NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Northwood 3.4 and 3.2 CLARIFICATION PLEASE!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Northwood 3.4 and 3.2 CLARIFICATION PLEASE!

post #1 of 34
3/15/04 at 1:29pm
Thread Starter 
Ok, this is driving me nuts. I'm about to order the 8790 till I got thrown a curve ball when they delayed the 3.4's.

I read topics/posts after topics/posts regarding the major difference between the two and the answers are all over the place.

1. Some thinks it's not going to make a difference.
2. Some thinks it does make a difference although it's only .2 more.
3. Some find it a better investment to buy it now because w/Sager's remarkable longevity, you won't be making/buying another laptop for quite awhile 3+ years. So theory is why not get the latest and greatest.
4. Some thinks to wait and buy the 3.2 and wait for the release to upgrade later to prevent the long wait. The question is, how easy is it to install? Upgrade, etc...process...yadda yadda.

All these things are valid points. I guess the questions are:

1. If it makes a difference, how true is this statement? Does it really make a difference? I have looked at one benchmark site and it states it makes a difference but then another benchmarks on another site, it states it doesn't. Need someone who is more knowledgeable to comment on this.

Obviously, it it does make a difference, I am willing to wait for the 3.4's. I don't plan to upgrade for quiet some time.

If it's a difference of 1 or 2 seconds access time (for example) then it's ridiculous to spend more on it.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 34
3/15/04 at 2:58pm
Thread Starter 
I guess no one really knows the answer? Hehehe...
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 34
3/15/04 at 3:26pm
I think you've answered your own question there. Of course there is a difference between the 3.2 and 3.4, and yes, since all other things are equal, there's exacty 200MHz worth of difference. Not huge, probably around 5% speed increase maximum (ie, when the processor is the only bottleneck). Whether you think that's worth the money is up to you and your budget. I would never go for it myself unless;

a) I was a professional who pushed the cpu to its limit, and so the 3.4 would pay for itself in terms of increased productivity

b) I was a gamer kiddy who had to have the fastest simply because it was the fastest.

c) I had money to burn, in which case I'd probably go with go-l anyway.

In terms of "bang for your buck", the 3.4 is a bad choice, as the top of the line always is.

I wouldnt consider upgradability though, the 3.4 is end of the line due to prescotts and socket changes and if you get a 3.2, it'll never really be worth upgrading even when the price has dropped, it's a psychology thing, once the 3.4 ceases to be the best out there, its appeal will disappear. If you had an old 500MHz desktop, would you bother upgrading it to a 533? It's the same kind of thing.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 34
3/15/04 at 4:16pm
I thought it was only the 3.4 EE processors that were being delayed???
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 34
3/15/04 at 4:17pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert602
I think you've answered your own question there. Of course there is a difference between the 3.2 and 3.4, and yes, since all other things are equal, there's exacty 200MHz worth of difference. Not huge, probably around 5% speed increase maximum (ie, when the processor is the only bottleneck). Whether you think that's worth the money is up to you and your budget. I would never go for it myself unless;

a) I was a professional who pushed the cpu to its limit, and so the 3.4 would pay for itself in terms of increased productivity
I wouldn't consider myself professional but I don't know number wise exactly the mechanics when I'm running, dreamweaver, photoshop, imageready, flash all at one time, never mind other softwares that may be running. Would this push the limit? Or in a gaming aspect, running really high intensive games? I don't know...

Quote:
b) I was a gamer kiddy who had to have the fastest simply because it was the fastest.
Nah, but it's nice to have the fastest so that later on newer games doesn't cause a problem.

Quote:
c) I had money to burn, in which case I'd probably go with go-l anyway.
You do know that GO-L is a scam. Even if I was bill gates, I wouldn't give money to them. I would first use the dollar bills to wipe my A$$ before even considering to hand it to them. Hehehe...

Quote:
In terms of "bang for your buck", the 3.4 is a bad choice, as the top of the line always is.
Ooook.

Quote:
I wouldnt consider upgradability though, the 3.4 is end of the line due to prescotts and socket changes and if you get a 3.2, it'll never really be worth upgrading even when the price has dropped, it's a psychology thing, once the 3.4 ceases to be the best out there, its appeal will disappear. If you had an old 500MHz desktop, would you bother upgrading it to a 533? It's the same kind of thing.
Good point here. The reason I would do something like upgrade the processor in the future is probably because the longevity of the laptop. I mean I think when they finally come out with a 5+ GHz machine, it'll be another 4g's to drop and I don't think I would like to do that when I still have a nice piece of machinery. If anything upgrade the Ghz but then again anything can happen. Who knows maybe the 5+ Ghz chips won't need a new design but just a simple plug and play to the mobo...LOL..

