Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    571

    Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    I would like to know what are the differences between a T9600 and X9000 not overclocked (ie 2.8GHz)?

    They have the same frequencies, but what are their advantages / disadvantages respective? Which one is better?

    Thank you in advance

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    209

    Re: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    normally the only difference is that the X9000 can be overclocked, I think that's all

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    308

    Re: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    There are more differences than that. The first is that the T9600 has a FSB of 1066MHz against a 800MHz for the X9000. This means that the X9000 has a multiplier higher than the T9600 (besides the fact that he may be released from the top). The 1066MHz FSB of the T9600 it offers a greater bandwidth between the processor and memory system. But since the bandwidth is obtained by an FSB of 800MHz is already significant and sufficient for most users, the difference between 1066MHz FSB and 800MHz did not even remark

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    209

    Re: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    So the T9600 has a higher bandwidth, but you do not see the difference

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    308

    Re: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    To determine the frequency of an Intel processor, it needs its multiplier and the FSB.

    The X9000 has a FSB of 800MHz or 200MHz as it is about 4 channels at Intel, it is often called FSB watch the screens of CPUz.

    Originally the X9000 is 2.8 GHz or 14x200MHz (monsitj, you put the multiplier to 16 in the BIOS for your X9000 3.2 GHz ).

    The frequency of the T9600 is 2.8 GHz, but he possesses an FSB of 266MHz or 1066MHz (because once again it is about 4 channels at Intel). It requires a multiplier of 10.5 to be at 2.8 GHz (10.5 x266MHz)

    The memory bandwidth is calculated very easily, it is the bus width multiplied by the frequency of the FSB. It will take a bus width of 64bits (because it is the maximum width of the bus platforms present)

    With a FSB of 800MHz we have a bandwidth of 64 * 800 * 10 ^ 6 = 47683 Gbit / sec or 5960 GB / sec

    With an FSB of 1066MHz we have a bandwidth of 64 * 1066 * 10 ^ 6 = 63538 Gbit / sec or 7942 GB / sec

    I recall that the FSB is a memory controller which is located between the processor and RAM. Bandwidth is the amount of data that can travel on the bus in 1 second

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    571

    Re: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    So I concluded that at equivalent frequencies (2.8GHz) a T9600 will be "a little" better than X9000?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    209

    Re: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    Indeed, one can conclude that. Remains to be seen, because the bandwidth of a 800MHz FSB is sufficient for many people

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    571

    Re: Differences between the T9600 and X9000

    Thank you for your answers in any case

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-10-2012, 02:55 PM
  2. Laptop CPU advice (T9400 vs T9600)?
    By Puloma in forum Portable Devices
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26-09-2010, 06:39 AM
  3. M1730 CPU Upgrade from T9300 to X9000 - Questions
    By Misraji in forum Portable Devices
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-09-2010, 12:46 AM
  4. Intel Core 2 T9500 or Extreme X9000?
    By Umang in forum Motherboard Processor & RAM
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13-02-2009, 03:27 PM
  5. Overclock a T9600
    By Pyrotechnic in forum Overclocking & Computer Modification
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14-11-2008, 02:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,711,621,935.08212 seconds with 17 queries