533 MHz vs 800 MHz bus

[alosito]

I am trying to choose between two following laptop models:
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=588824
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=588826

While there are certain differences, my main question is how noticeable the difference in performance will be between a mainboard with bus speed 800 MHz and 1GB cache comparing to a standard mainboard with 533 MHz and 512MB cache?

[Slat]

Okay, those are both great laptops--as long as you realize they weigh 16 lbs and have very poor battery life.

As for you questions. The difference between the FSB speeds is nothing to fret over. The CPU's are extremely close in real world performance. Nothing "noticeable" unless you benchmark, and even then it will usually be less than 5% even with game benchies etc.

The 1 MB of cache is also something that is nice but we aren't comparing apples to apples, they are different cores. The Prescott (the one with 1 MB of cache) has a longer pipline than the Northwood (the other cpu) so it takes a bit longer for data to travel from point a to b. Thats just a VERY generalized view but suffice it to say that the difference in speed is so close in REAL WORLD applications it doesn't make a difference.

Now, the 1 GB of ram would most certainly make a difference depending on the application. If you do heavy photo editing of large images, video editing, gaming etc. Also, do please be aware that the graphics on the lower model is a HUGE (I can *not* stress this enough) step down from the Geforce Go5700 card in the other. If multimedia ANYTHING is on the plate, snag the 1712.

[alosito]

So does Geforce make a difference only to gamers? And for regular desktop applications and DVD watching it doesn't make any difference comparing to Intel Extreme?

[alosito]

Thank you very much for your reply. As far as multimedia is concerned, I might be using that laptop only for occasional DVD watching. Will Geforce Go5700 make a lot of difference for it?

Also, I noticed that both models have the maximum display resolution of 1280 x 1024. Isn't that too little for a 17-inch display?

[Slat]

DVD watching would be just fine for either; perhaps a bit better on the Geforce than on the Intel Extreme (but probably not much). Bottom line: don't get the 1712 for watching DVD's as the 1711 does it the same (or *very* close).

The SXGA should be fine, even on that sized screen. In fact, there are notebooks (most notably Toshibas) that have 17" XGA and they are "ok". Quite a few desktop 17" LCDs are that resolution as well. That said, it is purely personal preference. I love my UXGA screen and wouldn't go back but some people say they have to squint. *Shrugs* for tat.

[Slat]

Absolutely correct. It makes a difference in games, video editing, and major photo editing. Other than that any integrated card will do. Just remember that if you aren't interested in those things in the here and now but decide to in the future; you can't upgrade your video card. Just a thought. Good luck on you choice.

[alosito]

Thank you again for all your help. I decided to go with the 1711 model. I found it online for $1450 shipped and decided that $400 difference in price between 1711 and 1712 is not worth it for a regular user who doesn't plan to play any games. If you think I am wrong, please let me know.[]

[Slat]

You're not. Have fun with your new laptop, and please let us know how its going when you recieve it.