Intel® Core? i7-4700MQ enough for SLI GTX 780M?

Intel® Core™ i7-4700MQ processor (6MB Cache, up to 3.4GHz) .Can run SLI 780M well?

 

Yes. It is the equivalent to the previously known 3630QM, and is a quad core processor. Because the price of the upgrade to the 4800MQ is a mere $100, I'd recommend upgrading to that.

Edit: And I would wait a while before purchasing. You will have more options to upgrade certain components as opposed to buying pre-configured systems.

 

Depends on the game. Personally I'd opt for the 4800MQ if you're getting SLI 780m. Games like Dirt 3, BF3 (and likely 4) can make use of that extra CPU power.

 

Tough question. I have a feeling it might bottleneck the GPU in the newest games. But I don`t have any evidence to back that up

 

4800mq will be the best balance.

 

Is it way you can oc the 4700mq and 4800mQ with xtu utility? differences MHz?
Im talking especially for the msi gt70 2 od?

 

4700mq is locked.

 

how about running 780m sli with 2630qm and 3610qm....will it hurt game performance

 

Likely. Most games are CPU limited anyhow. Even older games like Just Cause 2 improve performance with faster CPU's.

 

well if i assemble 2 780ms in m18x r2....ideal and economical choice for proc is 2920xm will a 2920xm work in m18xr2? then i oc it to 4ghz...which i am sure will beat haswell 4700mq/480mq to overcome bottleneck?

 

AFAIK all Haswell mobile CPU's save for the 4930XM have completely locked multipliers, just like on the non-K desktop Haswell CPU's. So you won't be getting the 4 extra Turbo bins using XTU like you could previously with Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge chips that weren't XM or K.

780M SLI is an absurd amount of graphics horsepower in a notebook and IMO you're gonna want the fastest CPU you can get your hands on, preferably an overclocked XM, so that it can keep up with the GPU. Otherwise, your graphics cards won't be reaching their maximum potential. CPU performance becomes more important in multi-GPU setups than in single-GPU ones. If your CPU is not powerful enough your GPU utilization will go down. I guess depending on the performance you're getting or expecting it might only be a minor annoyance that your dual-GPU setup is not getting full usage, especially if FPS is already "good enough" for you.

Don't get me wrong, you'll still get great frame rates most of the time but your minimum will dip below 60 FPS when the CPU really gets hammered, which IMO is unacceptable for $1000 worth of graphics cards.

So with all that being said, I can guarantee you the 4700MQ is going to bottleneck the GTX 780M SLI in some games. The current and future trend in games is more and more multi-threading and utilization of CPU resources. Battlefield 3 64-player multiplayer, currently the most CPU-demanding game on the market, is the perfect example. It is one of the few games that actually benefits from Hyper-Threading and the increased core count and cache sizes of moving up to LGA 2011. It is probably impossible to pull a minimum of 60 FPS at all times with current generation hardware on any resolution. Even overclocked SB-E can't do it. Dipping below 60 FPS might not seem like a big deal to most people but it is for those running high refresh rate (120Hz/144Hz) monitors. Not to mention you'd feel cheated if your uber SLI/Xfire setup was being held back by a lack of CPU grunt.

Hell, even my (relatively-lowly) overclocked 650M SLI gets bottlenecked by the i7-3630QM, which is about as fast as the 4700MQ, in BF3. It's worst on Back to Karkand and Armored Kill maps, especially when there's a lot of destruction going on or I'm looking down over the entire map when there's a lot of action. I dip down into the 30's and 40's from what is normally 60+ FPS. This corresponds with a sharp spike in CPU usage across all 8 threads as well as a sharp drop in GPU usage.

 

so 2920xm oced to 4.5 ghz will be ok i guess with 780m sli?

 

Good luck cooling that!

 

If you intend to play CPU-intensive games like Skyrim, BF3, SC3, I'm guessing you'll lose some FPS with a 4700mp. If you're playing 1080p with the settings at ultra in games like Crysis 3, Metro, Witcher 2, FC3, I doublt there will be any bottleneck.

