Core -I7-820QM review

Good review by PCPRO. I think turbo boost is making huge difference.


http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/09/18/intel-core-i7-for-laptops-first-review/

 

I don't think this is the right section to post this kind of stuff but anyway...
I had a good time reading this review it was very well written. Intel Core i7 seems quite good.

 

I thought the review focussed on the cpu more than laptop as a whole. That is why I posted in hardware forum.

I am sure NBR will have a news about this article.

Its amazing what turbo has done to clarksfield. When I first heard about low clockspeed I thought it would be a disaster for intel. But this should push more quad core laptops out for sure. I was planning to wait for dual core arrandale for my next upgrade but I think I will go with quad core after reading this review.

 

I am just glad that these cores are appearing in 15-16 " laptops

 

Damn! I was hoping to hold off the i7's, but that sneak-peak just gets me... Having around 1/5 of the idling power of q9000 (which I'd guess would be lower still than the enthusiast's overclocked qx9300's) and almost the performance of the qx9300 (and at 50% or less of the price) with potentially better performance for less threaded apps - take that Master of Orion 1 in full HD with 16xAA, 15xAF...

If only I can hold off till the 5800's come out, then I'll see a real beast.

 

Does the 820QM cost 750 dollars?

 

Considering Intel is selling them at $550, ODMs would definitely charge more than that.

 

Turbo boost just kills the logic to go for higher clocked dual cores over quad cores. This gives us the ideal clockspeed depending on the workload(s).AMD will have something like turbo boost with bulldozer architecture.

I wish intel had plans to release 32nm version of clarksfield. That would probably consume even lower power. Sadly we have to wait for Sandy bridge for 32nm quad core.

 

I bet they'll change the socket, won't they?

 

The lower end Clarksfield wouldnt be a bad choice and it is quite strong (2.8ghz in dual core mode?) but i would personally go for the mid-range processor but it is probably too pricey for me

 

Anyone else find the load power consumption a tad scary? A roughly 25 watt difference between the T6600 and the 820QM could easily translate into an hour and a half of battery life.

Not that you should be running at 100% CPU load on battery anyway

 

It's nice to see the QX9300 holding its own.

Next up, the 920XM.

 

I think I'm gonna skip first generation.

 

Nice, I can't wait to see the 920XM vs the QX9300. I think the QX's going down.

 

It better go down. The 920XM is newer...

 

I"ve been tempted to pick up a decent desktop replacement laptop in the 15" range, i think this just made my decision to wait that much easier

 

This is some pretty exy technology. For those programs that only support one threat, you get 3.06 GHz. For two threads, you get a 2.8/2.6 (the picture and the typed report have different numbers) GHz dual core.

 

For 2 threads you you also get 3.06ghz....remember 1core=2threads. For four threads you get 2.6ghz (or is it 2.8?), a bit faster than the QX9300.

 

2 cores with hyper-threading shouldn't be as fast as four "real" cores.

 

That's a review worthy of Notebookcheck.com.

The Monty system may use a CPU with the same rated TDP as the i7 system but the Monty system also uses a 55-nm GTX 260m which consumes more than three times the power as the 40-nm GT240m (75w vs 23w), a 17" monitor vs a 16" monitor, two HDDs vs. one HDD, and DDR2 vs. DDR3.

Measuring the total power consumption of two different laptops is no way to compare the power consumption of the CPU themselves.

 

Sure it shouldn´t, but it should be pretty close, at the same clock speed...and also remember that the new hyper-threading technology has nothing to do with the old one that was in P4´s. This one is much better.

Also, you should keep in mind that the i7 are better clock per clock compared with the C2D.

 

Very exciting.

The GPU is also much faster on the 820QM(yes I realize that its a non 2D app, but GPUs get power hungry in every app).

This is the best part:

Performance-wise, even the i7 720QM should be equal or faster than the QX9300. The use of 7200RPM drive on the QX9300 skews the performance in favor.

Power-wise, it won't be good as in comparison to the QX9300, but should be closer to the Core 2 Duo than it suggests. Time for quad core laptops that's not 10 pounds and 2 inches thick.

 

"Calpella" will release in FOUR days in September 23 at IDF.

 

Today's hyper-threading is the same as the P4's hyper-threading. They are only different in how they physically implement because P4's architecture is different from Nehalem's. They achieve the same thing: Each cycle, the CPU can fetch instructions from two different threads instead of instructions from only one thread. This allows for the execution core to be more efficient. The execution core is less likely to have stages in it's pipeline that are sitting empty, doing nothing.
Net result is an ~30% improved efficiency. The execution core cannot truly execute two threads at once like having two cores.

If you are doing something with a constant stream of data like say, encoding, then a single hyper-threaded core doesn't hold a candle to two non-hyper-threaded cores. This is even more apparent when you are working with small amounts of data and large calculations, like cryptography.

 

It doesn't always work that simple. The OS can go from 2 virtual threads to 2 cores and vice versa depending on the situation.

On Windows 7, that's to be improved in regards to Hyperthreading. Physical cores will be assigned first before assigning logical cores.

That's true, but Nehalem without HT is better than Core 2. And again, Core 2 doesn't have HT. In applications that support enough threads, i7 with 8 logical cores can come pretty close to 8x Core 2 cores. Not even considering that the scheduler doesn't always make the comparison turn out to be 4 "logical" vs 4 "real".

Arguing "real" cores vs "logical" cores is moot, when one with the "logical" cores have a superior architecture.

