Laptop processors

Having a bit of trouble deciding on a processor for a laptop.

Intel i7-640m @ 2.8ghz
or
Intel i7-740qm @ 1.7ghz.


90% of the use of the machine is surfing the web, youtube, microsoft office (outlook, word, excel), and the usual family photos. In the future there will be a need to handle HD video, and maybe edit it.

The machine will be matched with 8gigs of memory and a 7200rpm HDD.

I realize this is a dual core vs quad core debate. I'm looking for the highest performance speed of the two for what I need. I keep reading that many software programs are unable to utilize a quad cpu...?

Thanks

 

What's the price difference? The i7-740QM will obviously perform faster in multi-threaded applications, and will benefit the video-conversion process, which is entirely CPU-bound. Other than that, you won't be able to tell the difference between the two processors, so I vote i7-640M (debatable whether you need that as well, actually...).

The same can be said for the 8GB of RAM. Do you really need it? Chances are, it'll be sitting unused, so I'd think about using the money elsewhere.

 

Most people barely even use the extent of power their processors possess. If price is a factor go with the cheaper dual core. But the quad will most likely help in the long run for future proofing. I doubt you'll notice a difference between the two if you plan to use your computer for only the tasks you listed above. Both choices are overkill for your uses; along with the 8gb of ram. Past 3gb is not noticeable unless you're really pushing.

 

there is a $10 price difference between the 640M and the 740qm.

how would they be the same speed if one is a 1.7ghz with turbo up to 2.8? and the other is a 2.8ghz turbo up to 3.x?

The laptop has a 90w power supply, I also came across a thread that a quad core could be throttled because of that?

Also the benchmarks show the dual core 640m to be slightly better than the 740qm?

Does that matter in the real world?

 

If it's a 10 dollar difference go with the 740QM

 

^I concur.

 

How about battery life between the two, will the quad core really eat it up ? ie <1.5hrs?

 

Don't forget there are many people that edit their home videos/DVD's. HD rendering pushes the cpu's to the max.

 

Since they are practically the same price, go with the 740qm. No reason not to.

 

I agree with the quad core option.

For all the other things you want the dual core may seem slightly snappier but the 'slower' quad core will handle it just as well.

But, when you eventually get to the video editing part (or, Win8... for example) you will kick yourself for not having the quad core.

$10 for 'future proofing'*** yourself a little? Priceless.


*** I know, there's no such thing....

 

So why do you mention it?

 

Because I knew you would.

 

^^Now I'm lost... XD

 

A higher clocked dual core i5/i7 will almost always beat a significantly lower clocked quad if you are going to be gaming.

 

I don't see in you list of activities that would see that benefit of very high Ghz (turbo in 640M) so I would say Quad is better given the small price difference.

Based on what I see the 740qm has turbo mode @ 2.93Ghz(when only 2 core are used) which rivals the 640M. In other words, the 640M is only better when you have a single thread application that can only use a single core(which kick it into turbo).

edit:
It would be @2.53Ghz when only 2 cores are used for the 740QM

 

So it appears that for "futureproofing" a quad core is the way to go?

For speed (win 7 load times, firefox, outlook 2010, load times) the 640m is the way to go.



?

 

load time is in general determined by the storage device, not the CPU speed. Page rendering in firefox may be but that depends on how effective the turbo mode is (as the difference may not be 1.7 vs 2.8 but rather 2.5 vs 3.0) and also how good firefox is at doing multithreading as well as your network pipe.

Same goes for outlook 2010. It is very storage intensive app(your local ost/pst) and how fast is your link to say the exchange server.

Since the introduction of the turbo mode, the quoted baseline CPU speed is no longer a good measure about the real world CPU usage speed difference.

 

For the price and performance, the quad core is the way to go. Only get the dual core if you have switchable graphics or integrated graphics and care about battery life. None of the things you listed will really be affected by the CPU. If you want speed, a SSD will increase load times of the O/S and programs much more noticeably.

 

i doubt it if youd see a realworld speed increase in the 640m vs a 740qm in dual core tasks.
for 10usd diff get the quad

 

There is a reason the two processors are priced so similarly. There really isn't going to be any noticeable difference for anything you do. The 740qm does have a bit more raw processing power, although this advantage will be hard to take advantage of.

 

The machine will have discrete graphics and run Win 7 64-bit.

Can the i740 processor be changed for a faster quad or is it limited by the motherboard on the laptop?


My current machine has a 2.1ghz amd 64 3400+. The ol thing seems slower than all get out. I'm looking for balls to the wall speed on the new machine.

The budget put me in line with either the i640m or i740qm matched with a 7200rpm HDD and 8 gigs of memory (memory from newegg).

 

You should be able to change it to a faster quad later, although perhaps not the extremes (i7-920XM, i7-940XM), due to possible heat constraints.

 

I forgot to mention the laptop is a Dell E6500 with the full HD screen.

Seems everyone is 50/50 on the processors.

 

The difference between the two in most applications is minimal, even for gaming, back in a while someone on the forum did a comprehensive test comparing a 2.8ghz core2duo with a Q9000 in games, a high clocked dual core vs a low clocked quad, the conclusion is that the difference is so small that makes the two processors almost equal for gaming.

Actually you won't go wrong with either 640m or 740qm, but if you use programs that benefit heavily from multiple cores, go with a quad. If you have a specific need for high clocked dual cores(like ps2/wii emulation), go with the 640m.

 

As noted, both processors will be more than adequate for your needs; you are not going to see a difference between them. Do note that the dual-core 640M will run cooler than the 740QM and also offer better battery life (by how much I don't know, though).