I see there are a couple 4800mq QSs that are up on Ebay from Shirley and UpgradeMonkey. The only difference I see is the QS has a 3.5ghz turbo speed (whereas an OEM/retail 4800mq has 3.7ghz stock). My question is: does this QS have an unlocked multiplier, like some of the Sandy Bridge QS chips did? Don't really see the point in paying $400 for a QS when you can get an OEM for the same if the multi isn't unlocked...

 

I'm inclined to say that for Dual GTX 780m's, unless you're willing to live with an overclocked 4930MX, you're going to be bottlenecked by the relative lack of CPU strength by anything short of an i7-3820, possibly i7-3930K. Yes, I'm advocating that SLi should go to the X79 chipset. Why? Not only is there a higher clockspeed, but there's more L3 Cache, and in the case of the 3930K, simply more cores to transmit the necessary info to the GPUs to keep them busy. If one 780m is about 80% of a desktop 680 (give or take a little bit), then 2 780m's is close to a GTX Titan in terms of pure numbers (core quantity, core frequency, bandwidth, etc.,), even if the Titan has more available memory buffer than 2 780m's (6GB v. 4GB). Exacerbating this "tons of power, tons of memory" problem is that the most a laptop will have to display in 99% of cases is a single 1080p screen (yes, MSI has a 3K coming out, Apple has the Retina, but those are anomalies), and 4GB is almost excessive for such a low-res screen. (Now if it was 1440p, yes the framerates may plunge, but it'd use more of the 4GB frame buffer.) However, with such a set of cards, I wouldn't put anything less than an i7-3820 or even a 3930K into such a configuration in order to exploit the resources as much as possible.

Jason

 

4800 is fine with 780m...

I disagree, with your spec, the games out today and the games that will be out within 3-4 years will still be relevant.

regardless of 4700 through 4930, everything is quad core, meaning games will run fine as is, it's only when you're playing intensive 64 multi player games that youll notice a difference - and even that difference - if you want to call it that, is the bare minimum of 5-10fps, and that really does not matter at all unless you are ocd, or so self conscious that you worry about small thing like that, because the game still looks beautiful and fluidity will remain.

gamers do not need more than 4900 cpu,

 

i should also add, yes if you are going for top line gpu, 4800 is mandatory.

dont get 4700.

 

That's not true. OP is talking about 780M SLI. That's like GTX Titan level performance right there. If you're building a desktop with a Titan there's no way you'd be pairing that with anything less than an i7-3770K or 4770K if you had any sense, both of which are already faster than the $1000 XM chip anyway. The truth is, minimum FPS in a game like BF3 is completely determined by CPU power, and even people with 4 GHz+ overclocked Sandy and Ivy Bridge quad-cores or SB-E are seeing bottlenecks. BF3 CPU bottleneck? Really? - AnandTech Forums

 

3.4ghz is fine for most titles for the current gen, but you may want the increased power in the future.

 

I've bumped all my multipliers up by 2 with my 4700MQ & lowered the core 77mv (and upped the TDP to 57w) in XTU........ I'm pretty sure if I disable powersaving features in bios I will be able to lower that voltage even more although for now +2x is the best I can do (maybe a fancy mod bios will allow me to get more?)

 

i don't know why you keep pairing 780m with the latest haswell cpu and bashing it. if you have any knowledge about how computers work, you would know that all the haswell line for alienware is quad core. gaming will be flawless. even bf3 doesn't even utilize more than 3 ghz, so 4700 is plenty and it will run as well with 780 - let alone run extremely well with 4800 because that keeps your laptop relevant for 4-5 years from now. people who complain and point out these minor differences and trying to upsell people who have perfectly fine pc, and boasting about their pc power ... just wow.


and like meaker said, 4700 its perfectly fine.

your best option is to get 4800 because that will widen your gaming capacity in the future.

 

If you are already dishing out to get a top of the line laptop, I don't see how an extra 100 dollars to get it pumped up to a 4800 would hurt.

 

You should read through that AnandTech thread carefully before discrediting my claims. They have empirical evidence that even overclocked Sandy Bridge-E is inadequate for BF3 at times when paired with a high-end multi-GPU solution. I don't even know how I can take anything you say seriously when you have such an offensive username. Are you serious? Coon dog?!?

