CPU advice

There is a $50 difference between the i7-2630qm and the i7-2670qm. Is there a large enough difference to justify the upgrade? Will there be a noticable difference in everyday usage and gaming besides just in benchmarks, which do not matter?

Thanks

 

The differences are:

2630QM: 2GHz base, 2.9GHz 1 core turbo.
2670QM: 2.2GHz base, 3.1GHz 1 core turbo.

So, if it was my choice, I'd stick with the 2630QM, and spend $50 on a game or accessory.

Passmark:

2630QM: 6337
2670QM: 6881

While the 2670 is faster, both are fast enough to do pretty much anything.

Intel Core i7-2630QM Mobile processor (FF8062700837005)

Intel Core i7-2670QM Mobile processor (FF8062701065500)

 

There will be an ~8.5% difference - a whole generation's worth, to put it in perspective...

Which makes it 'worth it' for me to have it now.

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7-2630QM @ 2.00GHz - Price performance comparison

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7-2670QM @ 2.20GHz - Price performance comparison


To more accurately justify it:
What is the price of the complete system? Is $50 less than ~9% of the total? Do you have at least 8GB RAM configured with this system? Will you be running Win7x64 (I hope!)?

For me, 1% difference is in the 'noticeable' category. 3% difference is in the 'worth it' category. Anything higher and it is in the 'must have' category.

In everyday usage, the 'effects' of a faster/newer processor will not be a faster user experience per se, but rather a smoother and cooler running machine (given the same workload). For gaming: the average FPS will be higher. For low load scenarios: the battery life should be slightly better. For high load scenarios: the battery life should be slightly worse (but don't forget we are getting more performance from the system too...).

All in all, $50 is a fair price to pay for the most current, current tech, imo.

 

Thank you. Also do you recommend paying extra to upgrade the thermal paste?

 

I am looking at a system for around $1500+/- $100.

 

I think that's a good idea if you don't want to change it yourself. Whenever I've replaced thermal paste, my temps drop anywhere from 5C-12C.

 

Never.

They have to put some kind of TP on your system. How will you know they put in the 'good' one?

I'd rather save the money here and buy a tube myself and (learn) to apply it properly - in one or two years - after the warranty has expired.

 

I'm guessing the OP is buying from a retailer like xoticpc.com, who offers better thermal paste for a small fee:

Thermal Compound More Information

-Stock OEM Thermal Compound
- IC Diamond Thermal Compound - CPU + GPU ( + 40 )

We know that IC Diamond is way better than stock paste.

http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np8130...ustom-sager-laptop-p-2973.html?wconfigure=yes

 

Unless I'm there to see them break open a new tube of IC Diamond and apply it expertly to my system, what other way do I have of knowing I spent $40 wisely?

 

I guess it really depends on who the OP is buying from. If it's are reputable company, there shouldn't be any doubts about the thermal paste.

 

Considering how much paste is required (less than $1 worth, retail, I would think...) and the facts that the new system has to be pasted anyway and that IC Diamond vs. another TP is 1 or 2 degrees difference (on a newly assembled system)....

$40 does not sound 'reasonable' to me, at all.

Especially when I can't tell if it's been done (unless I take the system apart and then, I have to repaste it myself anyways...).

Not to mention that as a new system, I won't/don't know what the 'baseline' is/was for temps anyway...


See? It has nothing to do with a 'reputable company'. Things are either worth the cost or they're not. In this case, it's the latter (for me).

 

For you, exactly. For the OP it could be the opposite. The OP may not feel comfortable tearing the laptop to pieces and replacing the paste. You, on the other hand do that all the time.

 

And $40 is worth a 1-2 Degree cooler system?

I'd rather buy a notebook cooler (10 degrees cooler, depending on the notebook and cooler used) for that money.

 

I've always seen a 5C-12C difference in temps.

 

But that is from going from a used (old TP application...) installation to a clean/repaste one, correct?

I doubt you can see a 5-12C difference in newly bought system just by simply replacing the TP? Unless they did a horrendous job of applying it initially (which can still happen with any paste, btw).

Don't get me wrong. I think IC Diamond is the TP to buy - I just don't see it worth $40 for a single application (each for cpu/gpu) that cannot possibly be verified if it was applied (at all) or (correctly) in the first place.

 

Do you take apart every laptop you buy and verify every part?

