I7 720QM vs I7 640M

Intel Core i7 720QM 1.60-2.80GHz (Turbo Boost) Quad Core 1333MHz 6MB 45W 45nm


vs

Intel Core i7-640M 2.80GHz 2.5 GT/s


Laptop is for Uni/gaming/Hd movies.

Note: Not hardcore games, more like wow, sc2, lol etc..


Other spescs are GT425, 4gb ram, 500gb 7200rpm

 

FYI i7-640 is not quad core

Intel's way of tricking customer to believe all i7's are quad core

 

What notebook are you looking at? Also, is there a price difference between these processors?

The reason I ask about the notebook is that some notebooks support Nvidia Optimus technology, which can automatically switch between integrated and dedicated graphics; however, that only works with a dual-core processor like the i7-640M which have integrated Intel HD graphics built-in; the Core i7 quads do not.

That said, you will get better battery life with the dual-core regardless. The overall performance difference between the i7-720QM and the i7-640M is minimal.

 

For the first poster: I know its not quad or it would have been a easy choice considering the fact that the 640m starts at 2,80 ghz. Theres a bit , but not huge price difference.. i can also get a i5 580m to. Its a selfmade laptop at a norwegian company. Yes it has the optimus technology the one with 640m.. On notebook site it lists the i7 640m higher than the i7 720wm though

 

For your uses, it is unlikely you will see a difference between the i5-580M and the other CPUs . . . I would just go with that.

IMO, to make a processor upgrade worth it, you would need to be running the processor at 100% capacity for at least 20-30 minutes at a time (rendering/encoding/math programs/etc); that way, a CPU that's 10% faster would complete the task in 10% less time (so 27 min instead of 30 min) -- so it might actually make sense to upgrade in that instance. Otherwise, most tasks are not CPU-limited so making it faster doesn't give you the return you expect.

For gaming, there will be no tangible difference between those processors. Playing HD video doesn't require much of a processor so any i3/i5/i7 will play it equally well.

I would put money towards a faster HDD like a Seagate Momentus XT or maybe even an SSD.

 

Your choice will be determined by what you value: performance or battery life (and, perhaps, slightly lower average temperatures). I value performance over the latter, so I would opt (and indeed have opted) for the 720QM. Quad core rocks.

 

This is a good way of looking at it. I'll try to describe an example.

I use FL Studio 9.1 and a few VST plugins. These plugins can be instruments or effects like EQ, reverb etc. but every time you add one, it loads down the CPU constantly by a certain amount.

So for instance I'll start a new project and there will be zero CPU load. I'll add a software synthesizer like uHE ACE and the cpu load will go up to 15% and stay there unless I freeze the channel. It may jump up even further depending on how many notes you want it to play simultaneously (it is very easy to oversample the output to such a high degree and play so many simultaneous notes across so many instances of uHE ACE that you will 100% load down all the cores of any commercially available cpu including the high end desktop i7s).

When you get close to 100% cpu load you start to experience problems like buffer underruns caused by deferred procedure calls (DPC), you start to get drop outs and stuttering and it becomes no longer possible to play an instrument in real time. For uses like this a quad core can make a difference over a dual core, especially when the software is heavily threaded as it is possible to load all 4 cores. It can make the difference between being able to track live with reverb and not. It can make the difference between have 4 instruments playing live or only 3.

Now the downsides because 'faster' is not the only consideration that matters here. The dual core i7 has integrated graphics on die for graphics switching, it has lower power consumption and produces less heat both at load and at idle.

So if you want to be able to run more VST plugins simultaneously without killing your computer, you can get further with a quad core but you must sacrifice battery life and portability. For most people that don't do specialized work like music/video production this will not be a sacrifice worth making but only you can decide whether its the right choice for you.

There is no 'best' choice. No matter what you choose there is a sacrifice to make. All you need to do is make your purchase by informing yourself about which sacrifices you are fine with making and which ones you are not.

 

get an i7 quad... cheaper than 640M , its a quad and really for gaming , its excellent.

 

@well if you dont do anything cpu specific like editing/virtual pc
then i7 640m is the best dual core in laptops and its money well spent.BTW for gaming dual core(highly clocked) is best atm.i7 720 quad will eat up much battery.Heck even an i5 is sufficient for your use,but better to get i7 640m.

 

i have also seen instances where i7 640m is priced more than i7 720qm.

 

The i7 Arrandales are deceptively named because the only thing that separates them from the i5 5xx range is 25% more L3 cache and a higher turbo boost range which for most uses isn't a noticeable enough difference to justify a +50% price premium. If you have deep pockets or you get it as a free upgrade then go for it. Otherwise, its worth being amenable to the idea that 120 bucks can be better spent elsewhere. I'd go for i5 560M and spend the change on an ssd if you don't already have one, or a bigger ssd if you do. Or get that nice screen upgrade or graduate to a model with nicer build quality.

 

the i7-640m is always more pricier... no questions about sometimes.. its always due to it being highest end dual core while i7 is lowest end i7 quad.

 

So i5-560M and 8gb ram vs i7 640m and 4gb ram, you would pick the 8gb ram and i5-560m?

 

Nah. Thats a bit of a false dilemma because most people won't even really utilize a full 4gb of RAM (and I'm talking RAM here, not virtual memory + disk cache). I know I rarely use 4gb of physical RAM and I use my computer for music production which can be pretty memory intensive.

I'm saying that theres a £110+ difference in price between those 2 cpus. Thats alot of money. It'll buy you a 60gb ssd with change left over for a pizza. Or its the difference between a 120gb ssd and a 240gb ssd. Its just a bit short of the rgb-led screen upgrade on a Dell Studio XPS 16 over the standard w-led one. Some of those things you might not care about and others you might - it'll be different for every person but the point is that £110 can get you alot. Arguably more than 1mb of cache and a couple hundred mhz of turbo that most of the time you won't really see or use.

 

Theres about £70 price difference.. beetween the 560m and 640m.. i cant upgrade anything else in the laptopbeside the cpu and ram.. theres no hybrid disks, so i cant have only 180gb ssd..Thats just not enough, and to expensiv

 

just settle with the 560m and 4gb of ram. get yourself and xt or ssd if you want , youll see more performance increase from there.
save your money for games and programs and maybe a nice bag.

 

yes dude you need not go for quad!