 

BF3 is one of the most demanding games for CPU and GPU. If you want to play BF3, get at least an i7-4800MQ. When I upgraded from an i7-3610QM to an i7-3740QM the difference in BF3 was quite significant. Many other games it might not matter so much though.

 

I also upgraded from a 3610qm to a 3920xm. Battlefield was still most sitting at a V-Synced 60fps in both instances. Skyrim with ENB mods, Arma 2 and Farcry 3 (edit: Crysis 3 too) are about the only games that I can honestly say benefited from the extra horse power with my current set up.
In any regard, a faster CPU does help the GPU put out more frames. Maybe if I was playing on a 120hz monitor I would have noticed more.

 

That's just it. I'm sure you'd get more FPS in CPS-intensive games, but those games are already likely pushing well over 60 FPS -- and 60 FPS vs. 80 FPS is almost entirely negligable in practice. $200-800 more is a lot to ask for improvement you may not see. In games where the GPUs are really stressed e.g. Metro, Crysis 3, having a 4900mx over a 4700mq (or 3720qm for that matter) will hardly make a difference.

 

It will have more to do with minimum frame rates.

 

This too. I noticed this in the Sleep Dogs benchmark

 

Not in BF3 though. If I had a much faster CPU my minimums would be closer to my average of around 60 FPS, instead of dipping into the 30's and 40's when the CPU gets hammered.

 

Well my 4900MQ is inbound and will be here in the morning. I will test the difference. Should be able to get 4.2Ghz across all 4 cores. BF3 is my main game, and BF4 will benefit from the extra horsepower.

If I see no difference, it has a 30 day return for full refund no questions asked. Less shipping of course.

 

your basing your claims solely on benchmark ranking instead of gaming - not to mention your severe OCD tendencies.

4700 is perfectly fine with 780m. stop trying to tell people how bad 4700 with 780m is because it's not. you don't have knowledge about how cpu work and instead you are pulling in sources that YOU didn't write.

and now you are stooping to a childish level and trying to insult, because you are so mad.

do you even lift?

 

this guy know what he's talking about, and that fps difference is only 5 - for minimum fps only. and that doesn't even matter because the haswell line is all quad, the game will still be fluid.

 

Please keep it cool.
We have language filter for a reason and we've established a good way of dealing with people who can't help but offend and attack others.

 

i7-4700mq should be just enough for 780m sli. It seems as if people forgot that cpu performance is determined by more than just the clock rate. It is also the architecture behind it that determines how well the cpu will perform intense tasks. The haswell line of cpus is estimated to be about 10% better than their ivy bridge counterparts. So in short the 4700mq should be good enough.

 

so none from amd mobile cpu line is enough for 780m

 

Not really, especially considering the price bracket of the 780m.

 

wonder what will happen next year then....there is no broadwell in 2014 only haswell refresh so lets say.

1. Intel will release 5700mq wth 2.6 ghz on 4 cores.

2. Nvidia will release 880m which will be on maxwell in Q3 2014 or Q1 2015 and ppl are hoping 880m = 2 x 780m thats huge....so 880m sli is like Titan Sli in laptops...

but i think 1 880m = 2x680m so thats 1 desktop gtx 680 so 880m sli is basically desktop gtx 680 sli in laptops (in game perfs not synthetic benchies)

3. So will an Intel 5700mq @ 2.6ghz (haswell refresh) really cut it with 880m SLI?

so whats the answer? Either 2 ways....

Laptops with 880m SLI should have 3k resolution or 4k resolution or at least 2560x1440 so that games use all gpus not dependent on cpus... but hopefully 880m sli can tackle smooth gameplay
at those res.

or PPl Connect external multi displays to extract the power of 880m sli and not be cpu dependent...

or intel should give base cpus at 3.0 to 3.5 ghz base clock and MX cpus at 4.0 ghz to 4.5 ghz base for mobile and desktop chips as the ghz is race is on again with AMD giving 5 ghz desktop 8 cores now.....

