The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Is base GHz more important than Turbo Boost?

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by richie1989, Mar 8, 2012.

  1. richie1989

    richie1989 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    There is a game that I want to play on a soon to be mine Dv6z with a 7690M graphics upgrade budget laptop. This game (Lunia Z) specs are slightly higher then the AMD a6-3420m processor that I want. I played this game on a Compaq presario F750US laptop with a AMD athlon TK-(something) of 1.9ghz paired with a pretty low end graphics nvidia card. I could play it just below reasonable performance at all low settings.

    Anyway, I am new to this turbo boost technology. Can I play this game that is higher then the base GHZ of the AMD A6-3420M? Would turbo boost crank up to its requirements with out any problems?

    Lunia Z:
    Minimum Requirements-
    Pentium IV 1.8GHZ
    512 ram
    Geoforce FX 5200
    Direct x 9.0

    Recommended-
    Pentium IV 2.8Ghz
    1GB ram
    Geoforce FX 6600
    Direct X 9.0

    Dv6z Laptop:
    -Either AMD Llano A6-3420M (1.5ghz to 2.4ghz boost), A6-3430MX (1.7 to 2.4ghz boost)
    -1GB AMD Radeon(TM) HD 7690M GDDR5 Discrete Graphics
    - 6 GB ram
     
    richie1989, Mar 8, 2012
    #1
  2. MidnightSun

    MidnightSun Emodicon

    Reputations:
    6,668
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Yes, both of those systems are far more powerful than necessary to play that game at the recommended level (you should be able to play it at maximum settings, I believe). You can't compare the GHz clock speed across different CPU generations or between Intel/AMD.

    If that upgrade is between the 1.5GHz and 1.7GHz CPUs is more than $30, I would definitely skip it.
     
    MidnightSun, Mar 9, 2012
    #2
  3. Nick

    Nick Professor Carnista

    Reputations:
    3,870
    Messages:
    4,089
    Likes Received:
    641
    Trophy Points:
    181
    The 3420M is way faster than a Pentium IV. It's a quad core, while the Pentium is a single core.

    In Passmark(CPU benchmark), the 3420M scores like 3200, while the Pentium 4 2.8GHz scores 741.
     
    Nick, Mar 9, 2012
    #3
  4. H.A.L. 9000

    H.A.L. 9000 Occam's Chainsaw

    Reputations:
    6,415
    Messages:
    5,296
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    281
    The A6 would play that without breaking 20% CPU usage. Heck, my tablet could run that. Higher GHz doesn't equal better performance. That A6 will blow that "Recommended" Pentium 4 setup away... by several fold.
     
    H.A.L. 9000, Mar 9, 2012
    #4
  5. bluke424

    bluke424 Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    72
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    You should be able to play that game smoothly with everything maxed out.
     
    bluke424, Mar 9, 2012
    #5
  6. TheBluePill

    TheBluePill Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    636
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30

    Pentium IV processors use Long Pipelines for execution, All modern CPUs after the P4, Including the AMD A6, use Short Pipelines. The effect is nearly double the performance per clock-cycle. So in effect, a 2.8ghz Pentium 4, is slower, clock for clock than a 1.4ghz modern core.

    On top of that, modern CPUs have multiple cores, things like hyper threading and further logic that makes them even more powerful, clock-for-clock.

    As for the Turbo Boost.. I ignore those numbers all together as meaningless. The reality of it, its unreliable and often only kicks in for a few moments at a time, and inconsistently across the cores.

    Base Clock is the best way to compare processor to processor.
     
    TheBluePill, Mar 9, 2012
    #6
  7. KLF

    KLF NBR Super Modernator Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    2,844
    Messages:
    2,736
    Likes Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    131
    1.6GHz Pentium 4 is as fast as first generation Intel Atom 1.6GHz for netbooks was few years ago. Today's cellphones are about as powerful... :p

    Basically anything you can choose today is powerful enough so you can't go wrong there.
     
    KLF, Mar 9, 2012
    #7
  8. ralchevd

    ralchevd Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    4
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    wow seriously, its right ><

    Innovation impossible ;d
     
    ralchevd, Mar 9, 2012
    #8
  9. Generic User #2

    Generic User #2 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    179
    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    no, P4s just really sucked...even when they were released.

    EDIT:

    i wonder how many people still think 'pentium' = premium.

    in all honesty, i really freaking loved that name; it has way more presence than 'Core i'
     
    Generic User #2, Mar 9, 2012
    #9
  10. baii

    baii Sone

    Reputations:
    1,420
    Messages:
    3,925
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Nowdays, CPU shopping is insane, it is all about generation/architecture/series/#s.

    I love Pentium naming as i know p4 definitely beat a p3 ~~
     
    baii, Mar 9, 2012
    #10
  11. Meaker@Sager

    Meaker@Sager Company Representative

    Reputations:
    9,431
    Messages:
    58,189
    Likes Received:
    17,900
    Trophy Points:
    931
    More like triple per core these days at least.
     
    Meaker@Sager, Mar 9, 2012
    #11
  12. Peon

    Peon Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    406
    Messages:
    2,007
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    81
    I wonder too - especially ever since Intel made Pentium the new Celeron a couple years back.
     
    Peon, Mar 9, 2012
    #12
  13. richie1989

    richie1989 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Okay, thanks guys! And 1 more question. Would it be worth upgrading the stock AMD A6 processor to the A6-3430MX A6-3430MX (1.7-2.4ghz) version for 20 more bucks? Is there any difference in the performance for games like Battle field which requires a quad core for recommended settings?
     
    richie1989, Mar 10, 2012
    #13
  14. seasalt29

    seasalt29 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    6
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I thought that a program capable of utilizing 100% of the CPU will run at the maximum turbo boost speed. If this is not correct, then how do benchmarks work on these CPUs?
     
    seasalt29, Mar 10, 2012
    #14
  15. tijo

    tijo Sacred Blame

    Reputations:
    7,588
    Messages:
    10,023
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Not necessarily. This has already been discussed intensively on these forums. Turbo boost will only kick in if it doesn't exceed the TDP of the CPU on first gen core i and will go to max turbo even if it exceeds the TDP of the CPU for a set amount of time and will then go back to the max possible turbo within TDP on Sandy Bridge. When you benchmark a laptop core i, the performance will vary a bit depending on how good the cooling is. Also, the max allowable turbo is different depending on the number of cores used.
     
    tijo, Mar 10, 2012
    #15
  16. Syberia

    Syberia Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    596
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    The Llano APUs also overclock like crazy - hitting 2.0 - 2.4 ghz should not be impossible.
     
    Syberia, Mar 10, 2012
    #16