Intel Dual vs Quad + Clarksfield vs Arrandale questions

After weeks of looking i havent found a satisfactory answer to some questions of mine, so i was hoping that you might be able to clear things out for me!

Quad vs Dual core? Will there be (or should there be) a significant difference in performance between a "weak" quad e.g 1.6ghz (Clarksfield) compared to a strong dual core such as 3.06ghz ? (I am planning to keep the laptop for up to three years so i am assuming that more and more software will begin to fully utilize quad core processors by then)

I am planning to buy a new laptop around xmas time, having in mind that the Clarksfield processors will be released before then. Is it worth waiting for longer for the Arrandale processors to be released? I know that the power consumption of the Arrandale processors is lower than that of Clarksfield but are there any other benefits? (Personally i dont care that much about battery life time + i don't mind the heat coming out of the laptop as long as it is bearable!)

I am sorry for the long post, i am just trying to get as much help as possible! Thank you very much and i hope i was clear enough!

 

Trust me, that's not a long post. And welcome to NBR!

It depends entirely on what you plan on using this computer for. If you're going to play a lot of games, especially older ones, then a high-clocked dual core might serve you better, although newer games are starting to take more and more advantage of quads. If you do CAD stuff, a quad core will definitely help you out, even a relatively low-clocked one, of course assuming the programs you use can take advantage of them.

Audio and video editing will also make great use of four cores.

 

read.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=391727&highlight=quad+vs+dual

 

I have read it, thanks

So i guess its quad over dual especially for future use!

What about the Clarksfield vs Arrandale question? I think it might be stupid to keep waiting for new hardware to come out because theres always something better around the corner. I was planning to buy a laptop in august but since the Clarksfield processors will be released by October (or something like that), i chose to wait till xmas so that i have a better chance of getting one in the laptops i am interested in such as the HP HDX 16t or Dell Studio XPS 16.

 

Ah, the logic is with this one

 

The best advise I heard about tech is buy it when you need it and ignore what is around the corner.

For the core thing.

A few months ago I would have said go for the duo, but now that is beginning to change. With newer programs able to use quads better and quads becoming more battery efficient I am, starting to switch over in favor of quads.

 

According to Dell and Lenovo, their new stuff won't come in until beginning of 2010, so if you need it this year, you might be out of luck with the new stuff. Honestly though, if you aren't doing video encoding or heavy CPU use, you won't notice a difference with the new CPUs.

 

I always suggest this. It is true and pointless to want to have the latest technology, when 6-12 months later you are getting dated, 18-24 months later you are already out...

 

I will argue that a 3.06Ghz dual-core would be better than a 1.6Ghz quad-core 99% of the time.

The only reason Intel, AMD and the rest would like to make everyone think that more cores is better is because they've hit a technological barrier which is keeping them from bumping clockspeeds further than the 3Ghz range. Since they can't increase clockspeed anymore, they're just throwing more cores onto the die and marketing them as "better".

Sure, a quad-core 2Ghz is better than a single core 2Ghz. But if there was an 8Ghz single-core, it would be better than the 2Ghz quad-core... There is a lot of overhead involved with splitting tasks up into many threads.

 

Clarksfield should be able to have max Turbo clock speeds of +400MHz for quad core and +1200MHz for single core operations. It won't be 1.6GHz vs 3.06GHz. They aren't going to pull much out of Turbo on the 3.06GHz dual.

 

Quad vs Dual threads spawn faster than rabbits.

Current gen cpu's the 2ghz quad is better than even the fastest dual core in most things. Once you add in overclocking its a monster.

But in this case your saying 1.6ghz vs 3ghz. Thats a not so equal comparison.

1.6ghz x 2 is 3.2ghz so the quad is just barely faster than the dual and thats if you extract the full use of all the cores. I would go with the dual core in this case.

But like I said the lowest quad is 2ghz right now, and the highest about 2.53ghz while the fastest dual is just over like 3ghz.

With those numbers the quad has way more power and is the better choice.

