i5-3210m bottlenecks GT 650m?

I'm purchasing an HP DV4 for some gaming and I can choose either the i5-3210m or the i7-3612QM for an additional $150. The money is really not that big of an issue for me, its more the bottleneck. I don't use my laptop for anything other than gaming and taking notes, so I don't need a very powerful CPU. Could the dual core i5 bottleneck me in games like BF3 and future games? If it will i'll step up to the i7.

 

The I5 are fine and should not bottleneck the 650M but with the I7 but you will benefit more in games like BF3 and a couple of others because they can make use of the 3rd of 4th core.

You would be much better off going for the I7-3612QM however you are getting near enough double the performance from the same TDP and it will make your laptop much more future proof.

 

Yup what Yiddo said is correct.
Better spend now 150 more for being future proof; nowadays the games runs better on quads, dual cores are confined in the minimum spec limbo.

 

I would get the i5 3210m as it is much cheaper and games are not really cpu bound anymore. Notebookcheck did a test and found a basic i3 2310m sandy bridge bottlenecked a 560m slightly I believe. i5 3210m is a big stepup up from that i3 2310m nearly 50% faster is the i5 3210m and the 650m is similar to a 560m.

Also being a 14" factor and hp normally having bad cooling I would get the i5 as the i7 is around 35% faster then the i5 3210m so should heat up slightly more when fully stressed. Also from when I used hp dv series they seem to overheat so I would get the i5 as well for that. The i7 may not be able to be used to the max anyway.

i5 3210m will easily work with a gt 650m.

Just look at this with a 540m:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Processors-Gaming-Performance.49600.0.html

and this a 560m which is similar speed to a 650m:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Processors-Gaming-Performance-Part-II.57170.0.html

 

They are both the same 35watt TDP as the 3612QM is lower clocked than the 3610QM so it draws less power the difference in temperature is not going to that much but the performance difference is going to be a worthwhile upgrade and if the new 11 inch Clevo can cool a 3610QM and a 650M on one heatsink and fan I cannot see the HP having an issue.

Benchmark results are a common misconception when it comes to processing power having 4 cores and 8 threads is about sharing out the workload against the 2 cores and 4 threads on an I5 so you are practically doubling the CPU ability to process when you are using software that can make use of 4 cores (ignoring clock speeds). As you say CPU's are not as big an importance as a GPU however more and more games are coming out that are CPU bound including some of the most popular like BF3, Skyrim, Starcraft 2 and more games are being released that are poorly optimised console ports which means they are also CPU bound.

 

cpu bound? 90% of the games out now with a gt 650m will with an i5 3210m without really stressing the cpu. Only console ports there maybe a few fps difference.

Also 3612qm being more powerful takes like at least 10w more then an i5 3210m power consumption wise. check notebookcheck out.

An i5 3210m is not as slow as you think as it holds its own against an i7 940xm and in fact beating it on quite a lot of things.

An i7 3612qm takes a lot more power consumption around 10w more and performs quite a lot better but in a dv4 and from using hp in the past it will most likely overheat and the computer will not be enjoyable to use? An i5 3210m will run battlefield 3 easily. In fact virtually any i5 dual core will. I doubt there will be any games that are well made not console ports bottleneck an i5 3210m until maybe december 2013 to 2016 when the new consoles may come out and even then the i5 3210m won't bottleneck a gt 650m.

 

I never said the I5 would bottleneck read my post again I said an I7 is a better choice and it is even if what you say is true that 10watts more is drawn by the I7 to produce a 35% increase in performance then you are fighting against your own information which shows the I7 is better or should I say Notebookchecks information which is flimsy to say the least.

In regards to a higher power consumption when either CPU has two engaged cores at the same clock speed the I5 will draw exactly the same amount as the I7 the difference is when the I7 engages the 3rd and 4th cores but the clocks are then lower when that happens due to the turbo boost so as an example an I5 running 2 cores at 2.9ghz compared to an I7 running 4 cores at 2.1ghz you would be suprised how close they are because it depends on load hence why they are both marked up at 35W TDP.

The CPU is a lot more important in many games that you may think especially strategy games like Starcraft 2 or Civilisation that have a lot of physics or action going on screen and if you do not think this is the case go and fire up Battlefield 3 and check the CPU usage on an I5 and watch it max it out.

The OP's question was which is better the I5 or the I7 and the simple answer is the I7.

 

If money is no issue, like you said, then like Yiddo said, I would get the i7

 

I have to come in as a 3210m owner and agree with what nissan said.

I have an m14x r2 and have tested both the i5 3210m and a i7 3610qm. The reason I kept the i5 is for the following reasons:

1. Heat - the quad when stressed used a lot more power than the i5 and the system heated up into the 90c (cpu temps)
2. Noise - Obviously linked with the heat, the fan has to spin a lot louder to cool the quad. This leads to a much higher volume on the quad version. So much so I returned it. The i5 ran pretty cool
3. No games I play were bottlenecked by the the i5. I play BF3, shogun2, DOW2, SC2 COD BO and they all play great with both the i5 and i7

What surprised me the most is the actual wattage of my i5, although listed at a 35w TDP part, it only hits 20w with TB active and 17w at its 2.5ghz base clock. Also when running at 100% with prime it sits at 2.8ghz continuously

 

ninja2000, that was some interesting info. Do you know how much the 3610qm consumed?