 

Actually, the more high-end GPU's you string together, the more important CPU power is to keep up with the enormous amount of graphics horsepower. AnandTech | Choosing a Gaming CPU at 1440p: Adding in Haswell

 

Yes but for dual 7970s they recommend a 2500k which the 4700mq would beat.

 

780m sli= gtx 660 ti sli = gtx titan as desktop 7970 cf is powerful than 660 ti sli and can be handled 2500k then why 4700mq handle 780m sli as 4700mq more powerful than 2500k? ??

 

If you read the comment, people complained 1440p and 1080p make a world of difference.
Just like the article they make for 7970m yesterday, they show benchmarks at 768p and 900p which are waste of bandwidth (network, not pci)

 

Those games tested by AnandTech are all GPU-bound. I would love to see them test BF3 multiplayer. That would be funny.

 

Would it, really?

 

games should be gpu bound...aint i t

 

No reason why games have to be GPU bound.

But at the same time the point that happens is based on the resolution and details selected.

3 water cooled titans are typically CPU bound for instance unless you run a 4k display or mutli monitor.

 

I think the question he really needs to ask is if all he wants to do is game. If just gaming, the 4700MQ should bump itself up to 3.2Ghz on all cores and only decrease when temps get super high (which from peoples' reports they usually don't) therefore it shouldn't be a problem at all. If he was bent on CPU-based recording programs or streaming, I'd say the 4800MQ is ince. The 4900MQ isn't worth the extra cost over the 4800MQ as it's only 100MHz difference over the model underneath it for the same tiered price bump, whereas the 4800MQ is 300MHz faster than the model underneath and I believe (correct me if wrong) it allows some XTU ocing?

I mean, let's be honest here. I've NEVER seen a game eat up my CPU heavily, and I've only got an i7-950. These cards, even the 4700MQ eat mine for breakfast, lunch, dinnner, dessert and two midnight snacks. I'd say an i7-950 is still perfectly fine for just gaming, as is a 2500K. And these are better, so I see no problems if all he wants to do is game. Using other CPU intensive stuff while gaming, however, might be when the extra 300MHz would help.

 

Are some of you guys actually saying you need more than a 4700 to play bf3? That seems absurd..

 

I wouldn't say it's "needed", just there is a measurable difference in performance improvement (FPS) the faster the CPU. And dual cores cut the performance about half in BF3. BF3 is a very CPU hungry game for both gameplay mechanics / physics and feeding the GPU.

 

Not at all. BF3 plays brilliantly on my 3630QM and GT 650M SLI for the most part. 1080p, High settings, and pegging 60 FPS most of the time in 64-player multiplayer, except when it chokes spectacularly on Back to Karkand and Armored Kill maps because the CPU gets hammered. I mean, FPS drops from 60+ to like 30-40. GPU usage drops below 50% and overall CPU usage shoots up to 60%. All 4 cores at their maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 3.2 GHz. All 8 threads working their butts off. In such instances, I'm sure having a lot more CPU power could definitely smooth out those FPS drops.

You might want to take a look at these articles. Most in-depth review of CPU performance in BF3 I have ever read.

Chip Reviews Battlefield 3 Revisited » Chip Reviews

Chip Reviews Frostbite 2's Limit - 6 Core Performance in Battlefield 3 » Chip Reviews

I think this graph says it all:



He was testing with an i7-3930K and GTX 680 SLI. And Metro isn't even that CPU-limited. Back to Karkand and Armored Kill maps are lot more CPU-heavy, so FPS will be lower. Just look at that huge difference in minimum and average FPS.

Basically, BF3 will take as much CPU power as you can give it and keep spitting out higher minimum and average FPS.

 

I'm curious to note how 60% of an i7-3630QM is considered maxing. Usually when I "max" on this CPU I have now (which happened when streaming battlefield in the past) I'd get HUGE fps drops and stutters... but only when my CPU hit 100% flat. Not 95%, not 99%, but 100% flat. Then the game became starved for CPU as it fought the streaming program, and both programs faltered a bit for a few seconds as they competed until my CPU drain fell to anything below 100% constant.

If the current generation of intel cards can't give BF3 enough without cracking a 70 or 80% mark, then intel has taken a few steps backwards instead of moving forward.

Period.