Would you recommend the 1645 or the 1647?

I'm trying to decide between the two though I lean towards the 1645. I'm also open to any of the doubters trying to argue for something else altogether.

I'm a gamer and a relative power user, but I don't fret benchmarks and I don't mind if I get some throttling after a few hours of gaming so long as the issue will go away once I quit to desktop and give the comp 15 minutes to cool down. I'm also not chasing every last bit of graphical detail or processor power. If two years from now I can still play new games on modest graphical settings with an acceptable frame rate, and if my desktop experience is crisp and responsive, I'm happy.

I'm leaning towards the 1645 because I gather that the difference between the i5 duals and the i7 quads is mostly unnoticeable and because the lower voltage would seem to offer a triple advantage of less heat, less throttling issues, longer battery life (though I mostly use my comp plugged in). I was wondering what people here would recommend in choosing between the two systems, and whether any of my logic is off.

1645:
+ Longer battery life (lower voltage processor, integrated centrino wireless)
+ Less likely to have throttling problems, those which occur likely to be less frustrating, thanks to the lower voltage and heat of the i5.
+ cheaper
- Non-quad core, less L2 cache, slower RAM, no 3x3 card option

1647:
+ Additional quad core processor power
+ 6 MB of L2 cache instead of 3. In my experience L2 cache size really does make a difference in "responsiveness" when multitasking (right now I have a vid playing, winamp open but paused, MS Word, OneNote, Skype, Gchat, AIM, and 3 chrome windows with multiple tabs open).
- ...at the cost of more heat, more throttling issues, lower battery life
+ 3x3 wifi card is available for the 1647 but not the 1645. I use wifi so much and in so many places that even a small improvement in signal strength/speed would be great.
+ faster 1333 mhz RAM (1645 uses 1033, I believe)


I use my laptop probably 10+ hours a day between school and leisure. Not a ton of gaming usually, mostly browsing and the like, but I want to be able to game.

I'm a three-fingered typist and I HAMMER my keys at speed (I once got a noise complaint from the downstairs neighbors, and eventually realized that typing on my desktop keyboard was sending vibrations down through the table, into the wooden floor, and into the ceiling of my neighbors' bedroom. Put a foam pad under the keyboard and the complaints stopped), so a keyboard that doesn't flex too much and with a decent "feel" is sort of essential (particularly as I have timed exams, and I'd hate to take one of those on a keyboard I hated).


Some background which might help to the extent you want to give personalized advice:

I've had an Inspiron 1520 (C2Duo 2.0 Ghz, 4 mb L2 cache, 3 gb ram, 8600m GT w 256 megs) for 2 years, 8 months now. I'm a huge fan of its virtues:

-terrifically overpowered for when I bought it; multitasks well, can still play games like Modern Warfare 2 at native resolution with relatively low settings.

- Really solid frame (if your grabbed corners and twist, there's no flex), stiff keyboard (no sponginess or give when you push on it), clicky keys but not unpleasant to type on.

- Dell service (I realize many will disagree) has been fantastic. As I mentioned below I've had a half dozen problems, but they've always been responsive and having an in-home tech come in rather than having to ship my laptop somewhere is in my mind ESSENTIAL. I figure that any laptop is going to have problems (I admit to sort of abusing mine: often holding it in the air by one hand while I walk around (places pressure on frame), leaving it on at night to download files or receive chat messages, using it constantly and gaming a fair bit), so the big reason I'm buying Dell again despite the issues I've had is the peace of mind that if something breaks, I'll have a tech to put in a replacement within a few days. I'm a law school student so my laptop is my life-- can't afford to have it down more than a day or two.

I'm such a huge fan of those virtues that in my mind they've outweighed the considerable flaws:

- Heavy beast (probably ~7 lbs with the 9 cell and the graphics card).