Keep in mind when overclocking the quad can get 2x the benifit from it so quickly the quad can overwhelm the dual in sheer processing power even at a lower clock speed.

 

I haven't read much into this but as you said, the power of those two would be about the same. However, would the price be the same? Wouldn't the Quad core be significantly pricier than the Dual core?

 

Probably depends on where it falls in the spectrum of products.

The 2.0ghz quad at the bottom right now is almost priced the same as a low end dual core, while the 2.53ghz quad is at the top so its the same price as the fastest dual core.

Also each laptop manufacturer likes to price things differently, one brand may charge way more for the quad than the other just because they feel they can. The cpu itself though the quads are not really priced much more than dual cores as long as you can relate there place to there own family of cpu's and not try to compare them by clock speed.

 

Ok, you are right if its a Quad core Clarksfield at 1.6GHz vs. Dual core Arrandale at 3.06GHz. But that's not how the clockspeeds will be!

1.6GHz is the LOWEST Clarksfield.

Highest Arrandale is apparently going to end up to be 2.66GHz.

And Clarksfield will probably be able to Turbo +400MHz at 4 core operation, or 2GHz. Arrandale's top Turbo at dual core will end up something like +266Mhz at dual core, or 2.93GHz.

Highest max core operation:
2GHz quad vs. 2.93GHz dual.

Stock speeds:
1.6GHz quad vs. 2.66GHz dual.

Highest single core operation:
2.8GHz vs. 3.33GHz

And yes, Nehalem's Turbo will work well.

 

Thanks very much for the info. I will certainly check out the Clarksfield notebook models and hopefully they will be within my budget

 

I just read this on cnet:

"Higher up the laptop performance scale are Core i7 mobile processors, also due around the same time that Windows 7 hits the streets. Eden showed how the gigahertz speed--or "clock speed"--of individual mobile processor cores will instantly spike in performance to accomplish a task then, in the next instant, go idle--what Intel calls HUGI or Hurry Up and Get Idle.

HUGI is a power-saving technology: the faster a task is accomplished, the faster the processor can return to idle mode--a state that uses only the bare minimum of power. Along these lines, Eden did a demonstration of Turbo Boost technology.

In the demonstration, one of the cores (inside, let's say, a mobile quad-core chip), would jump well over the processor's rated speed. For example, a processor rated at 2.0GHz, for example, may run one of the cores at 2.60GHz (or higher) while the other cores are idle. In the gaming world, this is referred to as overclocking."

I am assuming that the Clarksfield processors are the mobile Core i7 processors they are talking about. I have never heard about the "overclocking" capabilities of these processors. Can anybody confirm this ?

 

If I recall correctly, Clarksfield is 45nm and Arrandale (that I do know) is 32nm. The second will be much more power efficient. And Arrandale does support HT and TB, making it, IMHO, a far better choice.

Dual-core+HT=quad-core at a higher clock speed. A 2.66GHz Dual-core with HT can perform as a 2.66GHz quad-core or as a much faster dual-core thanks to TB.

 

It is overclocking, but when users overclock, they don't really watch for temperature/power when doing it. On mobile Core i7's, Turbo Mode will increase the clock speed when there is a thermal or power headroom and it'll stay there until it reaches the limit. The max clock is dependent on how many cores are active, so when running single core, it'll be able to boost more than on 2 or 4 cores active.

That's what I was talking about on the post right before you, since it looks like you didn't read it.

Serg: Clarksfield and Arrandale BOTH have Turbo Mode and HT. And of course Arrandale will use much less power. Ignoring lithography differences, Clarksfield has 2x more cores.

 

Well to be honest i did read your post but it was some time ago and it makes sense now after understanding what turbo mode is

Well since i don't care that much about power usage and i might not be able to wait until Arrandale is released, i might get a laptop with a Clarksfield processor if it is reasonable enough! Thanks very much for the explanations

 

This is the most uninformed post I have seen recently. Almost everything you said was just made up.

