G62t Laptop i3-330m vs i3-540m

Hi, I'm looking to buy the G62t laptop and with an i3 it is much cheaper. But do you think that the performance decrease would be significant if I get an i5? I checked:

PassMark CPU Lookup

And it showed that the i3 is about 30 so ranked lower compared to the i5. Also, that ATI graphics seems to be great. I also question if I can add another card in there if I don't buy a laptop that comes with it already. If I don't buy it, it will have an integrated Intel Graphics card.

Here is a picture of the G62T:

The benchmark said that the i3 scored a 2010 ranking 168. While the i5 scored a 2395 ranking 143. That's with the turboboost right? Isn't turboboost just some marketing term that means they made it a bit faster? Is it worth it?

Well the i5 is +$100 usually. So it is 100 cheaper than the price shown.

Thank you.

 

are you going to run benchmarks for a living or do Real Work?

Single digit percentage point differences within artificial/synthetic benchmarks make no difference in the Real World.

 

I don't do benchmarks for a living, so I don't really know how to interpret them in terms of real work. Do you mean that single digits worth of difference doesn't matter in real usage? But the difference is not single digits, it was around 300 better. I don't know how that translate so I was asking you guys.

 

The difference you're worried about is for a single synthetic benchmarks that measures PURE cpu-only functions.

Don't worry about it.

a) pay as little as you can for as much machine as your money will buy.

b) understand that your machine will likely be obsolete soon, perhaps on the day you receive it.

c) no amount of pre-purchase research, caution, or money will prevent your machine from becoming obsolete quickly.

d) buy what you need, when you need it. if you can afford to wait, then you don't really need a machine.

 

2395 vs 2010 is a 19% difference, actually.
However, I do agree that it's not worth it for $100.

 

You don't believe so? Okay. Hey Newsposter, what is the point of so many people asking about which CPU is better or which one is good for this amount of budget if supposedly the correct philosophy is to just "pay as little as you can for as much machine as your money will buy?"

Come to think of it, I am trying to do just that, but need help understanding how much machine is enough, and if $100 was justifiable."

 

people ask about 'which cpu' because they are blinded by benchmark numbers and don't believe that a 2Gz dual core is more than enough for hd video, web, word processing, etc. a gpu that can deliver 60+ fps for stuff like crysis is 50x more than is needed for hd video, web, word processing.

overkill costs money.

at the end of the day, it's your money. blow it how you wish.

 

Although I see that you are just trying to help, I believe you have misunderstood my question and I am actually doing everything you have tried to tell me I should do.

See, I don't like "to blow money." Although your theory applies to those comparing a CPU which "is more than enough for hd video, web, word processing, etc." vs "a gpu that can deliver 60+ fps for stuff like crysis is 50x more than is needed for hd video, web, word processing." I am actually comparing two CPUs that are much more identical. I'm merely asking, by your standards, which one can I:

"a) pay as little as you can for as much machine as your money will buy."

So I'm just asking is the i3-330m a CPU that I can "pay as little as you can for as much machine as your money will buy" or is it the i5-430? I do not have the experience to judge this, so I refer to those benchmarks.

I am not "blinded by benchmark numbers" but use benchmarks only because I do not know enough about these two CPUs to know how comparitively fast they run. So Newsposter, I know I don't want to be blinded by benchmark numbers so I come to this forum asking for non benchmark number blinded people like you to help access my situation.

I may not be in the same financial situation as you are, but with the tech savyness that I have seen in this forum, I thought you or others can at least throw in a suggestion of the justification of +100 for the i5-540.

With you're philosophy of "pay as little as you can for as much machine as your money will buy." you can obviously help me access which one can in fact be more machine. I don't know if .2Gz is enough machine or not because I'm more of an average Joe than a computer technician.

You see, the I do play some games, however, having the knowledge that the extra $100 gives me the opportunity to play games at a rate justifiable of that $100 can help me sleep at night on this big purchase. Contrastingly, I do not want to buy a laptop that is marginal compared to the laptop that I could of had if I paid $100 more. Again, I do not know how to access how much difference these CPUs are myself and am trying to ask an expert such as yourself to enlighten me or give me an opinion which I will weigh with others

 

Which one is it? The i5-430M or the i5-540M?

 

Passmark database has always had a lot of errors in it. I use it as a guideline only, I wouldn't rely on it.

 

Well, in this case, the ~19% difference in PassMark score is backed up by the fact that the difference in clock speeds between the i3-330M and the i5-430M is also ~19%.

 

In general, unless you really push your CPU (and that will depend on exactly which programs/games you run) you'll never notice a .2 GHz difference. This is why almost all of the suggestions to date have been to go ahead with the i3-330M. You may be waiting a second or two longer compared to someone with the i5-430M, but in the end it's up to you whether or not that extra second wait is worth $100. For most of us, I'd say it probably isn't, and for those that it would be, they'd probably be looking at a more expensive, higher specced machine in the first place.

 

A larger, potentially faster hard drive is a better spend of the $100-

 

One thing to note is that factoring in Turbo Boost the difference is 0.4GHz rather than 0.2GHz, but that doesn't really change things enough, and still isn't $100 worth.

 

i do agree with both of them... the difference is small and not noticeable really speaking unless u do CPU intensive tasks.. and i doubt ur going to do that on a G62t... also , take the benchmarks with a pinch of salt...they're inaccurate especially passmark.. anyways , if u need to upgrade later on , u can easily get the CPU then and upgrade.. i would stick with i3... anyways , the ATI card isn't great... its average... it can play videos but gaming will be crap.. u might want to look at other options like a Sony Vaio CW or the new MSI GE600... which is found on www.newegg.com.. its about 850 ish... and way better specs.. only thing screen is 720p..

 

Lackofcheese sorry for the typo, I'm comparing between i3-330m and i5-430m. Is the database really full of errors? Isn't it averaged by user submissions? Are you saying that it may not be purely CPU numbers and other factors are influencing it? But it does stay consistent on faster numbers the higher the CPU gets.

Edit: Oh, and I posted this as you guys posted all those suggestions. Well if you guys think it is not worth that $100, and my budget is a bit thin anyways, I will go with the i3-330m. Thank you for your suggestions!

Although I do have this question. Is turbo boost just a marketing term that explains for the faster clock speed? Is turbo boost just a mechanism that allows the clock speed to be a bit faster, or is it really some sort of feature that "activates." Would the i3-330m also have a marginally lower power consumption?