Difference between quad core and i7

I myself was refering to the desktop versions, since I mentioned the high prices of the motherboards. The processors themselves ARE competitvely priced. Spending that much on a motherboard feels much like getting a needle in the eye.

 

It's the equivalent of the high performance car syndrome: What's the sense in having a 500 hp engine when all the road limit you to 65mph? Your i7's may be powerful, but you really have few applications that can support it.

On the other hand, if money was no object, I suppose I would have a high performance car.

 

It all started way back in the day when CPU performance seriously affected your FPS. So having an overclocked CPU made a huge difference in FPS. Now a days, its more about braggin rights. The software has done a good job of offloading so much work onto the GPUs that these video cards are essentially daughtercards, complete with their own bank of memory and consuming just as much power as your CPU.

 

Actually top end GPU's usually use more power than the processor. The work done by the CPU can't be offloaded to the GPU. They are both processors but optimized for entirely different things. Games are optimized for high end desktop hardware with powerful CPU's and even more powerful GPU's in comparison to what is available in a notebook. In a notebook, even midrange graphics are considered worthless crap on the desktop. Even the mobility 4850X2 is only almost even with a desktop 4890, and the desktop cards have a lot over overclocking room which the mobile parts don't. I'm just saying that it isn't that CPU's are so powerful now or that software unloads more work the GPU's these days. Games developers would find a balance for their games if this was the case to optimize them for the CPU and GPU disparity you note. It's just that on notebooks vs desktops, the GPU's are far weaker than the CPU's are.

 

I'm sure everyone here are all gamers. Actual work on a computer? Whats that.

 

mehh...if it cant overclock, i would say the i720 isnt as good as my Q9000 then. sure it can do that turbo mode, but 4 cores @ 1.6GHz vs mine at 2.4GHz....lets see? 50% higher clocks. now i see a QX9300 can go to around 3GHz vs 2GHz i920? who gonna win in PERFORMANCE? not battery life or other stuff, just sheer power?

 

A PDF from IDF on new Core i7 notebooks and a pdf on Turbo Boost. Arrandale gets cpu TB along with gpu TB.

 

Check the benchmarks and you'll be singing a different tune.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3647&p=5

Clarksfield is 6-14% faster than Q9000/9300 in multi threads. In single threads Clarksfield activates turbo mode and leaves the C2Q in the dust being 30% faster. What do you get? A fast processor in both multi and single core programs.

Threads I see of people doggin the Core i7 are probably those who are trying to convince themselves of their current purchase. Accept technology advancement and be happy with what you got.

 

Psh, I hit up the N64 emulator at work too!!!

Goldeneye forever!!!!!

 

Hmm, "turbo mode?" That always leaves me with an unsettled feeling.

No, because all advancements have to be measured against cost and practical application. For example, I could put an engine in a car
that's 1000 hp, but it would cost a half a million dollars and be completely impractical for everyday use. Even if everything else is kept equal, this CPU still would be more expensive. So you see, you'd have to weigh all the pros and cons before you determine if upgrading or replacing your current computer is worth it.

BTW, are those results based on the same Core i7 that's available for mobile application?

 

I wondered about that when I saw that a routine 10% to 20% overclocking gives a "huge difference in FPS".

 

Err what? However it makes you feel, turbo mode improves performance.

Well practicality of the i7 is dependent on the user. Some will use the power, some will not, but if you think that there aren't any applications that take full advantage of core i7, you are sorely mistaken.

Not every computer user surfs the web you know. For me personally I'm a power user and I welcome the improvements with i7.

Wrong, Core i7 mobile isn't more expensive. Its about the same costs, check out Dell's new laptops with core i7.

 

To the ones interested. I just uploaded a thread explaining in very simple ways about CPUs and their architectures.
Link is the big one on my sig.

