Vista - P8700 or T9400...which one, how much does it matter?

Hey guys,

The Intel P8700 is a Core 2 Duo, 3MB L2 cache, 1,067MHz-FSB, whereas

The T9400is a Core 2 Duo, 3MB L2 cache, 1,067MHz-FSB.

The only difference is the L2 cache. 3MB vs. 6MB, as far as I know. However, what's with the Pxxx vs. Txxx?? Is there any other difference based on that?

Thanks everyone!


Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums

Crunch wrote:
[snip]

Hey Crunch,

Not a Vista question. Find a hardware group for this.

"Crunch" wrote in message news:eBg0dBcEKHA.1376@xxxxxxAnd looking on Intel's website was too much trouble for you ?
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37006
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35562
add them to the Compare Queue and then have a look.
There area couple of technical differences and one major usage/scenario
difference.
--
Mike Brannigan

<Crunch> wrote in message news:eBg0dBcEKHA.1376@xxxxxxreally? which one has 6MB? you wrote 3MB for both.

To compare 2 CPUs from the same manufacturer, check the manufacturer's
website.

Hi, Bill.

It wasn't Crunch's fault. He posted it to VistaForums. The "forum" relayed
it to THIS newsgroup on the Microsoft public news server - apparently
choosing the newsgroup at random. Crunch probably had no idea his message
would be relayed to ANY newsgroup.

It sure is frustrating having to deal with all these out-of-the-blue
bare-naked posts from various "forums" somewhere on the World Wide Web,
isn't it. :>(

And no matter how well or how many times we explain it, the next newbie
along hasn't gotten the word. And other readers in these newsgroups don't
understand how these frequent naked, off-topic posts get here. So we try to
give an intelligent, helpful response, that too often does no good at all.

Just like this message, which I'm working so hard on. It will scroll off in
a day or two and nobody will remember it. :>(

Whose idea was it to let "forums" relay posts to the Usenet, anyhow?

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@xxxxxx
Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8064.0206) in Win7 Ultimate x64 RC 7100

"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uke5751pgfos7ddigcu68r07a8e7jnmrnm@xxxxxx

What a strange idea.

1) vistaforums.com has 4 sections. One of them is actually called "Vista
Newsgroups" and shows the name of the group under each. I would guess only
that section is relayed here.

2) This newbie apparently thought this was a general question, which could
be a common mistake since it's the first group listed. Everything is
general if you don't bother to look beyond the general to see if there's a
specific one which applies. On vista related groups, I'd list this question
under microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_assessment.

3) Is vistaforums.com also run by Microsoft, or could they be allowing some
independant group to link to their newsgroups?

"R. C. White" <rc@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OQqkhMeEKHA.1492@xxxxxx

The real world answer you will not get from Intel's web site: there is no
performance difference you will see between these two CPUs.
All things being equal, for example clock speed, the CPU with the larger
on-board cache should perform better in measurements.
All things are not equal, particularly in lower end laptops, because of
issues related to hard drives, chip sets, RAM etc.
These issues are particularly relevant for Vista because it is such a
bloated, inefficient resource hog. Low end laptop vendors package Vista 64
on these machines because that extra gb of RAM may make up for some of the
inefficiency of the OS.

"nomore" <fac_187@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E4DBE1B0-8AA7-4875-AB9A-423E1B2EBC4B@xxxxxxI wouldn't say "no performance difference" but I agree the performance
difference wouldn't be noticeable to the average user.
At least for the average user, CPU speed is one of the least important specs
these days.

If there's a choice between a 2GHz dual dore with 4GB RAM or a 2.5GHz dual
core with 2GB RAM, go with the 2GHz.

If there's a choice between a 2GHZ CPU for $99 or a 2.5GHz CPU for $119
(hypothetical comparison without checking current real world prices), you
might want to save your money.

Cache size is one significant difference, architechture is another. I've
heard for instance a "core duo" is faster than a "dual core".
I didn't even look at CPU speed when I bought my PC earlier this year. I
assumed the speed would be sufficient because it had all the other specs I
was looking for. I don't know how much you'd notice the difference on RAM
speed either.

Real questions to ask for PC purchase:
desktop or laptop?
what OS?
single, duo, quad core?
how much RAM?
wireless-G? N?
CD drive? CDRW? DVD? DVDRW? Blu-ray?
hard drive size?
screen size?
full keyboard? (most laptops leave out numpad)
10/100 LAN? 1000?
memory card reader?
# USB ports?
eSata port?
HDMI port?
firewire port?
blue tooth?