Processors: LowIntel i7vs.MedQuadvs.HighDuo

I need a little help deciding which processor I should get.

They are all aroundish the same price.

I am getting a new laptop with a decent/high graphics card.

RAM would most likely be 4GB DDR3

Should I get:

Core i7-720QM 1.6-2.8GHz? 6mb L3cache (45watt)
Core 2Quad-Q9000 2.0GHz 6mb L2cache (45watt)
Core 2Duo-P9700 2.8GHz 6mb L2cache (25or35watt)

I would use this computer mainly for multi-tasking, HD video and photos and lots of internet.

I just want it fast and able to handle multiple loads.

Which do you suggest?

Intel is my ONLY option by the way.

Is the i7's 1.6-2.8GHz a real rating or do they only claim that with the turbo boost technology?

Is turbo boost for the i7 the same as Intel turbo memory for the Core2's? (Because I read the turbo memory isn't worth it.)

Thank you.

 

1.6GHz clock speed, up to 2.8GHz when plugged in. And no Turbo Memory is nothing like Turbo Boost. If they are all around the same price, go for the Core i7.

 

Personally, the i7 is best. It is extremely new tech, and it actually compares well to the QX9300 (2.53Ghz), in terms of speed. Turbo Boot is when an application or program does not need eight threads or four cores, therefore instead of sharing the load out between all cores, it can devote more speed to only two cores in order for maximum speed for a single threaded application.

You will find that the Q9000 will be extremely good, but the i7 will perform better. For what you are doing, dual core is pretty much out of the question. It would perform roughly the same in games, and the Q9000 would by far be better than the P9700 when it comes to multitasking and encoding, HD video, etc.

 

If you're into multi-threading (definitely if you'er gonna use video editing softwares like Premiere Pro, Vegas, etc.) you'd be better off with an i7, since Duos, even processors with 2.8GHz upwards of speed, would have a relatively hard time churning out frames, especially if you're into HD.

 

Thanks alot guys that really cleared up some of my confusion.

I still plan on going for the "future proof" laptop, some get annoyed and debate it, but I will try for a little higher tech right now and see what happens in the future. If I'm wrong I'll learn from it.

I'm looking at 4GB RAM DDR3
and now will be looking at the Core i7-720QM

Do you think the i7-720QM is enough for a while? Can you upgrade processors? Does the turboboost technology come with the i7's or do I have to go and buy it?

Are Sagers/most laptops capable of adding more RAM?

If I did go with DDR2 is it possible in the future to just upgrade to DDR3 RAM?

Thanks alot.

 

• Core i7-720QM will last a long time, I was using a single core Pentium 4 powered Dell Inspiron for the past 5 years up until this year.
• Turbo Boost comes with the 720QM. And as for upgrading, you will probably be able to upgrade to the more powerful Core i7's when they refresh in the summer of next year.
• You need to get DDR3 now, you can't get DDR2 now and DDR3 later, they have different pin layouts and will not work in the same slot. And yes you can add more ram to Sager's (probably up to at least 8GB?)

 

I checked intel's site and they said the i7-720qm is 1066/1333MHz FSB.

Which one is it? Or are they both before/after turbo boost?

 

It means it uses up to DDR3-1333 ram (DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333).

 

If they are all around the same price, and if battery life is not important to you, then the Core i7 is definitely the best deal.

 

The new i7s don't utilize FSB technology but rather DMI. Though either way, memory speed has no real life benefit.

 

i run some trading software with multitasking that keeps c2d 2.6G cpu at 100% usage all the time with occasional freezing, if switch to i7-720, it might be only 4x1.6G power while QX9300 could be 4x2.53G, in this case, does QX9300 machine run faster than i7-720?

 

The Intel i7 is faster than both the Quad and Duo. Don't let its clockspeeds fool you.

 

It depends how optimized the program is for threads. The i7 has 8 threads (hyperthreading) plus with all 4 cores active, can still go Turbo Boost (though to only one additional multiplier, ie. +133MHz).

 

DDR3 ram does use less power, therefore giving maybe 5 minutes tops more in battery life compared to DDR2. Stick with the i7 though, cant go wrong, will be future proof for a few years most likely.