 

yes the 920M is fast, it also costs 1000usd. the QX9300 can be had for as little as 400-600bucks. While i do agree that the turbo mode is useful, the C2Q of this generation still provide ample power which make it fine. im just restating it isnt THAT much of an improvement for me to cry over.

and I'M happy with what i got for 1252USD!!! rebates FTW

 

It's a way Intel decided to call it. What it means for the 720 is that it can be either a 1.73ghz quad or a 2.8ghz dual. And since the the i7 have better clock by clock performances than the C2x, the 720 is probably as good as the $500 T9800, which is still only a dual core.

I'd like to see the i7 mobile's TDP while in dual core mode. I know it's 45W in quad, but how much in dual?

 

Yeah, admittedly "turbo" is an overused word, but the concept of shutting down several cores and boosting the clock of others is sound.

(Given Intel's use of the word "turbo memory", I'm surprised they didn't call running two threads on the same core "turbo threading").

 

If it's in full turbo-mode, probably the same 45W, as the point of turbo is to shut down unneccesary cores and boost the running cores until the TDP is reached. If it's in dual mode but not turbo (shut down cores just to save power), probably much less. How much less? I don't know if we'll be able to find out for sure unless Intel releases the information, or until people actually get their hands on released chips and start measuring.

 

Remember TDP values can't be compared directly since the new CPUs include the memory controller, thus the chipset consumes less. The PM45 chipset consumes 9.5W vs. 3.5W for the PM55, so subtract 6W from the TDP of Clarksfield. The GM45 consumes 14.5W, so subtract 11W from Arrandale's TDP.

Also, on battery, most users do not stress their CPU to 100% load, hence the power consumption would be much lower. At idle, Clarksfield is very efficient and easily matches the C2Ds in power consumption. The main reason why you don't find quad cores in smaller notebooks is due to heat production when it is at load.

 

It's exactly the same. Why would it be different? TDP is a semi-arbitrary figure for the amount of cooling a notebook should have for a processor family, nothing more.

The GM45 includes the graphics.

 

Exactly. I compared it to Arrandale, which also includes graphics. It's a fair comparison. Arrandale is CPU+GPU and add chipset vs. Penryn CPU and chipset+GPU.

 

The PM55 is basically ICH10 with couple of chips from motherboard integrated so its really less than that. Probably closer to 9-10W. Mobile Nehalems include FULL MCH on CPU die.

 

I just used ARK info:

http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35515
http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35509
http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=42692

It's by no means perfectly accurate, but according to Intel's power consumption, the PM55 chipset uses a PCH (3.5W) which replaces the PM45 chipset's ICH (2.5W), while the MCH (7W) is added to the CPU. In my calculation, I compared the mainstream Clarksfield (45W) and PM55 chipset (3.5W) vs. the C2Q (45W) and PM45 chipset (9.5W), which is a saving of 6W.

For Arrandale (say 35W), which includes GPU and MCH with the PM55 (I assume the HM/QM55 chipset will contain the same power envelope of 3.5W) vs. the C2D (35W) with GM45 (14.5W), which is a saving of 11W.

 

Just remember, sgogeta4, that TDP isn't power consumption. It might be pretty close with the chipsets, but it isn't with the processors, so the sort of math you are doing is really really fuzzy.

 

i7 720 is a 2.4GHz max Turbo speed, not 2.8GHz. 2.8GHz is the max single core speed.

sgogeta4: Previous components that were on the motherboard(like the clock generator) is now in the motherboard, so there's no way to do a simple calculation. Plus, the power management on Nehalem is far superior. It is safe to say 45W Clarksfield=35W Penryn.

 

Very true to both of you; however, most people still use TDP values to compare processors (even when TDP values btw C2Ds aren't really an accurate representation of their power consumption). The new processors have much better power management than previous CPUs and it's really Intel's marketing that causes confusion to those that do not know what we know about CPUs.

 

Hey everybody check this out http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...tw1&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&kc=laptop_studio_17
That's a Dell Studio 17 with I7-720QM Processor and it's much cheaper than the cheapest Quad Core Notebook
4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR3 and 1 GB of dedicated Video RAM, It's customizable too and the good thing is that it can be bought directly from dell.com for that price $1,099
By the way I got this from Intel customer support
"Bear in mind that operation of any Intel-manufactured product outside the published specifications for each part, such as overclocking, can result in data corruption and unreliable system behavior. It will shorten the life of your product, void the warranty of your processor, your motherboard, and possibly other devices installed in the computer."
So overclocking sucks, And now my problem is I can buy the same laptop and almost with the same price with Q9000 processor (that's the difference)
Here we go again Which processor is better for Video Games the I7-720QM or the Q9000?