 

But you know all the ladies like an quad core i7 in a notebook!

 

i'd go with the more because "more is always better"(Jeremy Clarkson 2009).

 

Until SB...mobile dual cores all the way. If you want some insane video encoding/3D encoding power it will be better to buy a desktop for that.

 

Mighty Hd,

For your current usage both will work and feel very similar. They are easily capable of delivering above and beyond your current needs.

For your future usage pattern though (video editing), the true quad core will be in a league of it's own, compared to the 640M.

The question now is:

will your 'future' usage be the near future (with no chance of buying a new system at that time) or will it be further in the future where a notebook/platform upgrade will make more sense to upgrade to for the new usage you will require of it.


I'm guessing that the model we're looking at is closer to the 'near future' scenario and that is why I've voted for the quad and if I've guessed right, you should too.

Good luck.

 

go with the quad... it'll keep you for longer... maybe this will help you decide lols YouTube - 2 inch Quad Video Editing

 

In games the dual will spank the quad. In other tasks:

The Clevo B5130M: GeForce GT 425M with a 15.6" 1080p Chaser - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

They trade places.

If you intend to upgrade later look into the resale value of the chips and if the cooling systems/motherboards differ.

 

Not, unless you intend to make state-of-the-art movies. Otherwise, a workstation laptop editor is still well beyond 90% of more uses.

As a matter of fact, all of the solutions have greatly exceeded his question since for his purposes any run-of-the-mill processor would suffice. That said, the dual core will also be the more energy efficient.

 

Well with a dedicated workstation desktop you overall save money over a comparable spec'd notebook as you pay for the smaller form factor. Plus you don't have to worry about overheating as much with a desktop.

And if you have a desktop replacement laptop, I doubt you'll be moving around much with a 17"+ notebook, you'll be plugged in 24/7. Yeah you get less heat but future proof?

 

I don't understand why the dual core is supposed to be better... there's only slight clockspeed difference and there's a 50% cache difference + 2 cores.

 

Slight clock speed difference?

i7-640M -> 2.8 GHz max Turbo is 3.4 GHz
i7-740QM-> 1.73 GHz max Turbo 2.93 GHz

If you consider ~500-900 MHz a slight difference...

 

the clock speed is what confuses me.

I want the faster of the two........

 

900mhz? ? It's 500mhz in single core(right?) which isn't huge... and it doesn't make up for 50% cache difference. I'd just like to see some dual core benchmarks for both. I'd be surprised if the 640m won.

 

Past a certain amount, cache makes very little difference in actual performance - if you take a look at Core i5 v. Core i7 dual core processor benchmarks, there's very negligible difference in performance with the slight boost in clock speed and increase in L3 cache.

 

Agreed, higher cache makes little to no difference for the current c2d/i5/i7 cpus, when I had my p8400(2.26ghz, 3M L2 cache), I overclocked it exactly to the p9600 speed(2.66ghz 6M L2 cache), for the sake of curiosity, I did a couple of tests including 3Dmark06 CPU test, CinebenchR10, Passmark etc with the overclocked P8400 at 2.66Ghz, then compared to the results to the P9600 on the web, the difference is ALMOST NEGLECTABLE, the extra 3M L2 cache on P9600 provides almost nothing.

 

lidowxx, are you saying you oc'd the 8400 without increasing FSB / mem clock?

Out of interest what do you get for cinebench on your x9100 @3.3GHz?

 

I overclocked the p8400 to 2.66Ghz using setfsb.

I had cinebench uninstalled before I upgraded to x9100. But I can tell you some other benches what a 3.33Ghz x9100 could achieve: it scores around 3k in 3dmark06 CPU test, which puts it on the same level of a i7-620M/i5-560M. For passmark, it gets around 2.9k, which is a little ahead of i7-620m(2.7K on average). The "stupidly-fast" i7-640m is the king of dual cores, but I assume a x9100 clocked at 3.6Ghz should match it in performance.

 

Why? The hare lost the race.

Anyway, the future is in multiple cores, not more clock speed.

 

Thanks. Was hoping to see if there was much difference with increase in BCLK but for Passmark it seems less than 0.5% for ~25% OC using multi change to keep the same CPU freq. Thanks for the x9100 marks, the best I seemed to be able to get with the P8600 for Passmark at that freq was 2875.

 

No problem,dude. Do you overclock your P8600 using the PLL pin mod? What is this "BCLK" you mentioned? The best passmark score for the 3.33Ghz X9100 I have seen so far is approximately 2950.

 

I recommend to the OP that you go with the Quad Core.
In general tasks you mentioned, you will not see a difference between the 2 CPU's at all, HOWEVER, once you start processing HD movies as you suggested, the Quad will beat the 620 because of two extra cores.

Do keep in mind the the 740qm WILL likely be draining on your battery, but not in a capacity where it will be drained within 30 mins or so.

 

No, software.

BCLK = Bus Clock. The clock that is generated by the clock generator PLL and sent to the CPU and North Bridge. You might know it as FSB clock.

 

So you overclock your P8600 to 3.3Ghz using setfsb?? Is it stable at that speed? If it is, that is absolutely amazing!! My p8400 can only be pushed to a maximum of 2.78ghz or so using setfsb.

 

I've got a P8400 as well to 3GHz, but that's HW oc'd so only get to go in big steps. The P8600 seems a much better chip even though its only one up in the chain from the 8400. No setfsb, AFAIK it doesn't support my clockgen. Interesting with the 2950, I'd need 3.4 to get there. Cooling is the big problem before stability issues.