 

Corei7 anytime..

 

Yes, the QX9300 may be faster than the 720QM, but you're comparing a $1000 processor with a $350 (Well, actually, $1038 to a $364). You really should be comparing high end to high end, the QX9300 ($1038) with the 920XM ($1054). At that point, the 920XM is clocked slightly slower, but with the newer architecture, will almost certainly end up running faster. This also assumes, of course, that the software you're running actually can use more than 2 cores. If it's not programmed to do so, then the extra cores may not matter. Also don't forget hyperthreading on the i7, which means that it may only need to run 2 cores (+2 virtual) to match the performance of the QX9300.

 

thanks for the info, it seems i have to get 920XM to match the workload which has 44 threads of cpu-demanding real-time data streaming processing.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mobile-core-i7,2443-9.html

 

If you're going with the 920XM because CPU processing power is your main concern, you might want to take a look at the Clevo D900F too.

It's about the same price as a laptop with a 920XM, but you get much, much better performance out of any of the desktop i7's used in the D900F than you would out of a 920XM.

 

thanks, how about noise level of D900F vs Eurocom Cougar? i choose laptop rather than desktop for that i can't bear the noisy desktop fan.

http://web.eurocom.com/EC/ec_model_config1(1,210,0)

 

The D900F owners in the Sager and Clevo subforum seem to find them exceptionally quiet... I can't find the post at the moment, but I recall one of them saying that there were times he'd put his ear down next to it just to make sure the fans were working. Also, with the D900F, you'll almost always have to make sure it's plugged in; apparently, the CPU downclocks significantly when the machine runs on battery.

 

Take a look at some of the people's experience with Eurocom in the Clevo/Sager sub-forums.

I have never bought a laptop, but just from reading some of the experiences I would not support this company. The owner seems like a snake to who was pretending to be someone else and would give objective opinions.

 

thanks for the info, it seems to be a rip-off garbage:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=428062

 

I have a sager 2090 from one of there top rated resellers and i love my laptop. i bought it 2.5 years ago and still going. Eurocom is garbage but other resellers are top rated in the field. my next gaming laptop is coming from sager but not until Q2 of next year.

and i also used multi trading programs from Etrade when i worked has a Stock Analyst at Morgan Stanley. the Q9000 or any mobile quad is not going to disappoint you in that department. sometimes i would use my old boss' laptop with a Q9200 ES at 2.4, that thing would never lock up on any trading program. and i know how those programs are cpu hogs.

 

Now then, lets stay on topic and discuss CPUs. Leave the other chats elsewhere.

Thank you,
Johnny T - NBR Moderation Team

 

D900F is a beast and the processor in it can easily beat the corei7 mobile ones... and somemore most probably going to be more upgradeable... I personally.. read the review... http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5094&p=2
Personally , if your going to use your laptop on a table , the weight and battery life wouldn't be a problem... and certainly would beat anything on the market.... and yipee 1000th post!

 

Cons:

* Loud cooling fans
this kills my interests...

 

Well, the review does say the fans only get loud when benchmarking or doing heavy gaming, so... a lot depends on exactly how stressed the computer would get running your trading programs. Also, noise tends to be rather subjective, until someone pulls out a dB level meter.

 

Agreed... my laptop makes a lot of noise when i'm playing games but doesn't matter since the volume is high and the noise is blocked out...

 

Even then, most people don't understand how to get a meaningful measurement from one, which is ok since most people don't really understand how to interpret the results. I wish manufactures reported sound power levels so we had some basis for objective comparison.

 

the review from notbookcheck site usually has dB level of noise, for instance this clevo M980NU is a bit noisy(max 44 dB with load vs vostro 1400 max 38.7 dB):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Clevo-M980NU-Notebook.18377.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Dell-Vostro-1400-Notebook.7316.0.html

 

I'm surprised and impressed. They don't give enough information to allow independent verification of their results, but they do provide way more detail than I expected. At the very least, I get the impression that their measurements are comparable to one another, but it isn't standardized and detailed to allow others to perform the same test.