Thats more then settled me getting an i5 3210m laptop. I seen a lenovo with a gt 640m and i5 3210m for £499. Once these noetbooks get to £350-£400 i will buy as I planned on upgrading to this generation.

Yiddo you do realise both i5 and i7 being based on 22nm that the quad core with quite a bit more performance will take quite a bit more electricity. Also you did say games are becoming more cpu bound when reality is an i5 3210m will not mainly bottleneck a 650m.

Finally ninja2000 when you record with fraps lets say at 900p or 720p res do you notice any fps go down when recording. Thats the main reason why I wanna upgrade, have a very fast cpu and take less time waiting and more time doing whether video encoding or recording gameplay

 

Wow! which model lenovo is that?

The quad was showing as 42w with full TB in prime and 34w when running prime at its base clock

Sorry, I never record with FRAPS as it always drops your fps so I didnt even test with i5 3210m. I am sure there is an option to record in afterburner with less of an impact on fps but I am at work so cannot check

 

This lenovo:
Lenovo IdeaPad Z580 Intel Core i5-3210M, 4Gb RAM, 500Gb, 15.6 inch Laptop - Metal Very.co.uk

I know it drops your fps with fraps but can you record games at 30fps at 720p res. I find it amazing so many people upload 1080p gameplay on youtube as my internet is so slow at uploading 640x400 fraps half size mp4 content.

I suppose the 3610qm is slightly faster then a 3612qm. Overall though on most things apart from benchmark scores i5 3210m will hold its own and even outperform i7 quads on single threaded and dual threaded unless the mobile quad core has a big turbo boost option.

 

I own a M17x so I do not know if that makes any difference but my CPU never uses more than 25 - 30W on games. I have seen this number on throttlestop log. I don't know if that gives a different number but the column is titled "watt".

 

Hilarious that this post was decided by a difference of 10 watts under a prime test when the decision was suppose to be over what is the best choice of CPU.

The I5 does not compare to the I7 it matters not if it can handle games perfectly well now if you are buying a laptop you intend to keep the I7 is easily the way to go for everyday use having twice the cores and threads is only going to benefit you more now programs and games are making full use of quad cores.

As maverick just said when gaming the 3610QM is only using 25-30watts it is a joke to compare CPU's against prime test results when rarely if ever does a CPU put 100% load on every core under normal use as mentioned on the previous page at idle or browsing there is not going to be any difference until the 3rd and 4th cores are engaged by the I7.

Take the I5 it is a good CPU but please do not spout nonsense that it is the better choice just because it draws slightly more power and for the second time I never said it would bottleneck that was the OP's asking that.

The 3610QM is higher clocked than the 3612QM that is all so it has a TDP of 45watt which is why the 3612QM is the best of both worlds.

 

How much of a future proof (in years) would you expect quad cores to be? Maybe the minimum example of the old quad cores from Intel to the 2nd/3rd gen i7's

 

I do not understand this

but this

I do and I will answer with this -

I do not know how to measure a laptop's "futureproof-ness". I doubt anyone can. What I CAN say is that an i7 will be more future proof than an i5 which will be more future proof than an i3. In four years, you might have an i3 that outperforms the 3610QM by a longshot.

If you want a price/futureproof-ness ratio then by assuming the general $100-150 increase from the 3210 to 3610, I would say it is worth it. If the price of the upgrade is 400 bucks....I wouldn't think so.

 

That is not true as an i7 could imply ulv i7 or normal dual core i7 which perform similar to i5 dual core. Anyway I reckon an i5 3210m will not get bottlenecked at all. Laptop cpu's have been very powerful since 2010 when the 32nm dual core came out and added ht.

 

Do not argue with me. A person asked a question and I answered him. You can give your own opinions and the guy can decide. What you have said is not only irrelevant, it is also incorrect. The dude asked how futureproof a quad core CPU would be. Can you point me to any ulv quad i7? No? That's what I thought.

 

I am arguing? You did not say i7 quad. i7 does not mean quad.

You can even get desktop i5 quads and i7 6 core desktop cpu in laptops as well as 4 core and 2 core versions in laptops.

Incorrect and you say I am arguing. Lets not forget an i7 17w ulv will lose to an i5 35w dual core

I already given my opinion, just correcting.

If you see it from the outside what you said was incorrect and what I said was correct. Its like you know you made a mistake and then say I am arguing for correcting you.

 

It really depends on what sort of games you like to play.

If you are into strategy games like Civilization, then a dual core CPU is already a bottleneck. Other games are starting to make better use of multithreaded CPU, particularly games with lots of NPCs on the screen at once, like a modded version of Skyrim, for example.

 

The C0% data in the ThrottleStop log file is a very accurate way to see what games could benefit from a Quad Core.

If you have a Core i7 Quad with hyper threading enabled and the C0% is averaging above 50% while gaming, that is a sign that all 4 or your cores are being used on a regular basis. As that number goes higher and higher, a Dual Core will have trouble keeping up.

Some older games that are mostly single threaded will show a low C0%, usually not much over 15% on a hyper threaded Core i7 Quad.

 

GT 650M is not powerful enough to be hampered by Ivy Bridge i5's. Even less so at higher resolutions.

GPU is almost always the bottleneck in laptops. Modern Intel CPUs are FAST.

I have this combination of CPU & GPU I would know

Only strategy games and poor console ports (GTA IV) will need a quad core with mid-end laptp GPUs. Games are very GPU intensive.