Will an i-540 run faster than an i740qm ?

Just curious.. the i520 runs at 2.5ghz.. the 740 at a measly 1.7 was it? so under normal or light use like playing cs or anything that doesnt use multiple cores/threads... is the i5 faster? Is there a missing factor besides clock speed here?

 

Both have similar turbo speeds, so for single threaded tasks they are about the same. For tasks that use all of the cores available, the 740QM will be faster.

Though both are previous-generation processors. If you're looking at buying a laptop and these are the options it gives you, you might want to look at a different laptop because the newer processors are considerably more power efficient, especially the quad-cores.

 

quad-core Arrandale's are pretty crappy and they're on 45nm while dual core Arrandales are 32nm and run cooler and more efficient. If you insist with an older chip such as the Arrandale, stick with the dual.

 

Not true. At Quad-Core performance the Clarksfield is superior to Arrandales. the Arrandales on shine at Dual-Core applications and at Single-Core they are roughly the same. Also, if you got a powerhouse laptop (like 15.6" Gaming or 17.3" Laptops) they should provide enough cooling to keep the Clarksfield temperatures well and also if you need performance, you would not really care about battery life. Therefore, I think to just recommend Arrandale is not a valid statement since I find gaming or performance laptops with Arrandales a total waste.

However if you are in need to a portable, light laptop, then sticking with Arrandale is the better choice. If you are looking at gaming laptops or mobile workstations, people will prefer to use Clarksfields.

 

I was just wondering because A few months ago i did buy an alienware m17x r2 with the 740qm. i was coming from an apple macbook pro 17 unibody with 3.06 c2d proc and the AW seemed very slow. i returned that one anyways since I learned on NBR the r3 was around the corner. AFter 2 r3s with Sandy bridge which did perform really well i must say.. I got another r2 with the RGB screen and after using it I felt like crying as the RGB is SO much better than the new 1080p screens.

Anyhow long story short my new R2 has a 540 and it seems to run very fast. I had intentions to flip it but since it runs the pc so smooth and fast I think i may keep it and just slap in an SSD and enjoy it.

i didnt know the dual cores were 32nm thats pretty cool.

 

They are cool and efficient, but once you start playing games like Bad Company 2 or games that starts to advantage of Quad Cores, you will find your Arrandale struggling. As I said, the reason you feel your Arrandale was fast because it is only good with Dual Core-enhanced programs. Once you enter the realm of Quad Core-enhanced programs, the i7, even though at slower speeds, will blow the Arrandale to pieces because of its additional two dedicated cores. In the case of today's applications, the apps that can utilize more cores will see an advantage of a processor with more cores on a lower-clock speed over a higher-speed less core CPU.

You just haven't really pushed the i7 to what it can fully do. Instead you only have been pushing it in its weakness. Also, an m17x R2 has the cooling to keep the Clarksfield temperatures at bay, despite an i5 having a smaller die process and it is cooler. However, I think a laptop like the m17x would be better utliized with the Quad Core.

Run games like Bad Company 2, GTA IV, Witcher 2, Civ V or even SC 2 and you will see what I mean when you got an i7-740QM vs. an i5-540M. Also note that I am too coming from an i5-540M to a i5-560M to a i7-740QM and I found the i7 to be more effective with programs that use heavy quad processing and current games are starting to approach recommended specifications with Quad Cores and not Dual Cores.

The Arrandale is fast now, but it is to be obsolete to the power user that uses powerful applications. Many people at the time would originally say get the Arrandale (I was one of them), only to find out a year later that the people with the slower-clocked Clarksfield are yielding better performance with games that were released at the time when Arrandale and Clarksfield were on the market. The Arrandale is not shabby, but once programs starts to slowly become Quad-Core recommended, the Arrandale will bite its dust. It is why people aren't recommending other people to buy the SB Dual Core, but go straight Quad Core SB, since the future will eventually be Quad-Core optimized at some point in time. By then, you will see that your Dual Core won't be cutting it. Oh technology...

 

Exactly which programs benefit from Quad core besides a few games and maybe some engineering software that' very specialized?

Given that most people's CPU's idle most of the time and that most people prefer gaming on consoles to notebooks, and given the fact that not everything can be parallelized, I don't see why you would recommend a quad core to a non-gaming or casual gaming user.

