Significant Turbo Mode differences between i7 720QM and i7 820QM

The new mobile i7 "Clarksfield" CPUs don't all have the amazing Turbo speed grades. The 720QM will Turbo less than 820QM does.

Here are the Turbo Mode boosts.

i7 820QM: 2/8/10(4 core/2 core/1 core)
i7 720QM: 1/6/9

So the speed will turn out to be:

i7 820QM: 1.73GHz base/2.0GHz 4 cores/2.8GHz 2 cores/3.06GHz 1 core
i7 720QM: 1.6GHz base/1.73GHz 4 cores/2.4GHz 2 cores/2.8GHz 1 core

Plus the 720QM has less shared L3 cache with 6MB.

 

Yep, and according to the info in this post, the i7 920XM has 2/8/9.

Not sure why the differences between the various models, but it does make the 820QM look more and more like the sweet spot for price/performance.

 

By the way, 920XM is 2/8/9. Even the link says so.

 

Yeah, I made a mistake (fixed now) - thanks for pointing it out!

 

Significant price difference too

 

So the slowest i7 processor is slower than the faster ones? Shocking.

 

Point is, the 820QM is worth the upgrade. The 920XM obviously isn't.

1.73/2.4/2.8

2.00/2.8/3.06

2.26/3.06/3.2

Bigger jump from the 720 to the 820, than from the 820 to the 920. Price jump to the 920 from the 820 is like three times as much...

 

It's only worth it if there was a small increase in price. Comparison wise, it only makes sense if price increased linearly. But it doesn't, it's exponential. The lowest end is sold by Intel for $364, the next is $546, then finally $1054. The 820QM is 50% more expensive than the 720QM and the 920XM is 93% more than the 820QM! Since performance doesn't go up by that much, IMO it's not worth it.

 

You have to take TDP into account when looking at the potential of an i7 processor. Max Turbo boost doesnt mean the CPU is always running at that speed (for that number of cores), it has to work within predefined TDP limits. It means it does it if it can, but throttles back if it has to. More TDP = more performance, more of the time.

It still doesnt mean it is (or isn't) worth the extra $, thats for the buyer to decide. But its too simplistic to just look at the frequency bins.

 

I got rid of my QX9300 based machine because I didn't push the processor very hard. I'd average about 20-30% load. For me, the 820 would be overkill, especially since the bottleneck point will occur primarily at the hard drive. Most users would probably see a bigger jump in overall system performance by spending the extra $ on a decent SSD.

 

for ur system your bottleneck will be the 4570... not a very good card....

 

It still doesn't really seem worth thr 400$ upgrade companies over ehre are charging for it on tehir pre-order systems >.>

Maybe once prices go down though it'll be a note worthy upgrade.

 

i'll get the i7 720 not the 820

 

By the way guys, I fixed the mistake on the original post. It was said that the 2.4GHz operating frequency can be had for 4 cores on i7 720QM, no its not true, its for 2 cores. But I'm pretty sure some of you realized that.

 

How does ythe 720 compare to a T9600 in performance?? I wonder/

 

I would imagine it destroys it in most applications.

 

Not if he isn't doing anything graphically intense. And it actually is a pretty good card.

 

I am worried the 1.6 720QM is not that powerful...lol
But what the heck. I think I am getting an i7 72QM this week and a new laptop...if I do so, I will let you know, and benchy it!

 

Don't be worried. It will be faster than 98% of notebook CPUs out there. When using all 4 cores (and/or 4 threads), your CPU can run from 1.6-1.73GHz, easily matching the Q9000. When using only 2 cores, your CPU can go up to 2.4GHz, matching most of the C2Ds (except maybe the T9550 and up, which are more expensive CPUs anyways). Finally, in single core/threaded programs, your CPU can go up to 2.8GHz, beating pretty much every CPU available except the higher up i7 models.

 

i7 720 shouldnt even be compared to Q9000...
it outperformes QX9300 in many most benchmarks... and core 2 CPUs like T9900 rarely if never wins a benchmark agains it...
havent u guys seen the benchmarks?...

 

No. So please, post a link QuackDuck.
Thanks!

 

But they're all i7's, so the performance is going to be better than the P's and T's that everyone has right now. I can't wait to get my hands on an i7 processor so that I could dissect it and measure it's performance as compared to my laptop's P8800 right now.

Mr. Mysterious

 

I will gladly compare it to my old AMD Sempron...hahahaha just give me time...and I will come back with the info (still to order my laptop...grrr this is taking to much)

 

QuackDuck, are you saying the i7 720 outperforms the QX9300, or the Q9000 outperforms the QX9300 in the benchmarks you've seen???

 

The i7.
I think what you meant QuackDuck is the 820QM running at 1.73, where I did see it outrunning a QX9300 on an article I found, and published here.

 

Soooo... does that mean the i7 720QM is only marginally less powerful than the QX9300, and, therefore (should be) better than all C2Duos?

I hope so, coz there's an i7 720QM with my name on it somewhere... ;-)

 

I think it is more comparable to the Q9100, which was REALLY powerfull, and in single threaded tasks will outrun the QX9300, but in heavy multi-core word, dont think so.
Still the 720QM eats alive 90% of all C2D's out there. Both in single and dual threaded apps.