- Runs hot. Leaving it flat on a desk and doing anything more than regular windows use is a bad idea (lately the fan might even spool up after an hour of windows use if the desk is a poor conductor). If I game with it in my lap I need to make sure to tilt it so that only the back is touching my legs and there's good airflow, as the underside is unpleasantly hot. Usually if I'm using it on a desk for even light use I stick a book underneath the back to get airflow under the case. Overall I don't mind the heat too much, as the issues are minimized with a little common sense. For some games (not MW2 but eg. Empire Total War) the laptop would start throttling/slowing after maybe an hour of gaming as it became overheated-- I'd exit the game, browse for 10 minutes, then go back in for another hour. Not ideal but not the end of the world.

- Durability issues. I've had one hard drive die, one CPU problem that turned out to require a fan replacement (probably partially my fault as I'd been leaving laptop on and on the carpet at night and the fan clogged up with dust and died), 2 dead AC adaptors, two broken hinges necessitating replacement of the hinges and bezel, and a dying wifi card. The wifi card and the 2nd broken hinge happened after my 2 year warranty expired, so I'm now using a USB wifi card. The hinge is causing enough problems that I've decided to just bite the bullet and get a new laptop, hence this thread.

 

Ok first things first you have your model's mixed up.

1645 = quad cores
1647 = dual cores.

1647's came out in January and have the i5's and i7 dual core processors.


As for your needs, I'm sure someone here will talk you into why a quad core is "Better".

But the true fact is almost all games do not utilize more than 2 cores. Even the newer ones. And unless you are doing a lot of image and video processing a quad core is really just overkill on a laptop.


For what you need I would recommend getting either an i5 or an i7-620M like I have. It's a dual core i7 and offers higher clock speeds than any of the quad core processors can achieve.

The highest the i7-820QM can clock up to is 3.06GHZ and that's on a single core. The i7-620M can turbo both cores to that speed, AND can turbo one core to 3.33GHZ.

I don't see any issues with the keyboard other than how every spec of fuzz shows up in between the keys and drives me nuts.

 

1647, no doubt

 

Used both, girlfriend has a 1647, I'm still going with the 1645 being an all-round better machine. It's more responsive, general Windows usage/application usage is better and games are pretty much on par for both.

 

Thanks, helpful replies. Feel foolish for having had the model #s mixed up.

 

Research about dual cores failing with the new game battlefield bad company 2 + 32 multilayer. Quadcore is the way to go for future games.

 

I think that would be the games fault not the processor... since games really are only made for on platform then ported over to the others poorly.

It was made for xbox and ported to ps3 and pc... you can expect problems.

 

It doesnt matter, the point is a quad core processor can handle it and a dual core can't. I can confidently predict dual cores wont cut it by next year for next gen games.

 

That sounds more like a bug than anything else, so it's nothing to do with being able to "handle it". It's about it being broken on certain setups which a patch will fix. That has no relation to the processors performance.

 

i can play bc2 maxed out on my xps just fine.... where you get that info from?

 

he made up that information. i have basically the same setup as you, and the game runs fine for me as well.

i believe, for laptops right now, the dual core is the better choice, and since this is an i5 (dual core +HT....thats total of 4 threads...even better )


less power consumption (voltgage), similar or same power (in terms of speed and fps in games)...dual core all the way

glad i chose what i chose however, i hate saying "i have an i5" and then getting the reply:

"why? i7 is better, its two whole numbers better than i5)

 

Plus you can get about 4 hours battery life with the 9 cell and the i5 (or i7 dual core) compared to the average battery life with the i7

Plus honestly use the few hundred you saved on the dual core and get a ssd

 

Why would I make information up? Did you play on a 32 multiplayer server? Youll see what I mean. So many people have this problem, it lags. Go google it.

 

Nope I am sorry dude. I play 32man conquest all the time and Not once do I lag one bit... They have server lag issues but that is ea's fault not the games. It might be because your machine could be throttling.

 

I own a 1640 and an 1645 and I agree. Get the 1647 with an SSD and you'll be very happy. It'll be a while before the average gamer will need any more than one of these hypethreaded dual cores that can actually scream in turbo mode.

 

I wouldn't recommend buying Dell at all

 

i7 has much higher memory score in WEI.