 

i guess i will be the person to say that you should be spending $50 on a SSD first, before considering any other upgrade(except for getting 4GB of ram). obviously, if you need the space and don't want externals, an ssd wouldn't be appropriate, but it REALLY should be considered before anything else. you think 'smoother' performance is good? try 4x faster application loading.

 

Thank you for your differing viewpoints. They will help me to make a better decision. How hard is it to learn to apply thermal paste to a computer?

 

Depends on the laptop. Some you just have to take off the bottom panel, others you have to completely dissemble the laptop.

What model laptop are you looking at?

 

$40 for a single application? No thanks.

 

I was looking at clevo p150hm/p151hm1

 

First of all, $50 won't let you sneeze at an SSD (at least not one worth buying at this point).

Secondly, 4x faster application loading sounds good - but when we realize that the 'slow' HDD is taking 5-10 seconds to load a program and we can now do that in 2.5 seconds - again... not that impressive.

I am comparing not just any HDD - it is to a properly and optimally installed, partitioned and maintained HDD (with PD Pro 12).

An SSD should be the last thing considered as an upgrade. Not the first.

It is after the cpu/gpu is past the 'good enough' stage. It is after the RAM capacity is enough to not slow down Win7x64 (that is above 8GB at this time...) and it is after you have enough capacity (as you stated) or, have the possibility to have an SSD/HDD combo setup.

An SSD offers 'snap' - a CPU/GPU/RAM upgrade offers real performance increases.

 

I have the opposite opinion actually. A .2ghz increase in clock speed or 2gb more RAM (from 6 to 8 or something) will not be noticeable the the user. A SSD, however will immediately be noticeable through the reduced load speeds. A 60gb boot/app drive on sale for $50 can do wonders.

 

A clock speed increase (we're talking ~8.5% here...) is definitely noticeable when performance (productivity) is our criteria.

As is more RAM (RAM is where our cpu's 'think' and do their work, after all).

A 60GB SSD is will give a zero performance increase (in productivity...) but it will give the system some 'snap'. However, at that capacity and at that (initial, lower - vs. a higher capacity SSD) performance level, that 'snap' will soon lead to lower than HDD speeds. Especially if you need to move/copy/delete and keep repeating this to get the data you need on/off the drive. I know, I've been there.

Yeah, the $50, 60GB boot/app drive can do wonders: you'll wonder why you ever thought that a storage subsystem (even an SSD) could make you think that it would really give you a performance (productivity) benefit.

 

1. We need to know more about the OP's requirements/programs that will be run. In games, that 8.5% translates to 1 or 2 FPS. As I'm sure you know, most games rely more on the GPU, not the CPU.

2. Sure, 8GB's will give more working room, but do you really need that much?

3. In productivity, loading files and saving files, an SSD would greatly benefit you. nowhere does the OP state he only has an extra $50. Others are suggesting that an SSD would be a good investment. No one mentioned a 60GB SSD, more likely they were referring to a decent sized SSD(160GB-256GB)

 

Whether 'we' need 8GB of RAM is almost irrelevant - Windows 7 x64 can use it.

In loading and saving files, for a workstation users (a server is 'different', of course) there is no difference (measurable by a user) vs. saving/loading from a (modern) HDD.

As to the mention of a 60GB SSD; see quote above.

 

I don't understand how 8.5% of CPU frequency increase is noticeable while a SSD isn't worth it, sure SSD can't make your video encoding run faster, can't get you higher fps in games, that's the "productivity" you were talking about, but what about anything else?

Don't know about OP, but I close and open my programs/games often, photoshop, maya, games, etc, I need to switch between some programs often, and compared to when I did this with my HDD, SSD makes a HUGE difference for me, everything feels MUCH snappier, not to mention the huge boost to boot up/shut down time, which is also very nice, for anyone.

I upgraded a 2.26Ghz P8400 to a 3.06Ghz x9100 in my Asus g50, besides faster rendering time for MAYA and some improvement in a few games(mainly Wii emulation), I don't feel any difference. Is it worth the upgrade? Definitely yes, if you do CPU-intensive programs on daily basis, but what if you do not?

So in general, a SSD upgrade can be recommended to anyone, because anyone can feel the difference and the difference is VERY noticeable, while a CPU upgrade is questionable, because it will come down to user's usage pattern with his/her computer.

 

lidowxx,

Again, I am not comparing a system with an SSD to a 2/3 yrs old 5400RPM HDD that has never been maintained nor properly optimized.