 

i7 720QM hands down.

 

Can anybody compare The Dell Studio 17 to a cheap Quad Core laptop (like HP Pavilion dv7-2040US or HP Pavilion dv7-2185DX or HP Pavilion dv7-2180US) and tell us which one is better?

 

In the Studio 17's case, the i7 would make little difference as most games will bottleneck on the HD4650 before the CPU.

 

Now look at this: http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/intel-core-i7-720qm-820qm-920xm-nkmo-114/4

A perfect example illustrating that the 45W TDP of the 720QM and 820QM isn't bad as people think compared to the 35W Core 2 Duo T series.

Clevo M860TU T9800 GTX 260M: 95W
Clevo W860CU 720QM GTX 260M: 97W
Clevo W860CU 820QM GTX 260M: 99W
Clevo W860CU 920XM GTX 260M: 109W

The 55W 920XM is indeed using 10W more than the 45W 720QM and 820QM, but the 45W i7's are using not much more than 35W Core 2 Duo.

I'm pretty sure with the cores being able to power down and in applications which doesn't activate the cores all the time, we'll eventually see 3-4 hour quad core laptops using power efficient HD 4350 GPU.

 

Any of Core i7 or Core i7 Extreme or Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Extreme processors are better than Core 2 Duo or AMD or VIA processors.
Those 4 families are the best Mobile processors ever! EVER!!
They are just too expensive and the cheapest of them are the Q9000 $348.00 and I7-720QM $364.00 that's why I need to know which one is better.

 

The 720 will be a bit better than the q9000 i would say.

Running a multi-threaded app it will be about even (unless the CPU is allowed to hyperthread then the 720 will do a good bit better than the q9000)

If its a dual core app then the 720 will be a decent bit better than the q9000, and with a single core app the 720 will dominate the q9000.

About the only time the q9000 will be superior is if it is an application made for exactly 4 cores, doesnt allow for hyperthreading, and will tax the CPU to 90%+ then the q9000 might have a slight edge with the slightly faster clock speed. But this would be a VERY rare and maybe impossible situation

 

Plus if the Q9000 isn't memory bound.

 

I don't know if this helps demonstrate the difference in performance but my Q9650 OC to 3.15 ghz in my laptop scored 12,9secs Wprime whle the 920xm got 10.9 secs. Here is the thread http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5391763#post5391763

Shows the I7's are pretty well ahead even faster than the fastest core 2 quad! Get the I7720QM, pretty easy choice I think at those 2 price points.

 

I agree but one more thing would convince me 100% the clock speed, We can use the rookies way and do the math and we get this, The Q9000 is 2Ghz*4=8Ghz and the I7-720QM is 1.6Ghz*4=6.4Ghz BUT the I7-720QM has turbo mode and it can be boosted to 2.8Ghz but the question is HOW MANY CORES CAN BE BOOSTED TO 2.8Ghz ? I contacted Dell last night they told me that the 4 cores can't be boosted but they also don't know how many.
Who cares anyway if we could boost just two cores to 2.8 Ghz the I7-720QM would be better twice, Firstable because it's faster (quicker) Secondable it will has a higher clock speed too, That would be awesome if it has higher specs and some features too.
Somebody please answer the red question.

 

Only one core will be at 2.8GHz. I made a post on the i7's turbo boost function here.

