Xps 16xx Question/clarksfield Vs Arrandale

I'm Kevin's friend/beta-tester for a while now and I know about CPU-Z being inaccurate is some conditions from the moment when Kevin knows about it.
And I say this on XS and OCforums and some forums in my country but it's hard to convince someone which is brainwashed or just a member in the herd.

Nope, asking questions is fine ignoring good answers is bad.

From my point of view Kevin explained very well why RealTemp is correct on Intel CPU's and other software not. Now it's your call to accept the truth or continue to be a member in the herd.

But we're off-topic now and gpig is right, back to topic:

 

lol? What are you? 10 years old?
lol

 

I use the FIXED_CTR1 in some situations, however I don't use the differential method, nor calculate the ratio to reference clocks.
What I'm trying to achieve is to catch and report actual state of core, not an average value of what happened during a certain period (when you run across different P-states). So for me, a ratio of 11.4 is not a valid/real ratio, since I want to display the really actual one (not the average of several P-States that occured during the 1 second interval).
You can blame me for that, but this is my approach that I would like to go. I know it's not perfect and it also gives 'other kind' of results when clock modulation is active..
I know how several tools work internally (CPU-Z, T-Mon, Everest, ..), since we (together with Franck of CPU-Z and Fiery of Everest) are working together on many issues and discussing stuff. It's not my practice to make comments about other competition tools, nor to bash them.

 

Looks like my thread started a little fight huh? haha

Everyone relax. So back to the initial question...Clarksfield or Arrandale?

 

It seems most everyone here agrees on one thing: go with the i7 620M.

If anyone wants to argue that the 720QM is better because it has a larger cache, faster memory speed, is often cheaper on Dell.com, and some other advantages, let's hear it.

 

You keep referring to Keven like I should know who he is? Umm ok? Btw your English is horrible.

You said you couldn't have told me any better yourself, in reference to Unclewebb's info. You're just trying to piggyback off his coat-tails and be like "yea what he said!" When in fact you knew none of the information he stated and if you did you would have already posted it. Nice try though.

Arrandale > Clarksfield any day.

 

I never understand why people get so enthused about these things as if they built them. None of you built, designed or even thought of Arrandale or clarksfield, and that's grounds to relax right there. Secondly it never boils down to anything as simple as Arrandale>Clarksfield. Clarksfield processors are better for applications that can take advantage of 8 threads. Video editing, some games, etc... that being said, those things will run just fine on an Arrandale seeing as these new dual cores are no slouches. You can't say one is better than the other, they are really geared towards different things.
If heat and battery life are driving concerns Arrandale is better, also if you plan to do a lot of gaming, Arrandale may be better seeing as games are really just getting around to utilizing multi-core architecture. Although there are some that run beautifully on an i7 (Clarksfield). If you're going to do editing of multimedia and rendering, transcoding, and encoding I'd go with an i7. As those apps are the ones that really push each core. That being said, if you go with an arrandale for the interest of battery life and heat the i7620 is a terrible choice seeing as it's the worst of both worlds, it has the heat and power consumption of a clarksfield while having the two physical cores of an Arrandale. If you choose Clarksfield it's best to go all the way and go with an 820 or a 920 i7, I regret not knowing that 8 months ago. If you choose an Arrandale go with the higher-end i5 (the model # escapes me now).

 

Well said. And I agree with you as far as the processors being geared toward different things. The more I look into this debate, the more apparent this fact is.

 

I knew more than you.
And atleast I didn't post what I didn't know or thought I knew, unlike you.

 

Clarksfield will be more 'futureproof' wouldn't you say? considering more software/games will be able to take advantage of the quad-core's abilities?

 

I'd think so. Especially since some games/software are already utilizing the 8 threads of my i7. I use Sony Vegas for video editing and do a lot of transcoding and I see it uses all 8. Also my favorite game Dragon Age recognizes the 8 threads and loads them accordingly meaning smooth gameplay.

 

Nice! I have a 1645 on the way to replace my 1530. Thanks for the quick response.

 

Can you run a ThrottleStop log file while you are playing this game? The CPU is designed to move tasks around from core to core so even single threaded applications can spend some time on each core. I've seen a lot of "multi threaded" games that barely load 2 threads let alone all 8 threads.

On the Core i CPUs, the reported C0% in the TS log file very accurately tracks what percentage of your CPU is being used. When gaming, the most I usually see is 25% for the game and an extra percent or two for background tasks.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I just like learning about this new technology.

 

Next time I play I'll do just that, but when I was intitally configuring the game it ran a check, acknowledged "8 cores" and adjusted the settings accordingly. Also the recommended specs is an Intel Quad... I know none of that really means much but I do Alt+Tab out of the game with great frequency and see nice equal load distribution on my CPU graph widget.

 

Deleting this post. Sorry, I had apparently clicked "post" instead of "Preview". Please ignore.
Versailles, Sun 17 Oct 2010 15:45:35 +0200