T2400 vs. T2500

Message

The Bard · #1 Post by **The Bard** » Wed May 31, 2006 10:32 pm

Am in the process of configuring a new T60. The price difference between a T2500 (2.0GHz) processor and a T2400 (1.83GHz) processor is rather substantial. My question is whether there's any appreciable performance difference between the two chips. Basically, is the T2500 overkill for non-heavy duty computing? In either case, I plan on outfitting the computer with 1 gig. of RAM. Thanks.

#2 Post by **archer6** » Wed May 31, 2006 10:57 pm

The Bard wrote:Am in the process of configuring a new T60. The price difference between a T2500 (2.0GHz) processor and a T2400 (1.83GHz) processor is rather substantial. My question is whether there's any appreciable performance difference between the two chips. Basically, is the T2500 overkill for non-heavy duty computing? In either case, I plan on outfitting the computer with 1 gig. of RAM. Thanks.

Save your money and get the T2400. There is so much speed improvement built in with the faster bus, faster memory and overall faster architecture that I do not see an advantage in the faster processor. By adding the additional ram you will be speeding it up substantially. I would even consider upgrading to 2 GB. I used my T60 for one week with the standard 1GB. Then I upgraded to 2GB and the speed difference was quite significant.

Archer6

#3 Post by **RonS** » Wed May 31, 2006 11:07 pm

I agree with archer6. You would be hard-pressed to tell the difference even between a 1.7 and a 2.0. Upgrading the hard drive and/or memory gives you a much better bang-for-the-buck.

The Bard · #4 Post by **The Bard** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:45 am

Thanks archer6 and ronS. Do you mind if I also ask your opinons about the graphics card? With Vista coming in the near future, would you even consider GMA 950? Basically, I want to be able to run Vista, run an external monitor, and that 's it. No gaming. No intensive graphics work otherwise. Is a discrete graphics card necessary? If so, would the 64 MB X1300 card be sufficient? Thanks again.

#5 Post by **RonS** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:06 am

Both the GMA 950 and X1300 will run Vista Aero Glass. Those video chips are at the low-end of compatibility, but compatible nevertheless.

Personally, I would get at least the X1300. Integrated graphics just seems sleazy to me.

#6 Post by **archer6** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:52 pm

The Bard wrote:Thanks archer6 and ronS. Do you mind if I also ask your opinons about the graphics card? With Vista coming in the near future, would you even consider GMA 950? Basically, I want to be able to run Vista, run an external monitor, and that 's it. No gaming. No intensive graphics work otherwise. Is a discrete graphics card necessary? If so, would the 64 MB X1300 card be sufficient? Thanks again.

I would go for the X1300. I have the GMA 950 in my X60s and while it does it's job nicely, I would not use it for Vista. I have a close friend that works in Vista development. He says that once completed, the OS will have some compelling features that will demand a card like the X1300.

jagged · #7 Post by **jagged** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:01 am

Same here, X1300 is much better. I have Intel 900 on my older HP laptop and it can hardly run 3D apps.

jvarszegi · #8 Post by **jvarszegi** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:06 pm

I'd save my money on the processor. I have a 2GHz model, but only because I got a better deal on it. The 1.83GHz processor is still screaming fast.

I'd also save money on RAM. Almost no one uses even 1GB of RAM these days, believe it or not. Types of uses that could use more than 1GB RAM:
- Photo or video editing
- Gaming
- Software development (although this is still rare)

I got 1.5 GB of RAM due to a sale (free 512MB) but would have been perfectly happy to get by with 1GB. System performance would have been the same. I even use the most bloated tools in the business, Microsoft tools. Anyway, for almost all personal software use these days, 1GB is much more than enough. Money spent on RAM that the system won't use is completely wasted.

With respect to the hard drive, I would save money on that too! I think a 5400 RPM drive is plenty for almost anybody. You will experience a 2-3 second differential in boot time versus a 7200 RPM model, but you won't have to worry about possible noise, vibration, and heat issues. You'll save money to boot. The newer 5400 RPM drives have very good performance. I'd be more likely to spend money on a larger-sized 5400RPM drive on a budget.

I agree about the discrete graphics. You'll be much better off with the X1300 than the GMA 950.

T2400 vs. T2500

T2400 vs. T2500

Re: T2400 vs. T2500

Who is online