 

The better question why did he get an Alienware m17x R2 then? I would happily recommend Arrandales for people who use a thin and light machine or a more multimedia-based system. However people will laugh that you are using a m17x with an Arrandale.

Your point is valid if you had a machine like the Envy 14 or Dell XPS 15 or even a Thinkpad T410, then yes, by all means get it with a Dual Core, as for the lifespan of those kind of machines will never be destined for intensive power. However, getting a m17x R2 with an Arrandale is really pointing out what was the purpose of the OP wanteed to do with it. Most people who buy a m17x R2 was to game and push it to the limits in raw application power. However if he just wanted it for the RGBLED, he could of just gotten a XPS 15 or XPS L701X and use it with an Arrandale as a great multimedia machine with great portability and battery life.

Therefore my point stands on the factor that you are running a m17x. People who buy a m17x uses it as a powerhouse, not for casual use unless you got the money burn and waste such good machines just for web surfing...

If the OP is a console gamer and all, I am sure an Arrandale will suit him fine, but considering he went with an Alienware, I don't think he is just going to use it for casual stuff either... Therefore in HIS case, I am pushing for the Clarksfield. If he had something like an Envy 14 let's say, then obviously I favor the Arrandale.

Therefore your arguement is partially invalid.

 

I will also attest to the difference in speed between a dual-core i5 and a quad-core i7.

I have an i5-560M, which was one of the fastest dual-cores offered. For general use there was no difference between it and a quad. However, when it comes to video rendering, the i7 wins by a mile (in hindsight I should have gotten the quad-core). Same goes for Photoshop and MP3 encoding.

The only advantage I can see to the duals is better battery life (not by enough to make it worth compromising the performance difference, though).

 

I concur about quads being the best choice for performance, hands down. Windows 7 also makes best use of all cores, even if the application doesn't. Statements like "it feels faster" is all subjective and perhaps placebo.

For performance I'll take a 1.7GHz quad over a 2.4GHz dual core any day. For battery life, ULV dual core any day. Although with the latest Core i3/i5/i7's even quads are pretty power efficient. Considering I can get two hours of browsing out of my Core i7-2720QM and GTX 485m, I'd say it's quite efficient, even though it is downclocked considerably while on battery.

 

Your previous quote sounded like everyone is suggesting quads over duals for everyone, that's why I asked. Obviously a quad is better with someone who bought an Alienware like in his case, I never disputed that.

 

quads are only "good for performance" if the program code being run is quad core friendly.

This isn't automatic and for the most part it isn't governed by the OS.

Figure out if the programs you're running can take advantage of quad cores. Higher-end multimedia programs, virtualization proggys, and database software come to mind immediately.

 

Again as you have not read carefully, I didn't say it is for everyone, especially with the previous generation. I said if he was going for a thin and light laptop, dual core is more efficient. If he wants a power house, quad core is the better choice. That is my bottom line. In his case I question his choice of a dual core on a m17x-R2 after he mentioned what laptop he had. That is when I pushed for quad core then.

True for the most part, however if you are starting to hit a 17" platform, you might as well slab a quad in there for good future measure. If you are going to use a smaller machine and you aren't a power user, the Arrandale is suffice for a now and a while, as long as you aren't going to be totally ambitious.

 

Thanks for the replies guys.

My usage consists of watching movies on vlc player while @ work, occasional wc3 TFT or WOW as well. Web browsing all the time and sometimes I spend hours making videos with WMM. When I come home I have a desktop thats pretty beefy.

Why did I buy an R2? Well because i loved the mbps but I sold my 17 unibody because i couldnt stand apples mouse acceleration. Stupid as it sounds i couldnt play wow or tft well with an external mouse. it drove me nuts. So I started to look for a bad boy styled PC and lo and behold the R2 was just aesthetically up my alley. I returned it when the r3s came out and I returned/sold both r3s because i didnt like 1080p. A deal popped up on an R2 (the i5 in question) and i jumped on it.

I guess in a way Im the guy who can afford an Audi R8 v-10 but buys a v8 model because it was a steal of a deal and just never goes to a racetrack to utilize the advantages of the extra horsepower?