 

Technically if you want the simple math version of it (which is a wrong way to look at it but i'll bite)

Q9000 = 2gHz x 4 Cores - 8gHz
720QM = 1.6gHz x 4 Cores + 1.6gHz x 4 Hyperthreads - 12.8gHz

But of couse this is not correct as you dont really get the equivilant of that high clock speed, but if its a way you want to look at it to help ease your mind there it is

So even looking at it wrong the i7 still will dominate

 

You can't multiply GHz and cores like that. If you could, you neglected that the i7 has 4 cores and 4 threads (vs. C2Q's only having 4 cores). And all 4 cores can still use turbo boost to get an extra +1 multiplier. Two cores can go up to 2.4GHz. 1 core to 2.8GHz.

 

Please read my first post on page 7 the Overclocking can make troubles at least for amateurs that's why we don't count on it.
I believe the I7-720QM is pretty good and it might be better than the Q9000 but take a look at the following processors prices Q9100,X7800,X7900X,X9000,X9100,QX9300,i7-920XM you will find that they are above $800.00 that's why I think they are better than i7-720QM or i7-820QM or Q9000.
You can buy a laptop with i7-720QM or i7-820QM or Q9000 for less than $1450.00 but if you chose one of the other seven processors you will pay more than $2000.00 for the laptop.
i7-720QM i7-820QM Q9000 are good enough and affordable
I'm pretty sure the i7-820QM would kick the Q9000 a**
But I'm still trying to find an accurate answer about the better one i7-720QM or Q9000

 

It really depends on what type of applications you're working on to determine which one is better and by how much. Either way, the 720QM will be better in 99% of them. Don't look at price, I'm sure in several applications, the 720QM will even beat all those expensive dual cores and in other applications, it will beat all of the more expensive C2Q quad cores.

 

Of course I can't just do that, They are totally different I'm just trying to find out which one has a higher clock speed (overall)
Maybe you can just answer my question some video games have a tool to diagnose your system specs and compare it to "minimum system requirement for this game" please keep in mind that clock speed is the only thing that matters in your processor in that case.
Can you tell me which processor has a higher clock speed i7-720QM or Q9000?
As I said before I'm 100% sure the i7-820QM is faster than Q9000 and it DOES has a higher clock speed, but what about the i7-720QM & Q9000

 

The q9000 has a higher clock speed (2.0gHz vs 1.6gHz)

But with the advancements in CPU archetecture the days of the Pentium 4 Clock speed = God is over.

You cant compare something clock to clock in different generations because the newer generations are more efficent and better make use of those clocks.

 

The 720QM is more efficient clock for clock than any of the previous generation CPUs, hence clock speed is not the "be all and end all" specification to compare. It's all about the total amount of work that is able to be done. The much "slower clock speed" C2D can destroy a P4 that is clocked 3x faster in terms of processing power.

When compared to the minimum "speed" requirement, the 720QM will never be more of a bottleneck than the Q9000 will.

edit: d*mn it Kamin. lol always beating my posts (by 2 min too!)

 

Oh god, DUDE! you have the answer the i7-720QM has a higher clock speed if we used the turbo mode besides other functions and options.
Now lets get back to the rookies way according to this http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320767.pdf I think the i7-720QM has a higher clock speed than the Q9000
It means Q9000 processors are USELESS from now on.
Thanks a lot ChinNoobonic
Somebody please check this link and make sure that i7-720QM has a higher clock speed than Q9000 when turbo mode is used (maybe I'm mistaken)
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320767.pdf

 

It depends. If the 4 cores are being taxed, and the HT is not working, then you get a slower quad core, at 1.73GHz against the 2.00GHz, but then again, they are different architecture and they work differently, so the 720 should dominate the Q9000

 

Guys I believe you I swear it I'll be just happier if I saw a bigger number check the link http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320767.pdf I think the i7-720QM has a higher clock speed anyway if the turbo mode is used

 

Well, I give up .. Who cares about stupid numbers?!
Of course I will not buy Q9000 just because some stupid software require a bigger number!!

 

So, the Dell Studio 17 $1,099 is a pretty good choice I guess!
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...tw1&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&kc=laptop_studio_17
am I right?

 

You want the 17 inch screen?
If not, the Studio 15 comes at 1K with same i7
But yes, the Studio 17 is a good deal

 

The Studio 15 has 512mb video ram, but the studio 17 has 1GB video ram