Anyway, in another spectrum, they can release softwares out there that would still make the machine not capable of working the way it should with futures technology per your analogy of the 500Mhz--won't make a difference if I upgraded it to 533Mhz.

Any other thoughts?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 34
3/15/04 at 4:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Prophet
I thought it was only the 3.4 EE processors that were being delayed???
That's what we are talking about.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 34
3/15/04 at 4:22pm
If you reach a point at which your gaming experience is limited by the processor in your machine... adding 200mhz more will hardly make a noticable difference. If it the game runs bad at 3.2 at 3.4 it will still run bad.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 34
3/15/04 at 4:24pm
Hey - is the 3.4 northwood delayed or is this the 3.4EE we are talking about because I havent been informed about ANY delays...

Please clarify...it may be time to change to a 3.2 because I can ill afford to waste any more time without a system...things are getting tight here in school
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 34
3/15/04 at 4:26pm
no need - I just got my tracking number WOOT!!
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 34
3/15/04 at 5:31pm
gs: Congrats! Can't wait for the reviews !!!

What's your ETA?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 34
3/15/04 at 5:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsferrari
no need - I just got my tracking number WOOT!!
GSferrari, which one did you get? 3.4 or 3.4EE. Maybe I'm confused. I'm looking to purchase the 3.4EE. I may have misread which 3.4 is delayed...I'm presuming still that it's the 3.4EE. That would SUCK!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 34
3/15/04 at 5:54pm
yeah its the 3.4EE which is delayed...I was worried the 3.4Northwood was gonna be delayed but then I saw my tracking number and all is well

Why do you want the EE? Please take my advice and change to a standard CPU...not worth the time OR the money...seriously...

absolutely NO resale value - WHy??

In a year or two there will be CPU's for a lot less money that are a LOT more powerful than the EE and all your money will go down the drain..

Please - dont be foolish!! i rarely beg people NOT to spend their money but this time i cannot sit around watching
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 34
3/15/04 at 7:16pm
Thread Starter 
Great another curve ball......


I thought the EE was the latest and greatest....

now it's not worth it? sheesh...please elaborate!
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 34
3/15/04 at 7:31pm
Everything I've ever read on the EE tells me it's not worth the extra money. The amount of increase you will see in speed is not worth it. The only way you will see a difference is in the benchmarks and then only small gains. Save your money and go with the standard chip! Please save the money and spend it elsewhere.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 34
3/15/04 at 7:38pm
the EE is an emergency edition by Intel to compete with the AMD64 advantage in games...its a hash job with a bumped up cache and is most certainly not worth the $600 something price tag.

Advice for the general public - Please RESEARCH your hardware before you buy...PLEASE!!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 34
3/15/04 at 7:39pm
Thread Starter 
Heheh gsferrari, that's why I'm here...

How about the 3.2EE vs the Northwood 3.4 standard?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 34
3/15/04 at 7:55pm
The 3.4 comes out better than the 3.2EE in most real world tests, and it's cheaper. Although I still say go with the standard 3.2, the 3.4 is at least a reasonable option. EE isnt by any standards.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 34
3/15/04 at 8:23pm
EE will add an additional 25% (approximate) to the configuration price of a well decked out configuration. In some applications, it will provide additional "Oomph"; however, for most users it will not. Ergo, not worth the extra cost. The buyer needs to determine if it "fits the need", and then go/no go accordingly.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 34
3/15/04 at 9:15pm
Thread Starter 
Here are my needs and you guys tell me if these needs will require the demand.

Constant Uses:

Graphic softwares (Adobe products)
Video Edition Software (Premiere, etc.)
Sound Editing Software (Etc..)
Macromedia softwares

Games, obviously.

Most times I have most of these programs opened simultaneously. Along with multiple browsers, etc..etc..

Now what??
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 34
3/15/04 at 9:23pm
The single largest increase in performance will come from the first chip that has a 1MB L2 cache. The EE have increased L3 cache not L2. Whilst clock speed is important cache (and pipelining) has a bigger impact - the mobile chipsets are a good example of this - slower clock speed but higher performance due in part to a larger (1MB vs 512MB in desktop CPUs) cache.

My choice? Wait for the first CPU with 1MB L2 cache. Until then save your money.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Northwood 3.4 and 3.2 CLARIFICATION PLEASE!