Trying to decide on a new laptop

Be aware that turn-over time in Sony's "repair labs" is awful. What you gain in esthetics's you'll lose in service and support. I'd rather go with a vendor that'll indicate fixed times on it's repairs and which allows you to do full tracking of the process.

Being without a laptop sucks, being without a laptop for 3 months sucks even more. being without a laptop for three months, having it die on you two months after returning and waiting another couple of months on a replacement is god-awful.

Even 300Mhz and 3MB extra cache will never earn it back. Go HP or Dell.
 
A friend of mine has had his Vaio for over four years and hasn't had any issues.

I'm pretty sold on the faster and twice as much video memory, not to mention the lower price and better looks.
 
I agree with neliz.

As a PC tech I tend to build my own systems but if I were to buy a pre-built laptop it would probably be a Dell. Can't beat next business day on-site service with a stick.

Don't even get me started on Sony. If you have a broken one you may as well throw it away.
 
Davros said:
No.....
the cpu is about 2.5% faster clock speed wise, lets be generous and say the extra cache doubles performance
overclock your current pc by 5% you wont even notice a difference then ask yourself if its worth $300


ps:
what are you going to be running on it
Click to expand...

-_- Did you even read the topic? He's buying a laptop.

Yes, you should get the better CPU.
 
mkillio, just look into this Sony disables hardware virtualization thing first. (I wonder if upgrading to Vista Business means you'll get Win7 Pro or whatever it is that nets you XP mode.)

I'm with MfA, the P8700 seems to get you more than halfway to the T9600 for less than half the cost. I'm (completely) guessing that going from 1 to 3MB nets a bigger gain than from 3 to 6. You could try comparing the E4200 and E7200 as a rough guide to how cache and FSB affect general office performance, though in that case it's 2 vs 3MB. I don't know how comparable the test systems are, but the Celeron E3200 seems to be a Core 2 Duo with a 1MB L2. Try comparing its general scores to the E7200 in the other review by using the E5200 that's in both reviews as a reference. Keep in mind the E3200 is still clocked higher than the Sony's base T4200.

Even closer: that Laptop Mag Sony SR review has it scoring 3200 in PC Vantage with a 2GHz, 2MB T6400. They have the Dell Studio XPS 13 scoring 3900 with a 2.4GHz, 3MB P8600. That's basically linear scaling with clock speed, assuming other variables (HD, graphics, the different OSes) didn't affect things too much.
 
oh, I knew what he was getting at. Whether or not something is worth the extra money and wasting money are completely different things. I was hoping for a useful comment.
 
mkillio said:
oh, I knew what he was getting at. Whether or not something is worth the extra money and wasting money are completely different things. I was hoping for a useful comment.
Click to expand...
You asked for takers on your value proposition. I don't know what arguments could still be added. The reasoning is pretty clear: either you think the performance increment is worth the price increment or you do not. I'm definitely in the latter camp. Chances are you could not tell a difference in speed even in a side-by-side comparison unless you already know which is which. Spending several hundred dollars on such a miniscule benefit does seem wasteful.
 
Rolf N said:
You asked for takers on your value proposition. I don't know what arguments could still be added. The reasoning is pretty clear: either you think the performance increment is worth the price increment or you do not. I'm definitely in the latter camp. Chances are you could not tell a difference in speed even in a side-by-side comparison unless you already know which is which. Spending several hundred dollars on such a miniscule benefit does seem wasteful.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the answer I was looking for. I don't have enough knowledge on the matter to make a educated decision, that's why I'm asking.

Thanks.
 
Not that you need another vote, but the extra 3Mb of cache is not worth the cost. If you're going to spend more money on the CPU, use it for more clockspeed.
 
Davros said:
Now that its settled can we all point and laugh at digi for saying it was a worthwhile upgrade ?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're doing with it. I can imagine users craving the cache if they run some heavy CPU only transcoding of sorts where you can actually see performance benefits. but the $300 will not make the laptop more or less usable nor give it an extended lease of life.
 
So now I'm trying to decide between the 2.66Ghz and the 2.53Ghz the price difference is $50. I'm leaning towards the 2.5Ghz.
 
mkillio said:
So now I'm trying to decide between the 2.66Ghz and the 2.53Ghz the price difference is $50. I'm leaning towards the 2.5Ghz.
Click to expand...

(I'm trying to find something witty to write about choosing the lower speed because your laptop will break down quickly anyway.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Finally about ready. New Comp.
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
11K
D3v0ur3r
D
digitalwanderer
About ready to buy a Dell laptop, any input?
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
pascal
P
S
New computer time! help me decide on parts to buy...
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
deadly sk1llz
D
Back
Top