management bud

you can point your finger all you want, but if you read each of my posts, and cool off, maybe the post will get somewhere.


again, thanks to everyone that sees my point. I understand makemedie's point that he couldnt get anything else but 2.16. Im super happy and all you got a 2.16, but to the general public, its not worth their dough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevyrulz099
you just wasted the 300$ i think on the upgrade, or whatever it is.

i cant believe people actually go from the t2500 to t2600 for the upgrade price, thats a waste of money.
Ahem?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 36
3/17/06 at 4:16am
Thread Starter 
I said NOTHING about dough. I dont care about the money. I asked about any substantial difference between the T2500 and T2600.

That's the only thing that's getting to me right now. The fact that you're making it out to be a stupid decision to go get the T2600 over the T2500, because the money aint worth it. I dont care about the money though, I only wanted to know if there was any difference.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 36
3/17/06 at 4:18am
Thread Starter 
Oh and, I apologize for steaming off like that.

One more thing...what about the 7k100 HD didnt you like? I'm curious.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 36
3/17/06 at 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by makemedie
I said NOTHING about dough. I dont care about the money. I asked about any substantial difference between the T2500 and T2600.

That's the only thing that's getting to me right now. The fact that you're making it out to be a stupid decision to go get the T2600 over the T2500, because the money aint worth it. I dont care about the money though, I only wanted to know if there was any difference.
The short answer is yes, a 2.16GHz IS faster than a 2.0. It is not worth 300 dollars to most people on this board for the ~8% difference howerver.

Something interesting I find about this whole flamefest is how everyone jumps all over the fact that it's $300 for an increase of only 166MHz, yet I have yet to see anyone flame someone for deciding to spend $200 (which is still a sizeable amount) on the upgrade from a 1.83->2.0. Which is also a 166MHz difference.

So a lot of people on here think 166MHz is worth $200 but not $300. And this difference is enough to have a huge flame war over. Riddle me this, however.... If there were a 2.33 (which cost $300) and the 2.16 cost 200 and so on, would all of you claiming the 2.16 didn't make a difference be getting the 2.16 instead of the 2.0?

My guess is yes, you would. You're not really saying the 160MHz doesnt make a difference, you're saying that to YOU the price premium for the highest grade of processor isn't worth it.

I think we can all honestly say that 2.33>2.16>2.0>1.86>1.66 however the marginal price increase for the performance change is not always justified when given a specific budget.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 36
3/17/06 at 4:09pm
Thread Starter 
^^ You're right. I think it's safe to assume that there's been a hit of jealousy in the previous posts
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 36
3/17/06 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by makemedie
^^ You're right. I think it's safe to assume that there's been a hit of jealousy in the previous posts
Well this laptop should hopefully suit MY purpose for the immediate future, but once the merom chips comes out i'll look at buying the fastest processor I can to upgrade my 9400.

For me the rule when buying new systems is to get at much power as you can for the money you have to spend.

In my case the Managing Director of the company I work for is very technically up todate on the latest hardware and will always spend more money for the latest and greatest.

Our current clustered dell 6400 Poweredge servers cost £56,000 with 2GB Ram, fibre channel switch etc, all redundant. The system has been solid for 5 years, but we will be spending the same again next week to replace this system with the latest AMD Processors on HP Servers.

Nothing is wrong with the current system but the MD wants more processing power.

Anyone want to buy a failsafe mega dual server setup (5 years old) ?

Dougie.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 36
3/17/06 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by makemedie
I said NOTHING about dough. I dont care about the money. I asked about any substantial difference between the T2500 and T2600.

That's the only thing that's getting to me right now. The fact that you're making it out to be a stupid decision to go get the T2600 over the T2500, because the money aint worth it. I dont care about the money though, I only wanted to know if there was any difference.
wow (:

well, i didnt like the 7k100, because again, the moneyerformance wasnt there.
it was like 175$ for minimal gains.



as for your jealousy comment, i hope that wasnt pointed towards me. i dont understand what i would really have to be jealous of?

that you got a duo? nah think this is more of a misunderstanding.

by the way, nice sig makemedie, thats a very good idea!

finally to sum up your ORiginal question...

will you see any substantial difference between 2v2.16 . i guess that really depends on what you consider substantial. you really wont be able to tell the difference. and i guess it also comes down to if you doing anything substantial with the laptop in the first place.

oh and sh4078, your an idiot. your post is ridiculous. the 2.16 is not TONS FASTER than the 2.0, your just plain wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 36
3/18/06 at 2:52am
Thread Starter 
^^ The only comments directed towards you were the ones about the 7k100 and the fact that I didnt have any other option therefore wasnt "wasting money".

I'd like to take credit for the sig, but I didn't make it
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Business (Vostro, Latitude, Precision) › T2500 and T2600 - substantial difference?