i5 2430M vs i7 2640M

I'm toying with the idea of getting a Vaio SE and am leaning towards the i7 for no reason other than its the top of the line processor for this notebook. i5 2430M 2.4gHz (Turbo to 3.0gHz, 3MB L3 cache) vs i7 2640M 2.8gHz (Turbo to 3.5 gHz 4MB L3 cache).

However, realistically speaking, is there any tangible benefit of going with a dual-core i7 over a dual-core i5? I'm going to be using this for web, email, blu-ray video, raw photo editing in that order. The price difference is pretty small at $150. Can someone alternately confirm that my i7 preference is valid or tell me why I'm an idiot for paying for the i7 upgrade?

 

nope, even an i3 is powerful enough for that all. =)

 

IMO, $150 is a fairly significant amount. For your needs I'd save money and go for the i5. It'll be plenty.

 

With regards to 'raw photo editing', it depends as to how much (total hrs.) you're doing, even if it is the last thing on your list and also it would depend on which program you're actually running to do your editing with (for example; if you're running Bibble Pro, it would not be worth getting the faster cpu because the program is already optimized (a quad core though, would be twice as good with Bibble Pro).

The cpu choices are roughly 17% faster (based on highest clock...) but only 8% based on PassMark scores. ???

See:
PassMark CPU Lookup

See:
Core i7-2640M – Intel Processor | Music


Given these stat's (above), I would say that I too would be tempted to save the money between these two choices - or decide that a quad core platform really would be worth considering (again; with a program like Bibble Pro - it would really be twice as fast with the same clocked quad option...).

 

I see the i7 2620M with a PassMark score of 3,938 vs it i5 2430 at 3357. That is about 17% higher. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the i7 2640M with a higher clock speed and all else being the same should score higher? Forgive my noobness if I'm missing something here.

 

$150 is too much money for that upgrade. $50 is more like it.

Realize the dual-core "i7" is merely an i5 with a bit more cache and a higher clockspeed. Intel charges a premium because of the i7 branding and its top-of-the-line status.

For RAW photo editing, which I do quite a bit of on my dual-core i5, the i7 will be the difference between it taking 5-6 seconds to open a photo and 4.5-5.5 seconds (not actual numbers, but you get the idea). So the $150 ... very slight difference. Noticeable, if you're really applying filters and such, but again slight.

I think the VAIO SE is around $1,000 starting, correct? So $150 = 15% of the total cost of the notebook. Yikes.

 

A i7-quad would see more significant processing speeds if it's an option. Out of the shortlisted CPUs I'd go the i5 and put my savings towards a SSD.

 

Get the i5, for your uses, i5 is plenty powerful already, the i7 won't make it significant faster than the i5, even for batches of photo editing. Save the 150$ and add some more to get a decent SSD if you got extra to spend.

 

I've been wondering about this myself, as I've also been considering the SE. Do these processors make any difference for gaming?

 

If you got a medium to low end GPU, it doesn't matter whether u got a i7, i5, or even i3, as 99% of the games will be quickly bottlenecked by your GPU WAY before CPU. Read this review, Intel Sandy Bridge Processors Gaming Performance: Part II - Notebookcheck.net Reviews it shows that CPUs make VERY little to no difference for gaming when you got a mid range GPU like 560M(which is considered "high end" mobile GPU by many).

So the short answer is no, it won't make a difference for gaming, unless you got mad GPU powerhouse like 6990M CF or 580M SLI, choosing a higher CPU won't make your game run better.

 

For gaming you're going to want to make sure you get the 6630M GPU upgrade, and not the 6470M. The 6470M is not that great of a card at all.

 

If you didn't want locked in to the HD6630M dGPU, then have you considered a system that can run a DIY eGPU, eg: $210 GTX460? A 14" Lenovo T420s has a NVS4200M option, 900P LCD and an expresscard slot so can host a DIY eGPU. A 14" Toshiba R840 has a 900P option plus expresscard slot. Both are thin and light weighing < 4.2lbs. If interested consider reviewing the thin-and-light link in my sig.

 

The 6630 is 1 GB, compared to 512 MB for the 6470, right? How does the 6630 compare to the 6750 on the Samsung Series 7 or the NVIDIA GeForce on the Lenovo IdeaPad? Are they all 1 GB cards?

 

The memory barely makes a difference. What matters is the speed of the card itself.

6750M > 6630M >> 6490M, regardless of memory.

Don't get the IdeaPad Y570, it has a bad screen.

 

Pardon me but the Y570 has a bad screen? Don't you mean low resolution screen?

Checking your signature, you don't even have a Y570 to start with so I don't think you should speak for anyone but yourself.

 

It is a low-resolution screen yes, and 1366x768 is a mediocre resolution for a 15.6" screen (same resolution as 12-inch laptops). Yes I've seen a Y570 before, and can also speak for the image quality: there are plenty of better screens out there in this market segment.

 

I was actually considering the Y470. Is that any better than the 570? It probably doesn't matter though, as the Samsung Series 7 is looking like the best option at this point.

 

The Y470 is currently one of the better values in its market segment and price range. However, the Y570 (especially any model costing $800+) isn't one of the better values in its market segment and price range.