Is the performance jump from 4900mq to 4930mx worth it?

I guess I worded that wrong. What I mean is there a good performance boost in real and not synthetic situations? Obviously price to performance it's not worth it.

 

Unless you overclock it, the difference isn't too noticeable.

 

The i7 4950HQ will be potentially better (depending on your workloads).

And cheaper too.

 

Is BGA.

@OP - Unless your cooling allows HEAVY overclock, it's not worth almost double the price.

 

Is it possible to overclock the 4900mq at all?

 

Does it matter if it's BGA or not? The (cpu) performance with Iris Pro for certain workloads will still be vastly increased.

 

With 400MHz or even 600MHz, but I'm not exactly sure, using Intel's tuning utility.

It does, since the OP asks for either one of those, (s)he's looking at a notebook that can accept PGA CPUs. The only high performance BGA notebook is G750, and it features 4700hq.

 

Yes, it does matter. They will never be found in the same types of laptops.

 

I though all the 1155 socket mobile CPUs were gonna be LGAs?

 

I'm kind of lost as to the bias against 'bga' type cpu's here. Where exactly does the OP state that?

Doesn't matter. He/she has the info they need.

It's their decision, after all.

 

I think LGAs can be of both types, upgradeable and be able to be soldered. The upgradeable versions are probably named as PGAs.

Can you replaced BGAs? I thought the pads were soldered onto the mobo?

 

Oh, we're talking about upgrading ability?

Thought it was just a discussion on which cpu was 'worth buying' at this time.

Upgrading a cpu is never a consideration for me on my mobile systems (if I have outgrown them; someone else will have a use for them, I'm sure. Not to mention that I don't buy at the bottom of the slope either...).

Ty for the insight.

 

If both the 4900mq and 4930mx were to be overclocked to 4.4ghz, what would be the difference.

 

If both could be clocked to the same speed: no appreciable difference (but the MX may be able to hold it longer/more stable assuming it was properly cooled to it's rated TDP - 57W vs. 47W).

See:
ARK | Compare Intel® Products

 

Performance wise - next to none (real world that is, that's what you asked, right). Voltage and therefore temperature wise is where the difference would be more notable in favor of the extreme CPU. Which means that probably you wont be able to clock as high as with the extreme CPU.

 

How high do people usually overclock it to?

 

I have no idea. May be OP is purchasing a new system and is referring to upgrading as in when you customize a new computer? I don't see why else there would be a problem with BGA?

 

It isn't about upgradability. Laptops with the 4950HQ would tend to be thinner and lighter and not have discreet graphics as the integrated graphics are "good enough." Laptops with the 4930MX are going to be larger with better cooling and powerful discreet graphics.

The integrated graphics of the 4950HQ are a lot better, but that shares the TDP with the processor, the processor runs at a bit lower clockspeed, and the kinds of laptops it would usually be found in aren't known for having good cooling.

If the question was just about which processor is all-around better, discreet graphics are not an option, and the laptop it is going into is identical, I would agree that the 4950HQ is the better choice. But this isn't the case. Since they are incompatible with each other and targeted at different market segments, there is a lot more than just the numbers to compare.

 

The 4900mq might be able to clock as high as 4.2 if your lucky and also profecient with XTU. The MX can go far beyond 4.2. Thing is, most BIOS are locked down on all the platforms at the moment. I do know for a fact that Mr Fox has overclocked a 4930mx at 4.8ghz.. Insane start so far...

 

It can only go up to 4.2 due to the BIOS or other factors? I know Mythlogic has their own custom BIOS but I'm not sure how much freedom that gives. Does Fox have benchmarks up anywhere? And I'm guessing he's having to use two psu's?

 

I'll have to take back (at least for now) what I suggested earlier in this thread.

See:
AnandTech | 90 Minutes with the Clevo W740SU, Featuring Iris Pro HD 5200


...

 

Purely BIOS factors. No only one 330watt PSU was needed. I don't know if he benched the 4930mx officially. I'm sure if you google his name you'd be able to find out. Regardless, all the XM CPU's have historically had the benifit of going beyond 4.2 Ghz. Even my lesser QS 3920xm runs 24/7 at 46,45,44,43 multipliers all day long in humid Japanese summer without a hint of aircon.

 

Since I'm getting a 120hz laptop I want to be pushing as many frames that I can, I'll also be streaming a lot. So now I know the 4900mq can be put to 4.2 on all cores, and obviously the 4930mx can do a lot more. I read that the two are similar(?) but just that 4930mx is able to oc more efficiently and higher. I'm probably not going to even be able to overclock insanely to anywhere near 4.8 like mr fox. The extra $500 is a lot though(although I can afford it), would the performance really be that much more?

Edit: After asking multiple people with the 4930mx's, I've decided to just make the jump so I don't regret it later. I had a lot of fun overclocking desktops, I think overclocking laptops might be a nice change. And I'm not sure how to get rid of attachments.