i5 450m vs i7 720qm for modern and near future gaming

Biggest obvious difference is that the 720qm has 4 cores

i5 450m - 2.4 and can boost up to 2.66
i7 720qm - 1.6 can boost to 2.8

Another difference is that the i450 is the newest in the i series lineup (came out q2 2010) and the i7 720qm is based on somewhat older tech.

Q: Given 2 systems with the same specs except for the processor, how will they compare when used in combination with a Mid-Range GPU?? (ATI 4650 / nvidia 335m)

My guess is that the bottleneck will be the GPU and there won't be too much of a difference ...Is this correct?

 

This is a great question since there's a great price difference at Alienware. Curious about it also

 

yes the bottleneck will be GPU but its always better to have a better CPU and in this case the quad... if u really want a performance system consdier a ATI 5870 at least with i7 quad like asus G73.. no bottlenecks there except for temperature

 

It depends on the exact number of cores you need to use. The 720QM starts off at 1.6GHz and has a 1/1/6/9 Turbo Boost scheme while the 450M starts at 2.4GHz and has a 2/2 boost scheme. Thus, we have:

1 core: 720QM wins (2.8GHz vs. 2.66GHz)
2 cores: 450M wins (2.66GHz vs. 2.4GHz)
3 cores: 450M wins (2 cores at 2.66GHz vs 3 cores at 1.73; the 2 cores will always be more effective even if the program is using each thread perfectly)
4 cores: 720QM wins (2 cores at 2.66GHz vs 4 cores at 1.73)

So it's a wash -- the only scenario where the 720QM has a noticeable edge is if you are fully using all 4 cores, but both processors have hyperthreading so you probably would not perceive the large difference even in a 4 thread scenario (you'd need to go to 5-8 to see it). For modern and near future gaming, I would go with the 450M because few games use more than 2 cores and even the ones that do usually have asymmetric loads (i.e. only 1 or 2 cores are fully used while the others see only light usage).

 

Id like to think that in the next year or two coders would get better at hyper threading, and eventually will use 4 cores. Just because 2 cores is the norm now doesnt mean their wont be a market change. when everyone switched to dual cores nothing was optimized for it. Adopting something takes time and to future proof the I7 is a better buy.

And Id def recommend the G73 , solid laptop, great look and build, and performance were its needed.

 

That's not how it works. There are tasks that are well suited to multi-threading (video rendering, code compilation, scientific applications like event generation in particle physics, etc.) and tasks that are not (most common programs from everyday use). If most of a task is naturally sequential, adding more than 2 cores will not give you much.

However, it is actually worse than that for the 720QM. The problem is that most tasks that fall in the middle (e.g. games) do not use the cores in a symmetrical way. That is, given 4 cores of a 1.73GHz processor, most games will not use them evenly -- one or two cores will be favored over the others. I am not sure how Intel deals with this (it may actually be advantageous for it to become a 2.4GHz dual-core rather than a 1.73GHz quad core in some scenarios), but you will almost never get 6.93GHz of performance out of 4 1.73GHz cores.

Games will become better threaded; it is already happening now and it will continue with time. I would definitely recommend a desktop quad-core (e.g. the Core i5 760 or a Phenom II X4), but the caveat is that the quad-core has to run at a decent clock speed. There is no point in buying a quad-core that is roughly equal (or even inferior!) to a decent dual-core in most situations. It is not "future proof" if it's only better in the best case scenario that only happens in benchmarks and even then by not that much.

 

@OP: go with the 720/740. Games today are still generally capped by the gpu.. though there are several games that are now more demanding on the CPU and definitely favor quads (BFBC2, GTA4, I heard metro 2033 as well). There will be more games that prefer quads made in the future for sure, but by the time that 75% of games want a quad, we'll have hexcores.

Of course, if you can't play the above games because your gpu is handicapping you (the 335 will struggle) then it really doesn't matter which you get, go with whatever is the cheapest. Mundane/day-to-day tasks are totally irrelevant since you can do fine on an old C2D for 99% of them.

 

There is more to clock speed, with the Core i7 having twice the cache memory and higher memory bandwidth among other differences.

Chances are, the Core i7 will match and exceed the Core i5 in both single and dual core situations, since it already gets near the performance of the Core i7 620m and that one has higher clock speeds than both of the discussed processors.

I'd say that the Core i7 is a better buy despite the lower quad core speed. Also, as I noted in another thread, games that use four cores like Starcraft 2 actually run better with four cores vs 2 cores despite the lower clockspeed. Even if the load is not even, it does help a bit.

I do hate that the quad core speed is only 1.73ghz though... wish it would be a bit higher. That being said, I'm perfectly happy with the processor so far.

 

From what I understand, the 335 should be able to handle all modern games at medium levels and get at least 30fps (posted on many boards and using the reference here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2962/asus-n61j-x2-optimus-gt325m-meets-arrandale/5 . This is a lower clocked i5 430 and less powerful 330m...You have a 5870 which is the #9 GPU of all the GPU's out there, so maybe you're playing at ultra settings? I'm not trying refute you, but medium settings suit me fine. If I'm wrong about it being able to handle that, please let me know before I waste a G.

Thank you all for the information here. Much appreciated and informative.

 

Both CPUs are fine for gaming. I'm guessing the i5-450M is significantly cheaper, though, and if so I'd save the money. If it's more like $50, the i7-720QM would be a decent purchase if you decide to encode a video or something like that at one point, but you will rarely see the difference between these CPUs in a video game.