By your assumptions, that would mean every core, every clockspeed increase is linear and that architecture means nothing.

Cores are not a marketing gimmick, there was no clockspeed barrier, duo's and quads are not the same, and most importantly core i7's are in a league of their own.

Clockspeed wars ended many years ago because the performance gains were minimal past 3ghz, it has nothing to do with AMD/Intel not being able to go beyond 3ghz.

 

1.6ghz quad != 3.2ghz duo

For example a 2ghz quad doesn't mean that its operating at 4ghz if its a duo.

You're comparing a Nehalem processor to a Penryn? This is not a safe assumption.

I think the OP was referring to a dual core Penryn at 3.06ghz, NOT an Arrandale.

Wait for actual benchies people.

 

In fact, Dual Core Arrandale is the next gen 32nm laptop CPU. It is not out yet.
I found this, hope its useful
It is a dual-core Arrandale running. Look the CPU-Z report. 2 Cores with 4 threads, therefore it supports HT and Intel integrated graphics are available, named Havendale.

NOTE: This CPU has no name...odd

 

Good Look Serg.

JC over at xtremesystems is the man. He also has a hold of 2 westmeres on a serverboard. 12 Cores 24 Threads, a beast.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that most notebooks will be sporting the Arrandale processor initially, as Clarksfield seems a bit too hot.

 

While IMO multiple cores are a good thing I do seem to remember something about the Pentiums not being able to substantially increase frequency from where they were due to heating problems and hence the move to multicore as a better choice.

I'm probably a bit behind the times here but what's with this turbo mode, didn't anyone like the term IDA or is there a difference?

 

I do remember the heat problems, but I also believe that was also due to the architecture of the Pentiums as well. I also believe that the cores race would probably end, what comes after that I'm not so sure.

Turbo mode is when the CPU automatically OC's itself when it's other cores are not in use or are in light use. So what happens is that you'll have a quad core that is both quick in single threads, as well as multi threads.

Now, how effective this turbo mode is, I'm not exactly sure as I have not read up on benches of this feature.

 

Do you think that these processors will become more mainstream than the current quads? or will they simply replace them? For example: Do you think there is any chance a Dell studio xps 16 or HP HD16x will have a quad option? (being hopefull here)

 

No not yet.

Read:

 

He is right though MrX. Coming from a programming background I can tell you that unless a software program is specifically written for quad core, it cannot take advantage of it. Until quad core (and octo core, etc) becomes much more common place, few software vendors will support it.
Each core has to be programmed individually to be used. Read about multi-threaded programming if you're interested.

 

No clarkfield quad cores for me.
I would only upgrade for an Arrandale dual core.

 

That's very true. To utilize multiple cores requires the program to be parallelized, so different parts of the program will run in parallel on different cores. Parallelization is a huge task, that's why software vendors are so slow in adapting the programs to take advantage of multiple cores. It is going to be a slow process. Besides, some programs and algorithms are naturally easy to parallelize (graphics and scientific computations), other programs and algorithms very difficult or just impossible to parallelize.

 

I thought so Well since ill be buying a notebook around xmas time i should just wait a little while longer in order to have a chance of getting an Arrandale processor

 

Although I don't know which part of his post you're referring to is right, I do agree that for cores to be utilized they need to be programmed for. That is a given.

More and more software are being programmed for multi core and I would say the only area that is lacking is gaming.

But I think what some are forgetting is that Clarksdale and Arrandale is based on the Nehalem architecture. That in itself is already faster per clock, per core in every way. The deficit is that its clocked a lot lower.

Mobile Core i7 is the next big step for laptops, and it'll blow away processors in current laptops. Trust me.

 

Err, do you know the actual name of this thread...

 

By the OP's original post, it sounded like he's referring to the current 3.06ghz vs the new clarksfield/arrandale.

A 3.06ghz Arrandale doesn't exist.