 

There is no doubt that Nehalem is faster clock for clock against Core 2. I don't think anyone doubts that. Saying a 4 core i7 is as fast as an 8 core Core 2 is pushing it though. Power consumption aside, I'll take two QX9300s over a Core i7 920QM. I'll even take two Q9000s in situations are where there are 8 or more taxing threads.
Nehalem is 30-40% faster clock for clock than Penryn and HT is definitely a part of that.

 

When Core i7 first debuted in desktops, it beat Skulltrail in many of the multi-threaded apps. Only things that Skulltrail exceeded were when the application is well-threaded. On other not so well multi-threaded apps, Core i7 surged ahead, thanks to the IPC and bandwidth improvements. 30-40% isn't what a 2x core brings, but 2x core doesn't bring 2x performance either, usually a lot less.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15818

The review is more like a preview. The system comparison isn't still Apples vs. Oranges. Clarksfield will end up looking better on notebooks than Lynnfield did on desktops. And not just talking about power consumption.

 

@ dalingrin: well, it´s just hard to believe that past all these years Intel would incorporate old technology in its newer architecture. It has the same name, but surely it was revised. Anyways, i´ll be very pleased to see renderings being made by eight threads.

"The execution core cannot truly execute two threads at once like having two cores"

Sure, you´re right about that, but i never expected two threads to be exactly like two cores nor should anyone.

 

The biggest improvement with Hyperthreading is with CAT Scan image rendering. Hyperthreading alone gives 60% performance boost, and Calpella can do certain rendering in 2 mins when Montevina does it in 10.

 

Power usage for this chip is off the charts even in the power saver 1.2Ghz mode.

 

Whoa!! temps are amazing!!

hopefully the small HS size will lead to increased space for a 2nd gpu!

 

I don't care about quad cores.

But very nice review. Thanx mate.

 

You will in 2 years when they take the place of dual cores.

 

Looking good, but 32nm is not far off and worth waiting for.

 

Core i7 Quad core w/ HT != 8 core cpu

 

Have you read about the new ATI/AMD GPU´s? The way things are coming, you won´t need SLI....

 

Dont mean to state the obvious, but this is a quad core mobility powerhouse. Its merely one par down from the future $1K extreme chip. Its power usage is impressive, both idle and fully loaded - compared to a Q9000. If your comparing it to a C2D, then its, err just not like for like.

 

I was under the impression Q9000 is a 45 watt chip. Isn't mobile i7 more at peak usage?

 

Probably but i'm not sure. Personally speaking I don't need to decrypt SETI's space signals at home So a dual core suits me ftm and still will for a long time i guess.

 

One of my pet peeves - using the word Turbo in anything other than cars. It's not Turbo intel, don't be silly!

That said, Core i7 seems to have made a decent transition to the laptop market and is very impressive which is nothing less than I'd expect from Intel these days. I'll be intrested to see prices when it comes to the UK.

 

Laptop Mag test of a 920QM

 

anadtech review of the x920m http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3647&p=1

 

I don't want to be a Debbie downer but, you can see from the the Anandtech review that the 920QM isn't that much faster than the the QX9300 in highly threaded situations.
Jared@Anandtech stated during the multithreaded encoding tests that the 920QM is running at 2.26GHZ vs the QX9300 at 2.53GHZ. They have nearly the same performance.
This is what I was trying to get across earlier, hyper-threading helps but its not as great as some of you believe it to be.
No doubt though, I'd take the 820QM/920QM before the QX9300 any day.

 

Anandtech doesn't really show much benefit over current quad cores in encoding and rendering as one would expect due to lower CPU speed (Turbo isn't used when all cores are utilized) and only mediocre hyperthreading performance.

And in most games the GTX 280M is still the limiting factor, we'll have to wait to see at what point the GPU is powerful enough for these games that the CPU would actually make a difference.

At least the CPU is more power efficient (thanks to shutting off cores and better transistors) but it's still fairly power hungry.

But for the price, desktop processors in desktop replacement notebooks is still the way to go if you want performance.

 

Its not worthy of an upgrade for a current quad core owner but its pretty attractive for someone who has an older notebook looking to upgrade.
The main advantage to me is the fact that i7 mobile quads can best most current dual cores in single and dual thread situations and be as fast/faster than current quads. Unlike buying a Q9000/Q9100 where there is a definite trade off involved.

 

Look at the power consumption measurement even with the high end Geforce GTX 280M. If they offer a low end like a AMD HD4350 or something they can finally offer a decent battery life quad core device for those that don't need 3D performance.

Gaming performance is pretty good. Rivaling a equal GPU Core i7 975EE based laptop and oftentimes beating a 2x GPU QX9300 system.

 

Since the 2x GPU is not the bottleneck, it's kinda irrelevant. That system can have 10x GPUs and have the same performance. There is no question that it is better than the last generation since releasing a new line of CPUs that cannot outperform the last generation really doesn't make any sense. But the fact is, most gamers won't be playing exclusively those CPU bound games and hence if they have a current quad core system, they will be fine and I wouldn't recommend them upgrading.

 

Just to clarify, if 4 cores run at 2.00 gig, it will be faster than a Q9000 only because of the HT and its higher FSB and architecture change. Now, against a QX9300, it will definitely be slower because 4 cores at 2.53 (and overclocked higher) will be more powerful. So the i7 is basically an "average" quad that can only beat the current quads in when less than 4 cores are used?

 

Are you talking about the 820QM(1.73ghz) or the 920XM(2.0ghz)?

The 920XM in most cases surpasses the QX9300(2.53ghz) in multithreaded aplications. Sometimes it´s equal. ------> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3647&p=5

Also remember that the 920XM is an extreme version, so it should be overclockable (even with turbo-boost).

 

Let's say I'm talking abt the 820QM. 1.73 at 4 core should equal 2.00 at 4 cores of the Q9000 right?