What is a fadingxero's Notebook!

There's really no reason to have a quad in a laptop unless it's going to be a workstation and you need to do a lot of photshopping or encoding. And comparing the speeds you listed, dual 3.0 vs quad 1.6 it's a no brainer, go dual.

Even in 3 years you won't see quad cores utilized to make it more favorable IMHO...unless it's a specific app that you need to run fast, don't bother with quads.

^^ Agreed.

cheers ...

between those two, the dual core seems the better option, however if your already sticking that processor in try getting a good graphics card to couple along with it and make a nice gaming laptop. very few things need quad cores at the moment (excluding GTAIV and running apps that will be "stressful" to the computer [sorry couldnt think of a better word])

Since you're comparing Arrandale to Clarksfield, there's something important to know about the new Nehalem mobile CPUs. They will automatically overclock one or more cores and shut down the other ones if only one or two cores are being used. If you're using a single-core or dual-core application with a Clarksfield quad, then it will shut off two cores and overclock the other cores up to 2.8, 3.06, or 3.2 Ghz (depending on which one you get), which is a pretty significant performance gain. The Arrandale CPUs will overclock for single-core applications up to 2.93, 3.06, or 3.33 Ghz (again, depending on which one you get). So a Clarksfield CPU would actually run a dual-core application better than an Arrandale CPU, because Arrandale CPUs only go up to 2.66 Ghz. However, the performance would be either equal or better on an Arrandale CPU for single-core applications.

edit: my info comes from the roadmap here.

From the looks of it, quads aren't going to be any more mainstream until 2011 at the earliest. Currently, there are 3 quad-core mobile CPUs. Clarksfield will replace them with 3 newer quad-core mobile CPUs, and when Clarksfield gets the 32nm refresh sometime in mid-late summer next year, there will still be 3 quad-core mobile CPUs. By the middle of next year, AMD may have some mobile quad offerings as well, but quads certainly won't be much more mainstream than they are currently until they're offered in the low and mid price ranges as well as the high one. On the Intel side of things, that might happen with Sandy Bridge in 2011, but in all likelihood quads won't be totally mainstream until Haswell in 2013 or so. On the AMD side, I doubt they're going to be pushing more mainstream quads until after Fusion, which is currently planned for sometime in 2011.

actually i consider quadcores (for mobile) to have gotten more mainstream just recently. Until just recently i have never seen quad core laptops sold at retail stores.

They will get more to be mainstreamed, but strictly from a marketing stand point and new hardware. Apps et all have a way yet to go.

cheers ...

is there any releas date for clarksfield? hopefully the g50vts a bios update and then clarkfield'll come out...
speaking of mainstream, GTAIV is so far the only game that recommends a quad core, do you mean that nobody will make a game that requires quad cores in general? or that nobody will make a game where a quad core is necessary?
when i say game, its only because they seem to be the most stressful for a computer

well as long as you can buy them i dont care whether it goes on a notebook model or not, since im assuming that asus wont make a quadcore compatible bios, when should the arrandale models be released? sometime near the clarksfield (im hoping like a month before christmas time, that way i can know whether its compatible with the g50vt models)

I can tell you right now that the new Clarksfield and Arrandale CPUs will be compatible with each other but neither of them will be compatible with any current notebook. The new CPUs have a new socket and a new chipset, both of which are incompatible with any current notebook.

An FYI for the question of will this CPU price drop when that CPU is released? A good question that comes up frequently. I could say guesses but let me give you some very real observation based reality. I have been very observant of all things notebook since the release of the Intel Napa platform and AMD Turion Dual Core. For Intel that means Napa, Santa Rosa, Montevina and waiting for Calpella.

At least in the retail sale of CPU's the price does not drop. What? Sorry. When Santa Rosa was introduced and socket P CPU's came out. On NewEgg slower "outdated" socket M CPU's cost more. Don't believe look at NewEgg today, link. While not the most expensive just look at the cost of slower socket M vs faster socket P? It is counter intuitive to any normal free market model one might expect. And that economic model I say it does not follow is exactly the basis of your question and assumption.

I agree with the logic of your thoughts. I think you are clear and it should go as you suspect. Obsolescence tends to devalue product. That said I have seen it demonstrably disproved. I think my NewEgg link while not 100% prove certainly lean toward what I allege. And remember I just pulled that off at this moment I did not have or do any research. And I do feel it supports my observations.

If anyone is still reading (doubt) I think I can explain. While the market may be a free market. And suspecting as such would follow certain patterns leading to predictable outcomes. Intel has complete control of one of two key elements of cost in a free market. The two are supply and demand. Intel has supply locked up. Further for upgrade of an Intel. AMD is not an option so competition if one could even call Intel/AMD true free market competition in the first place is not even in play here. You have Intel you need Intel?

When Intel retools it's plants to produce a new line of CPU's it curtails the production of the previous. That reduces the supply. DeLL and all the others do not hoard CPU's they will not be able to sell in new units. Even NewEgg does not buy lots of CPU's based on speculation of future sales. Both are in the business of selling to create cash flow i.e. revenue. As such There is no saturation of CPU's in the market. Oh and Intel does not scale production above demand. All three practice incredibly tight inventory/production control.

So with no inventory saturation Intel will only make the last generation if cost effective. Cost effective is determined by what they can sell current chips at. So it is not what we might think. Say the comparative value of two chips based on technology or performance? It is what cost is it going to be worth it for Intel to continue to make? Guess what about the same new and old.

Doubt me? What costs more per GB? DDR PC2700 or DDR PC3200? Yea slower PC2700. DeLL even started selling PC5300 as an upgrade for PC4200 on their notebooks. Faster RAM was cheaper because of the way RAM MFG had tooled their plants. What's cheaper DDR PC3200 or PC6400? You got it baby! PC6400, same reason.

Multi billion dollar investment in infrastructure causes adjustments that to us the little guy might seem counter intuitive but it does. And I hope you might now know a little more.

I did mention "retail" early on. It was intentional. So you wanna tell me about ebay? I know almost zero about it. I never used. But that is where people get these CPU's at while overpriced still a better deal. Yes it is a better deal. There is leakage of used CPU's and used engineering samples that find it to market. Also even new from small speculators that might of bought a few shipments at good price. While they seem like good prices. And they are. They are a mixture of used or evaluation chips and some new. That price that seems so good is artificially high because of the price of the retail chips. In other words. You think $150 is a great price but other than the artificially inflated cost of retail should be $50?

Good luck.

oi. thanks for the info.

Anyway, when comes to selection for Quad and Dual i do have a fuzz about it. Quad is great if you do multitask and running programs on backgrounds, it helps when you have antivirus running too. But is so-so when comes to single thread gaming and one large program operation such as convertion and such.

On another hand, Dual is opposite of that Quad. I do multitasking and background processes and wanted to do gaming. So is a fuzz for me.

Unless Quad has the clock speed as Dual, same voltage and heat generate. I really go for Quad.

DESU!!
a quadcore would be great for my antivirus...ugh...takes up so much computer usage.

i would assume any quad core 2.0ghz + could probably run a game on its highest settings?

I use and would only recommend Eset NOD32 Antivirus because is great as Symantec's but uses very little RAM around 45MB at max and single process stance desu~ Unlike Symantec and other cheap freeware AVs create massive load and alot process stances desu~

Also Quad 2.0GHz would be good enought for general purposes desu~ But really prefer 3.0GHz Quad for gaming unless the game engine can take advantage of 2 or 4 processing threads, something is just not even enought too desu~

Depending on the game, you could possibly run it on highest detail settings desu~

:3