i5 450 vs i7 720

I tried search, but it didn't help too much in comparing these two processors since it's a bit of an unorthodox comparison.

I'm on a strict budget to prematurely replace my Asus m50 and I've found two laptops with similar GPU's. It's mainly an issue of which processor would suit me better, and is it worth $80 more to get the one with the i7.

I would never really need the benefits of a quad core since the laptop will be used for recording music(using Reaper) and gaming(mainly FPS), and both of those applications work very well with a dual core. The significantly lower clock speed of the i7 720 is bothering me, but is it a better processor than the i5 450?

I've also got a question about the turbo boost for the core i's. How does it work?

 

go with the 450 if you dont see yourself using the extra cores of the 720 and are on a budget.

 

Is it just me, or does a thread like this seem to pop up at least once a week?

The short answer: stick with the i5-450m if you care about saving some money. For the vast majority of cases, the i7-720QM will not afford you any substantial performance advantages, if any at all, and will use more power in the process.

Many will go on to say that a quad core is better for future proofing, and there is a number of reasons why that argument is flawed.

1) The thermal envelope forces a notebook CPU to make a compromise between clock and the number of active cores, thereby reducing the potential margin to be gained with a higher core count.

2) Not all applications lend themselves well to parallel threading, so it is not simply a matter of programmers "getting with the program" to take advantage of a larger number of cores. Sometimes, it's just not practical.

3) You have to consider what type of applications you can realistically expect yourself to engage in, and whether they can take advantage of more threads. Some examples would include heavy rendering and video encoding. If that does not apply to you, then a dual core will suit you just fine. Remember, more does not necessarily mean better.

The i5-450m will use less power and likely costs less. As long as we are discussing an apples to apples computer, with the same hardware options, there is very little to justify the i7-720QM for the average user. My point is not to claim that the latter does not offer *any* tangible improvement, but rather to demonstrate that for a vast majority of cases, the i5-450m is "good enough", while being more affordable. However, that decision remains ultimately up to you. If psychologically the prospect of "MOAR" represents sufficient cause, then we are unlikely able to be able to convince you otherwise

Edit: I noticed your question concerning the operation of Turbo Boost. The concept is actually quite simple. In a similar way that your computer will downclock by reducing the multiplier to reduce power consumption during idle or insignificant load, the CPU will conversely increase the multiplier, while remaining within the limits of the thermal envelope, for a more demanding load. Often, Turbo Boost is most effective for a smaller number of active cores, since less power is consumed during these conditions, thus giving the CPU some margin for boosting the clock within the limits of the TDP. This prevents the prospect of single-threaded applications becoming an off-design condition. High efficiency clock gating has had a vital effect in allowing for Turbo Boost to be useful, since very little power is lost to resistance within inactive cores. Technology is great, isn't it?

 

In one of the other i7 threads it listed the amount of "boost" per cores engaged and mentioned the turbo boost works in the i7 620 with both cores engaged. If most of my applications only use two or less cores, would the turbo boost on the i7 720 be active most of the time? Does the turbo boost on the i5 work only when a single core is being used or does it engage when more power is needed when both cores are being used?

 

With the i5, Turbo Boost will be more proactive with a single activated core, though for dual core applications, it still has the capacity to run at 2.66 GHz when deemed feasible. The i7-720QM will boost to 2.40GHz during dual core applications, and though clock alone is insufficient to determine the more capable CPU under these conditions, the difference is inconsequential. For this situation, the i5 is likely to perform similar or better to the i7, while using less power. For the cost difference, assuming this value is appreciable, there is really no reason to choose the i7.

For more information, please see the following resources:
i7-720QM
i5-450M

 

Thanks for the links and info. I do have one other question though. If paired with the same GPU, would the i7 720 handle games like Borderlands, Battlefield BC2, Mass Effect 2, Assassins Creed 2, etc, better than the i5?

 

That question goes beyond the scope of my knowledge, but I would wager that the difference would be negligible at best. I would expect those types of games to be GPU-bound, with the CPU making the difference of 1 or 2 fps at most. These CPUs are very comparable to one another for this scenario, and while I cannot support my claim with any benchmarks for justification, logic tells me that the i7 is unlikely to offer any notable advantage.

 

although i havent compared my 720qm to a 540 i would agree with jakeworld, you probably wont see any noticeable difference as games are gpu bound. of course you will run into some games that make use of multiprocessors more like GTA IV ( and metro 2033?) but they are few and far between still.
its difficult to say if gaming will make more efficient use of multicores in the future too, but my bet is they probably will.