 

I wasnt aware of the Arrandale clock speeds at that time but i was trying to see how a Clarksfield would compare to a strong existing Core 2 Duo

 

Yeah thats what I gathered, but I think someone on here said "3.06ghz Arrandale", which doesn't exist.

Anyway, I think its hard to say how a 1.6ghz quad is vs a 3.06 ghz duo. I would say the best way to compare the two is to look at the desktop variants.

And by looking at the desktop variants, a 3.06ghz Core2 will be faster than Clarksfield in gaming and video/rendering, but mostly gaming.

A 2.66ghz core i7 beats a Core2 Extreme 3.2ghz by a large margin, so I'm just assuming that a Clarksfield would need to be at least lil above 2ghz to compete with a 3.06 Core2.

EDIT:

Just found this from Anandtech.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/310/capture2fdj.png

If this info is true, Clarksfield's TDP is too high to be used in smaller laptops. So Arrandale's with a TDP of 35W is more likely to be used in most laptops. But most importantly the highest end Arrandale is clocked at 2.66ghz. At that clockspeed it should be substantially faster than the current 3.06ghz Core 2 Duo.

 

So Arrandale will be 35W TDP including the 45nm integrated GPU TDP (10W). So the 32 nm processor itself is 25W. Very well.

What does 2,66-3,33 means for the high-end arrandale ????

 

Only one Clarksfield will be higher than 2.0ghz (without "overclocking" itself) and it will be very expensive. It makes me wonder why should anyone buy the two weaker models of Clarksfield when the Core 2 duo 3.06ghz will be faster. What about the 820QM Clarksfield? According to the picture (if i am interpreting it correctly) won't it be able to match the 3.06 ghz with Turbo Mode?

So you are saying that the top end Arrandale which will be 2.66 ghz will be much faster than the Core 2 Duo 3.06ghz. I am assuming the 3.06ghz will be cheaper than the 2.66 ghz Arrandale (which doesnt seem expensive at all).

 

I would go for an Arrandale (since they seem way cheaper than the power sucker quad cores) on a rig which eventually support overclocking. Those 32 nm cores should OC very well without too much heat.

 

The T9900(3.06GHz Mobile Core 2 Duo) goes for $562 and according to current roadmaps has no direct replacement. The Arrandale 2.66GHz replaces the 2.8GHz, Core 2 Duo P9700.

Since 3.06GHz is with single core operation, it won't be able to match the T9900 in pure clock speeds. The dual core operation should however be clocked at 2.8GHz and should beat T9900 with its superior architecture. Quad core operation should clock at 2.13GHz.

The well-threaded apps: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-core-i7_10.html#sect0

are in average 10% faster on Core i7 than Core 2 even with Hyperthreading disabled. There should be no way such apps performing lower on a 1.73GHz 4 core i7 compared to a 3.06GHz 2 core Core 2.

 

Won't the 2.66GHz Arrandale be faster (and cheaper) than the 3.06ghz?!

 

Sure, but what I am talking about is in terms of market segment, 2.66GHz Arrandale replaces the P9700. The pricing is also similar. There always are future products that fill the gap left by the previous generation products.

The i7 Bloomfields are the least impressive of the Nehalem architectures in my opinion. The follow ups like Clarksfield/Arrandale will be far better.

 

I forgot to mention something. The link I posted was from the Anandtech forums, not from Anand himself. Sorry for the confusion, so only take the table as a guide or prediction if you will.

If it is true, a 3.33ghz Arrandale would be the highest end and would probably replace 3.06ghz Core2. But I don't expect to see this processor right off the bat

No one knows for sure, but I'm going to assume that a 2.66ghz Arrandale will be faster and cheaper.

Once mobile i7 hits its going to do the same for the laptop market just as mobile conroe has done few years ago.

 

The 2.66-3.33GHz for Arrandale means base clock-Turbo Mode clock by the way.

For mobile I believe it'll do more than Core 2 did. Actually for mobile Core 2 wasn't that big of an advantage since Core Duo didn't suck like Pentium 4 in the desktop did.

 

Ah thanks for the clarification.