Animation and Visual Effects Forum

General => Hardware => Comparisons => Topic started by: Diminuendo on November 16, 2010, 12:17:56 PM

Title: more cores or stronger cores?
Post by: Diminuendo on November 16, 2010, 12:17:56 PM
I'm in the process of upgrading my lappy, I chose the model as nearly nothing is soldered down, here is my list of upgrades:
-Windows 7 64-bit
-an SSD (http://"") as a boot drive and for Maya, the Adobe Suite and Toon Boom, and a 7200rpm HDD in the modular bay for other programs, media/personal files
-6GB of RAM

-Now here is the big one, I'm desiding between an Intel Core2 Duo Processor T9900  (http://"") or an Intel Core2 Quad Processor Q9100 (http://""). The T9900 had dual cores that run at 3.06GHz and the Q9100 has quad cores that run at 2.26GHz (the processor in this computer is dual core at 2.4GHz) which would be better for this cource.

I should probably meantion that the highest max TDP prosessor that fujitsu releases factory is 35W. The T9900 runs at this, but the Q9100 runs at 45W. I know heat is a big deal for laptops so I think the Q9100 might not work.
Title: Re: more cores or stronger cores?
Post by: rowan on November 16, 2010, 01:07:09 PM
Usually, more cores. But the question is not so simply answered, FSB speed and cache size are really important too. Compatibility will be an issue for you, and like you said heat, but all CPU's are built to run up to 90 degrees centigrade and remain stable without overclocking, that's really, really hot though, you wouldn't want to do that to it. A desktop typically runs around 50, perhaps 70 when you're rendering, give or take. Add 20ish degrees for a laptop to both figures. (I'm aware this figure would obviously depend on your cooling solution)

The T9900 gets a CPU Benchmark ( score of 2,298 while your Q9100 scores 3,417. It should be said that this certainly does not mean that the 9100 is 50% faster then the 9900 (in practise I've found a benchmark score 4 times higher is typically twice as fast to render an image), but it does mean it is faster. These statistics are built from third party samples, and have no invested interests, as such they're a good way of gauging real world performance (I find) and filtering through marketing bulls***. Obviously you cannot take it as gospel though, because real world performance depends on quite a few things not so clear on a bar graph.

That beinig said it's not a surprise really, a quad core will almost always be superior to a dual core, despite the clock rating. What's more is the lower clock rating will help keep things cool(er). The i7 range are hyperthreaded nowadays, providing 'virutal cores', though from what documentation I've read on mental images forums, such technology makes for great marketing, but is totally useless in reality. I am curious about SSD's though, and will be interested to see if you think they're worth the money if you get one, I'm currently researching them.

<3 Rowan
Title: Re: more cores or stronger cores?
Post by: Diminuendo on November 16, 2010, 01:36:01 PM
Thanks Rowan, I'll let you know about the SSD after I get some use out of it. I'm only going to use a small one though, 64GB.

I think I'm going to try the Q9100, I imagine if worst came to worst, and the heat was too much I could resell the processor and step down to a T9900. I'm looking at the inside of the unit and thinking I might be able to get away with it, the processer is right next to the fan, and even the fan it'self might be replaceable

I might take a hit to battery life, but this thing can go for 4 hours unplugged as it is, so even if thats halfed, I'll still be happy with it