Core i7 & Q9300

With the m17x it's highest end processor is the Q9300 available. With the m15x it's the Core i7. (Just saying that for myself)
Now, what I was curious about because I don't properly understand hardware, is if the Core i7 from the m15x was put in the m17x, would it be faster than the Q9300? And why would it be? As far as I was aware they had slower speeds.

If someone wants to explain it to me, that'd be great.

Thanks.

Edit: I realize that the highest i7 has a 2.0GHZ regular mode but a 3.2GHZ turbo mode, but I don't really "get" turbo mode.

 

Well, first of all, you can't put an i7 in a M17x right now. The i7s use a completely different socket from the previous core 2 series, which means that to put an i7 in a M17x, you'd need an entirely new motherboard.

The reasons that an i7-920XM could be faster than a QX9300, although (officially) clocked lower lies in 3 things, Hyper-Threading, Turbo-Boost (turbo mode, as you call it), and newer architecture.

Newer architecture is largely self-descriptive. It's a newer generation of architecture that processes things more efficiently than the older core 2 generation. Basically, for each clock (which is what the listed speed is, how fast the CPU's clock signal changes), the i7 Nehalem architecture can do more than the older core 2 architecture. It's why you can't compare a core 2 processor to an old P4 processor (apart from more cores), even at the same clock speed, the newer architecture simply gets more done per clock.

Hyper-Threading is also fairly simple. The fact is that most of the time, a CPU (especially one as high powered as an i7) sits relatively idle - it's done its work, and now is waiting for the rest of the system to catch up, through disk access, video render, missed cache, RAM read, or what-not. Hyper-Threading is an attempt to address this "down-time" by letting you run a second thread on that CPU core. This basically gives you a "virtual" core that can run programs just like a regular core. It's not quite as efficient, as you're now sharing resources, but if those resources weren't being used anyway, it lets you get more work out of your processor. For the purposes of our comparison, this means that (in theory) the i7 can run just as many threads as the QX9300, but using only 2 "real" cores (because of the added 2 virtual cores) instead of the 4 real cores of the QX9300.

Turbo-Boost/Turbo Mode is basically a form of automatic overclocking. The CPU checks how hot it's running and how many cores it needs, and then shuts down or overclocks individual cores as necessary. If you're running only a single thread that doesn't need much power? Shut off 3 cores, run on only a single core that runs as slowly as possible to save battery. Running a single (or dual, because of hyper-threading) threaded program that requires as much power as possible? Shut down 3 cores, overclock that single core to 3.2 GHz (assuming that's possible due to power and thermal limits). Turbo-Mode for the 920XM is rated at 2/2/8/9, which means that assuming power and thermal limits are met, it can overclock 4 and 3 cores by 2 bins (+133 MHz per bin), 2 cores by 8 bins, and 1 core by 9 bins, which results in speeds of 2.26 GHz on 4/3 cores, 3 GHz on 2 cores, and 3.2 GHz on one core.

So, basically, in theory, the i7-920XM would beat out a QX9300 because it's newer architecture, so it's simply more efficient per clock, and with the combination of hyper-threading and turbo-boost, it can run on 2 cores at 3 GHz to beat the QX9300 at 4 cores and 2.53 GHz. The problems lie in practice; Hyper-threading is not quite as efficient as a physical core, and power and thermal limits (read: not enough juice and overheating) may not allow the 920XM to ramp up all the way to 3 GHz. Also, depending on how the OS and programs handle things, you may end up with more than just 4 simultaneous threads, which would make the 920XM activate more cores and slow down, while the QX9300 would just have them share processor time.

 

To put Turbo Boost more simply if you didn't understand the above:

If you have a program that runs on one of the cores but needs a lot of power, it can shut down the other three cores and overclock that one core to 3.2GHz.

If you have a program that runs on two of the cores but needs a lot of power, it can shut down the other two cores and overclock the two cores to 3.0GHz each.

If you need more power on 3 or 4 cores, it can overclock slightly to 2.26GHz.

This is all assuming the temperatures allow for overclocking, which they should as the M15x has superb cooling.

You can't simply put the i7 in an M17x because it requires a different CPU socket, and so you'd need a whole new motherboard designed. Plus, there is no laptop out there right now with two graphics cards and an i7 processor-perhaps it is not possible yet-and you get more of an advantage out of two graphics cards than an i7 processor in most cases.

Plus, the i7 is faster as it will 'complete' approximately 20% (I think it was 20%) more tasks per cycle. So that means in approximate terms, a 2.0GHz Core i7 should handle as many tasks as a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad-not taking the other features like Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading into account.

 

If you get the Q9300, you dont really have any upgrade in the future.

But with the i7, I'm sure you would be able to upgrade to a better version in a year.

 

Oh your funny. Alot of times with Laptops what they show for chips is what will be use for that laptop. I know I had 2 laptops a core 2 2.33ghz at 566fsb. A year or so later I had a 2.4ghz at 800ghz. I could of went for a dual core 2.8ghz But that the Most they can be upgraded.

Please stop at the most you can upgrade a year later. If anything they can upgrade the core they have to the fastest core for that System. Like the M17x would be a Quad core at 2.53ghz.

 

EvilCorsair, holy crap you are great at explaining in detail.
Thanks for the lengthy description and taking the time to do that, and it actually makes sense now. The only thing out of that I knew was about the different socket type.
But yeah, thanks for clearing things up with that.
I'm not going to go for an i7 anyways if it comes out in the future, not enough reason too, and I'd wait to see if an i9 came out that was put into this baby (i9 is supposed to come out early 2010 for desktops, and probably lappys after that, so Dell/AW might consider that as a better option for these)

 

I really doubt we'll see i9 in laptops anytime in the next, oh, 2-3 years. The number of people that even need 4(8) cores in laptops these days is extremely limited, and I don't really think we'll see a whole lot of demand for 6(12) core processors. At least not in a gaming laptop.