 

Riiight... OK. Am getting my head round it now; I put off getting a laptop recently that had a T9600 processor at a bargain price, in favour of paying a bit more for one with an i7 720QM, and am thinking I made the right decision... I'm kind of surprised how little benchmarking has been published regarding the i7 QMs, considering they're a pretty important development and have been available for three weeks already...

 

It is hard to get them, since everyone seems to want one...lol
But the 720QM will eat the T9600.
FYI, I did the same...

 

You can always check up the LGA1156 desktop CPU benchmarks. They are based off the same technology.

 

Still desktop processors in the core i5 are more powerful than the mobile core i7 ...

 

Any benchmarks? Proofs?

I would like to see that.

 

Don't expect much from him; he tends to make outrageous and inflammatory claims without any sort of base, and will attack you when you call him out. In fact, I'm sure I have a verbal beating on the way

 

No worries Mastershroom, I have always the Report button good to go...lol

Still, since Sean473 seems to know about this matter, please, teach me, since I love knowing about CPU's (hence my Guide to share my knowledge) and if the desktop i5 outperforms all mobile i7s I want to see that.
Perhaps the higher i5 to the lower Mi7, but the 920XM wont be beaten that easily. (and here comes the flaming lol)

 

If it's true at all, it will only be because desktop CPUs tend to be clocked higher than their mobile counterparts. There is nothing that makes the desktop i5 inherently superior to the mobile i7.

 

Well, they are based on the same technology, so if they are faster clocked, of course they will be faster. Though the desktop i5s have HT disabled (could be a good thing).

 

Sorry guys, but I do believe the the turbo-boost really eliminates the prior generations.

It will beat, or at least match the prior gens in single and dual core apps, and you keep forgetting about the HT. If a program can only utilize 4 cores, it may be even between the 720 and the QX9300, but beyond that, there are still four logical cores that can take part of the work load.

Of course, this is what I think, and until some really conclusive benchmarks are released, or I feel I should go search for some, mostly just some speculation.

 

Why would disabling hyperthreading be a good thing? And aren't the I5s simply meant to be the mainstream version of the I-core architecture CPUs, therefore, like-for-like, not supposed to be thrashing the specialist level I7s? I just understood that I5s use a cheaper chipset and DDR2 RAM (as opposed to the DDR3 of I7)... seems silly if Intel intend to supercede I7s with another family of processors in a matter of months...

 

No, there are some i7s for the same chipset as the i5s - these are all based on the same architecture (LGA1156). What you are referring to are the previous generation i7s on the LGA1366. No new chipset supports DDR2 anymore (P55 generation). Disabling HT can be good because it hasn't really showed much performance benefit when compared to the power consumption.

 

OK; can't remember where I read that (some) I5s would be using DDR2.... However, I think I am right in thinking that I5 CPUs are meant to be a more mainstream offering (therefore less expensive and, performances-wise, a tad less powerful/versatile in some respects than the I7s), which would make a lot of sense on Intel's part... seems there are a lot of forum entries here and elsewhere where people are worried that, no sooner have they bought their I7 machine, it'll be blown away by an I5 in Spring 2010

 

You buy top notch, a year later you are waaaay down...technology, the way it works

 

Not always Serg; I've got an Arcam amplifier and a pair of B&W speakers that are all six years old, and have yet to hear an equivalent and newer set up that sounds better :tongue:

But seriously.... I appreciate how PC technology advances, but it seems to me that I5s and I7s are not intended to directly compete with one another. And the I9s will be here soon too! Yippee!

 

Oh, come on, you know what I meant...in the laptop world. lol

i9?

 

I was only joking with ya, Serg!

Not about the I9 bit though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i9#Core_i9

 

There are mainstream i5s and i7s, these use the same chipset (P55 and variants). The previous generation i7s are what you are referring to, which use the high end chipset (X58). The i7s using the X58 are enthusiast level products, though in pure CPU performance, the lowest end i7 920 can be matched by mainstream i7 860. In the future, the i9s will be for the X58. Don't get mixed up with notebooks and desktops, desktop CPUs are already out while notebooks usually come several months after (Q1 2010).

 

OK. my comment about DDR2 RAM and chipsets may well have come from an article about I7 desktop processors; as I said, I really can't remember the source. No matter; the general point I'm trying to make is that it seems to me that, in the laptop arena, I5, I7 & I9 CPUs will be to a large degree complimentary (not without some overlap of course), and will cater for the mainstream/thin & light, high-end and extreme markets respectively, meaning that I5 laptop CPUs are unlikely to be immediately blowing away laptop I7s, nor will these I7s be blowing away laptop I9s very soon... and, of course, it would be silly to compare the corresponding laptop I5, etc to it's desktop I5 counterpart, anyway, coz desktop CPUs are usually clocked higher anyways...

 

The laptop dual core i5s seem identical to the laptop dual core mainstream i7s, but with smaller cache. Yes, they are supposed to have HT too. It will be similar to current C2Ds with different sized cache. The high end i7s will be the Clarksfield quad cores. There won't be i9s in laptops according to Intel's roadmap, but things could change.

 

Considering how the 6-core Gulftown is merely a dual processor workstation CPU remade as a single processor enthusiast system, I doubt it. We probably won't see 6 core laptop until end of Sandy Bridge.

 

Laptop dual core mainstream i7s, sgogeta???

 

the np8690 I'm reviewing will have an i7-820 or i7-920, where would either of those compare to the qx9300