Determining the best mobile processor depends on what a specific user requires and it is just like, Which is the best car? Now determining which is best depends on what you need, Speed, Reliability, Increased Battery Time, Less Power Consumption, More Computational Power, etc etc. If someone would argue that "[SSC Aero|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSC_Aero|SSC Aero] TT Ultimate" is the fastest car on the planet, s/he is right but then it's not the economical car, right? Just like that, we have numerous mobile processors that offer different features in terms of clock speed, cache, power consumption, manufacturing technology, cores, etc such as;
Core 2 Duo
Core 2 Extreme
Mobile Intel Pentium 4
Mobile Intel Celeron
and the latest addition to the mobile family;
If you read about Atom, you will think that this is one of the best mobile processors since it's the latest in market giving an increased battery time, and increased energy efficient in a smaller more compact design while you will notice that it's FSB, Cache, and Clock Speed is a lot less than a Core2Duo. And to top it all, it does not support multiple features such as EM64T and VT at the same time for now that makes it lack in those areas when it comes in one-to-one match with Core2Duo or Core2Extreme. So you see, I am not trying to say which is better and which is not but what I am trying to emphasize here is that it varies from customer to customer. Atom is a very good processor for Mobile Internet Devices such as cellular phones and tablets but then Core2Duo is preferred in laptops when it comes to mobile users who also want more compute power.
Last but not the least, Intel is planning to launch it's first Quad-Core CPU for notebooks, the Core2Extreme QX9300 in the third quarter this year. QX9300, manufactured at 45nm having a core frequency of 2.53GHz will come in socket P package and support FSB speeds up to 1066MHz, 12MB L2 cache and a max TDP of 45W (Find attached .mht file)
So now you know that Core2Duo and Core2Extreme may be one of the bests in terms of computational power, greater cache and FSB while processors like Atom outclass other in terms of enhanced battery life, and with QX9300 already set to cut loose and lead the race, one can't really rate one processor to be the best mobile processor in general. It all depends on what your requirements are and which processor best serves your needs.
I would encourage you to use Intel Processor Finder and see different types mobile processors and determine which best suits you. Hope this helps otherwise do let us know what your exact requirement is for a mobile processor and we will see what options suit you. Best of luck!
QX9300.mht 266.5 K
Adding more to my last post, I have come up with the list of available mobile processors and amongst all of these, if you are looking for greater compute power, less electricity consumption, and faster I/O, I would recommend you go for T9500 (SLAYX). Also remember that in T9500, there are two processors available, SLAYX and SLAQH however I recommend SLAYX because of it's VID Voltage Range is a little less than SLAQH. The difference is so minute that it can be even ignored however since you asked for the best, I am recommending this to you in terms of: Manufacturing technology, Cores, Bus Speed, VID Voltage, Cache Size, and Clock Speed. Also check out the 945GM chipset for it however as I stated earlier in my previous post, if you wait for a little longer, you will get QX9300 ... a quad core processor which will definitely be better than the existing dual-cores. The choice is yours now if you want power, otherwise if your preference is not power but more battery backup time and a very cost effective solution, you can also check out Atom.
Hello again my friend,
As I stated earlier in my post also providing links to both the processors, there is a very minute difference of VID voltage between the two processors making SLAYX a bit better. As for your notebook, what is the model number of your motherboard. I can't really tell you which of these will work with your motherboard without knowing its model as we have to see their compatibility first. Waiting for your response!
thanks a lot for your response.
i have a dell precision notebook with a penrynn t8300.
as for the mainboard i am not sure, i used sisoft sandra to
read out something,
it says about the mainboard:
platform compliance: intel centrino, modell: OWY897, manufacturer: dell inc.
about the chipset:
dell mobile pm965/gm965/gl960 express processor to dram controller
don't know whether this information is enough or not. i also tried to find out the
system clock generator, but i don't know how.
as the two t9500s have slightly different voltage, i wonder, if both of them can be used
randomly on the same mainboard or if there would be any power problems with one of them.
First of all, as I have said earlier that the voltage difference is so minute that you don't even know it and nothing to worry about as both these processors will work on the same board without any problems ... just that when going into the minute details, I just told you the only difference between the two.
Now, as for the info you provided, you are running a 2.4GHz C2D mobile processor which is a pretty neat processor and I don't see a point in upgrading it unless and until you feel dire need to
From the information you have provided, I can tell that you have a chipset that supports
and T9500 is a C2D processor. This should work but if provided the exact motherboard number, I can tell you for sure that the processor when installed won't give any problems due to a mismatch in stepping. Moreover, if you ask me, looking at T8300 and T9500's specs, I really don't see much of a difference except for increased cache and a bit of enhanced frequency and would not recommend an unncessary upgrade lest you really feel the need to. Let me know what you think?
thanks for your response & clearing things up.
i only wanted to upgrade, if i'd find a really cheap t9500 or x9000 somewhere.
but since i saw most of the cheap ones are either engineering samples or
have some unclear origin, i guess you're right and the upgrade is not really
worth the hassle.
originally i thought the 200 extra mhz & the double cache would've give some
extra performance (i.e. in 3d games), but if you say there won't be much of a
noticable difference, i'll probably stick with my old cpu.
You're very welcome, glad that it helped.
Moreover, when talking about 3D games, it is not just the processor but your GPU* plays a very vital role and the GPUs come with an active or passive cooling system along with a graphic processor and memory on them making them a complete entity in their entirety.
Anyway, glad that you have taken the right decision not to go for a minor upgrade. Happy gaming!