 

Hiraku, regarding the GPU, I may be wrong here. It looks like it can handle all the current games I want to play at medium settings (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, Batman AA). The card lands in the middle of most modern games minimum and recommended. Except for one game..Metro 2033...The 335 lies just several cards above the MINIMUM card for Metro. The card may not fair well at all a year from now.

On a sidenote, I found Half Life 2 episode 1 and Oblivion playable on a Dell d630 with a Quadro 135 which scored less than a G on 3dMark06...hahaha

Thank you for the advice lackofcheese.

 

All I know is I love my i7 720QM and would cry if I had to downgrade to an i5 450M

 

A Quad gives you more flexibility, it handles the OS background tasks leaving more CPU time for what you need it for, so as long as it does not cost much more, I would go for it. Ideally I only recommend the i7 820qm in most scenarios but I see no reason to go for a Dual other than cost reasons. The extra battery time you think you will get with a Dual is overrated. Only a switchable graphics solution will give you note worthy battery time gain.

 

Yep that seems to be the case. The only way I can significantly increase my battery on this laptop is by messing with the GPU. The GPU and HDDs seem to be the biggest problems for laptops. Which is why if you want battery IMO switchable graphics and SSD drives should be #1 and #2 on your list of requirements.

 

According to most reviews, the difference in power consumption at idle and load is fairly significant, especially in the more power efficient systems.

 

Not trying to hijack this thread or any such thing but my debate currently was between the i7 720 and the i5 520, this make any significant difference?

 

i have a 720 but wouldnt mind a faster dual core. the 720 does not "boost" as much as you would think since the workload is split randomly across all 4 cores.
Plus the dual core will have better battery life and less heat. get the dual core.

 

I have used a mobile i7 620m and my current mobile i7 820qm and I found that the 820qm never boosted as much as you would think just like you said. However, I found that it didn't boost because it simply didn't need to. Take performance in the Dual Core optimised PS2 emulator and Dolphin as an example. I found that I was getting exactly the same performance with the i7 820qm at lower clock rates when compared to the constantly Turbo Boosted 3.06 Ghz of the i7 620m.

 

One needs to always remember with notebook CPUs, there is a power dissipation envelope known as TDP, or Thermal Design Power. This does not translate to power consumption, but represents the amount of power the notebook must have the capacity to dissipate for satisfying thermal limitations. In a notebook setting, the advantage of a quad core CPU falls drastically, since the more cores used, the more the CPU frequency must be scaled to remain within the TDP.

Althernai has already explained (and quite well I might add) the reasoning for why a quad core is unlikely to yield much of an advantage in most cases. Multi-threaded coding is simply not practical for all applications. Not all calculations can be made in parallel fashion, which undermines the utility of a higher number of cores on-die. With respect to gaming, you are far more likely to be constrained by your GPU than your CPU, so ensure that you make your decision with price difference in mind.

A further die shrink is in order before quad core becomes more mainstream to the Intel notebook CPU product line, such that the thermal penalty of a greater number of cores is more vastly reduced. Still, as already described, more cores does not necessarily mean better, and it will always be a compromise between core count and frequency in a thermally constrained application, especially in a notebook setting.

I personally am more inclined to recommend the 450m, since it likely costs less, and will afford you greater power savings. If we were talking about a desktop setting, my answer would certainly be different, since significantly more flexibility is afforded by a greater TDP. Good luck on your decision, but I implore you to read these posts objectively, and to carefully consider the ones that respond using rational thinking.

 

I remember having the same dilemma choosing between the i7 and the i5. In the end I opted for the i7-720QM. Sure right now, I don't really see much benefits in a dual core vs a quad core CPU right now, but in the near future as apps start making use of more than 2 cores maybe we\ll see the advantages of having a 4-core cpu.

For now the only thing I like about having the extra cores is that it allows me to run apps in the background while playing a game and effortlessly switch back and forth between them.

 

I believe there won't be any difference except that the i5 520 overclocks to 2.933 and has some new Intel instruction sets that address security, but not performance.

This is all excellent information. A bit conflicting regarding making a decision, but excellent none the less. Would like to see benchmarks on notebooks with the same GPU and RAM, but different CPU. Would be interesting. Also, maybe this is a bit late in the game to note, but I'm trying for a 14" and < $1000.

 

Legion Hardware just posted this article. Interesting read.

 

Here : VPCEA16FG : E Series : VAIO Laptop & Computer : Sony India

fits your needs

 

You have to keep in mind that they're comparing 2 and 4 cores at the same clock speeds, but those clock speed differences are quite large in laptops.

 

That Sony looks nice but it's almost $300 more than the Lenovo y460 with same specs.

 

Also, am I interpreting this correctly? It looks like for these benchmarks, they turned off HT yes? Quad processor with 2 cores disabled and HT disabled is not the same as a 2 core processor with HT enabled.

It does looks like SOME games are making pretty good use of quad cores and probably more in the future. But someone earlier in the thread also mentioned the thermal situation with a laptop. From everything I've read, I'm not sure the difference would be as great with laptops as this article shows with desktops.

 

Wish they had used a i5 540 or something similar not the 750. Almost seems really stupid to me. For most people if they are going Quad they will buy the i7 920 which you can get for low $200s. If they were to compare to dual core, wish they used a DUAL CORE, instead of a QUAD core on 2 cores. Stupid stupid stupid.