I am comparing apples to apples: an identical, clean Win7x64 install on both a modern 750GB Scorpio Black (partitioned and maintained with PD Pro 12) to an SSD (Intel, my preference...) on systems with 8GB RAM and at least a Core 2 Duo platforms and above.

Many of my clients (whom I have installed SSD's into their systems from such an optimized mechanical setup previously) have stood in wonder after the first bootup and said 'This was supposed to be faster?' to me. Even a client with a dual SSD setup on a $6K setup immediately said that the cost ($1200) was out of line with the performance he expected. Not that they didn't notice it being a little faster... but compared to the cost of the SSD's it was not fast enough for the money spent. And certainly the SSD(s) did nothing to improve their productivity. Another client was more forceful about how little she noticed the SSD inside her system (she wanted a HDD back). Until I mentioned to her that in her case, she was actually physically damaging the spinning HDD (moving the system while it was on) and that her system was essentially immune to that kind of failure again. (She still thought the $$$ of this stability was way out of line with what she was getting - performance was not even on the radar for her - she thought it would be a bonus and she couldn't even notice it - I had to agree with her; I didn't notice it either).

So, while I can agree with you that on a neglected, non-optimized mechanical HDD system, upgrading to an SSD the difference may be very noticeable - that is not where I'm coming from - nor is it what the OP is/was asking.

As I stated before: for myself a cpu/ram/platform change that nets anything over 3% increase in (real) performance is a 'must have', assuming that the $$ increase is in line with the performance gained.

An SSD on the other hand is simply a way to make a system 'snappier'. No performance gained - or at least none that is in line with the ridiculous amount of $$$ and time that we must spend on setting an SSD up properly with in the first place. This is why I recommend an SSD as the last thing to upgrade (when all the other 'performance' parts are at the level you want/need).

In your situation (opening/closing/bootup/shutdown programs/windows) an XT Hybrid seems ideal and much more bang for the buck than an SSD would be (while giving 90% or more of the SSD 'snappiness' you like).

The reason this cpu upgrade is not questionable is because the OP is getting next years model for a $50 difference and will be using it from day one and enjoying that 8-9% faster experience for a few years to come.


An SSD is a questionable 'performance' upgrade vs. this specific cpu because:

1) $50 doesn't get you into the SSD dance (not even enough to peek inside).
2) Even $500 won't get you a boost in performance/productivity in line with what $$$ you spent.
3) An SSD/HDD upgrade is (usually) a case of taking two screws out vs. dismantling the whole system for a cpu upgrade.
4) The cost of an SSD can easily get you into the next/current system platform each year at a huge increase (20-30%) in performance that any storage subsystem simply can't touch (even RAM based ones, btw), no matter what the $$$$ spent.

 

Is it viable to choose a 2630qm with a decent card (525m) over a 740q with a 5870m card?

Pricing is relatively the same.

 

What's your focus? Gaming or productivity?

Passmark:

2630QM: 6336
720QM: 3291

3DMark06 (average):

525M: 7166
5870: 12779

Are you looking at an M15X vs. your Samsung?

 

Viable for what usage?

For the long term, I would say yes (the notebook's performance would still be relevant (cpu/platform-wise) for non-gaming tasks), get the 2630QM (always get the latest platform, imo).

For the short term (for strickly gaming...), the 5870M is vastly superior according to the passmark scores.

See:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GT+525M'

See:
PassMark - Radeon HD 5870 - Price performance comparison

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7-2630QM @ 2.00GHz - Price performance comparison

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7 740QM @ 1.73GHz - Price performance comparison

So, what is your preferred poison? Gaming or productivity?


Joker, gmta, eh?

 

8GB is your standard minimum for running windows 7??? is that a joke? what on earth are you doing? running Watson's big brother?

i'm going to make it this simple. an ssd's cost can be amortized over several laptops(and desktops for that matter). a laptop cpu cannot. please don't say that the drive will get writed-out by the next upgrade. anyone who cares that much about cpu performance is going to upgrade by the end of two years.

a scorpio black isn't exactly chump change either and is definitely NOT a standard drive. what ssd are you buying that is $1200?

 

Yeah, 8GB is my minimum for Win7x64.

Photo editing is my work.

Scorpio Black is a standard drive - if you need the fastest and largest HDD available (2.5" format, of course).

Pair of SSD's, I said - Intels, of course.

 

I agree, once socket changes, it's dead.