 

Well the thing is if you are happy with it then by all means keep it. I had an i5-560M on a 17.0" HP Elitebook 8740w Mobile Workstation and on Dual Core applications it was a screamer. However over time, I found out for any future potentials it was pretty limiting. It only can take two RAM slots at DDR3 1066 (and most OEM's purposely sack two additional RAM slows on i5 variant motherboards), so 8 GB is so far the limit and that when you start to dabble in Quad Core programs, you will see it struggling a bit, as it has to work with four threads in a way to feeding it into two cores.

The Clarksfield shines that when you give it all the beans, it will eat four threads like breakfast and also it can use up to 16 GB of DDR3 1333 RAM, which is faster and more futureproof by utilizing two more RAM slots. Those kind of small things can ensure me that the Clarksfield-sourced motherboard platform is more futureproof for the power user.

I still recommend Dual Cores to the people that are using laptops that are mobile and battery-efficient and such. However, for such a powerful machine like the m17x-R2, I found it a shame that never has the opportunity to shine in its true use by sticking with an Arrandale. Almost everyone who has a m17x-R2 on NBR has at least an i7-720QM and most of the die-hard users has the i7-920XM/i7-940XM Extreme Edition variants.

 

I agree the r2 is a kick machine and it sucks to have a slower proc but Im actually back to an R2 because I am dissapointed in the R3s 1080p res and the wled display. And the soft touch finish.. and.. well much more too. I love bright crisp and sharp displays and the RGB kicks the wled in the behind. I dont think Ill ever buy a 1080p display ever again. everything looks stretched to me incl the games I play.

I got a steal on this r2 and I debated on selling it and picking up an R2 with 920/940 xm but couldnt help but wonder if it was a waste if it only runs at 2.2 ghz or so. if the games I play dont really utilize 4 cores I almost can't see the point in wanting the xm.

I can't recall everything i read on here but I read that the xm can overclock to 3.5 ghz or so on all cores ? whats the MAX on 1 or 2 cores? Is it still 3.5 ish ? If 1 or 2 cores could boost to 4+ ghz I'd probably want it more. I just know the games I play arent very stressful and I dont do any professional work etc that might be demanding.

 

I just have comment on it being said the OS "governs the use of quad"? No it does not and all you glossing over makes me puase.

Other than that I get the general gist of the thread.

Not to change the topic but has anyone considered that mobile phones and tablets are going dual core to save batt life? Completing tasks faster and being idle or having a core idle is a more efficient than less cores at full throttle. How this affects notebooks and dual vs quad is up to you guys.

Good luck, I would always go quad if offered.

 

Disappointed with 1080p? What did you want 720p on a 17" display?

 

sounds like the OP's upset about 16:9

 

No I want 1200p. like the R2. And Like my old Macbook pro 17. i don't like the 1080p 16:9 format.

 

im in the same boat as you

dell's replacing my M4400 with an M4600...i was hoping to put off the switch to 16:9 as long as i could but...... sigh.....

at least with office 2010 you can hide the ribbon now, so it kind of makes up for it a bit....but im starting to seriously consider moving my taskbar to vertical orientation so i get some extra height. all of this is really not ideal....

 

Hi! You can also hide it in 2007 with ctl+F1. Pretty useful tip, I found out when tryinh to access the office help topics. And congratz on the new precision.

 

Read again, I was saying that the use of a quad core is dependent on the ability of applications to use the quad and wasn't governed by the OS.

There are loads of people who think or assume that if they buy fancy/expensive hardware it will work 'automagiclly' and make everything faster. In the case of quads, that is not the case.

 

I agree that if you're going to get 15.6" or larger, might as well get a quad, just make sure the chassis can handle the heat. Not too sold on 14" with a quad, it'd have to be really thick and heavy to dissipate that heat, might as well get a 15.6" in that case for the bigger screen and better options such as a 1080p screen.

 

Not entirely true. Windows 7 does some "automagic" even when running apps not specifically programmed for more threads. Windows will manage all the other apps or processes through the other cores, so in essence it is better. You get "more core" for your app than if you had a dual core, unless your machine is only running that one specific app and absolutely nothing else, which would mean booting straight into that app and loading nothing other than the Windows core files.