i5-3210M vs i7-3610QM (FPS in games)

This is still a hard decision for me to make. I decided to gather all the FPS results from both the i5-3210M and the i7-3610QM. If someone has more results from both the i5 and the i7 (with the same GPU of course), please share them. If you can get results of the i5 and the i7 in the exact same laptop, that would be great!

GT 650M GDDR5

MSI GE70 (i5-3210M) / MSI MS-16GA (i7-3610QM)
CoD Modern Warfare 3:
High: 62.1 / 68.8 ( +10.8%)
Ultra: 40.4 / 41.6 ( +3.0%)

Risen 2: Dark Waters:
High: 33.6 / 33.6 ( +0.0%)
Ultra: 15.8 / 16 ( +1.3%)

MSI GE70 (i5-3210M) / MSI GE60 (i7-3610QM)
Anno 2070:
High: 29.1 / 39.8 ( +36.8%)
Ultra: 16 / 18.4 ( +15.0%)

Up to now, the only real, noticeable increase can be found in Anno 2070. Ultra isn't really playable anyway, whether you have the i5 or the i7, but on high you can see a significant increase in FPS. Risen 2: Dark Waters has almost no increase, and Modern Warfare 3 nothing noticeable. Whether you get 62.1 or 68.8 FPS, it's going to be smooth anyway.

I will add more results once I find them, but if you have some results of your own, please post them. I prefer results of the same laptop/brand (and the same GPU is a must), but if that is not an option, please look carefully at the differences besides the CPU and GPU, and list them with your results.

 

I would go for the i7-3610QM just because it is a quad core. More and more games and applications are taking full advantage of all the cores, so to be future proof I would go for a quad core.

 

I buy a laptop for now, not for the future. In my opinion technology improves way too fast to make a good purchase for the future. But yeah, that is my opinion...

If I can see a good improvement between the i5-3210M and the i7-3610QM in terms of FPS in games, I might consider paying 100 euro extra. So that's why I am collecting those FPS results. It might help others with their decision too. Unfortunately there aren't many results of the IVB processors yet.

 

I am amazed by fps difference. Are you sure the anno high benchmark is correct?

 

Taken from notebookcheck.net. I tried to compare two laptops that are basically the same. But these differences don't surprise me. Some games are really CPU dependent. Battlefield is another example. In both BC2 and BF3 you should see a good increase in FPS. Never double the FPS though.

Other games don't benefit from a quad core at all though. Actually, from what I've seen, this is the case for most games. One game might have 30 FPS more in low settings, from 90 to 120, and then it seems like a lot, but at high settings the difference is often very small. If you can't play it on high on the i5, you probably can't play it on high on the i7 either. And for the low settings; isn't 90 already buttery smooth?

Of course you can say this by every improvement. Why go for the GDDR5 vs DDR3 if it's only a slight increase in FPS? To make a good decision, I want all the data I can get. Not going to play Anno 2070 anyway, so I know I don't have to worry about it.

 

Anno is an RTS/simulation and those type of games are always CPU intensive .

 

For gaming the CPU is secondary to the GPU. I would always go for a better GPU if possible, then worry about the CPU. All of the modern Intel Core series dual-core processors are going to be fast enough for the latest games. All of them.

However on a personal note I think it's silly to get anything other than an i7 quad-core in a gaming notebook (15" plus, that is). The technology has evolved to where the quad-cores are better than the dual-cores in just about every single way. Power consumption of the third-gen i7s is more than respectable - that 22nm process and advanced power saving techniques help a LOT. And they Turbo Boost up quite high; the dual-cores don't manage much better.

What's the price difference between the notebooks you are looking at?

 

100 euro.

Dell Inspiron 17R Special Edition (i5-3210M): 900 euro
GT 650M GDDR5
750GB 7200rpm HDD
6GB RAM 1600Mhz

Dell Inspiron 17R Special Edition (i7-3610QM): 1000 euro
GT 650M GDDR5
750GB 7200rpm HDD
6GB RAM 1600Mhz

No difference at all besides the processor. I will probably get a 10% discount, which means the difference will be 90 euro instead of 100 (810 euro vs 900 euro). Might even get a bigger discount, and of course, the bigger the discount, the lower the difference. But 100 euro is just too much.

I've already said it, but I buy laptops for now, not for the future. I would rather save 100 euro that I can spend in 2-3 years on a new laptop than spend it now on quad core processor that, like you said, isn't necessary for games at the moment. I doubt I'm really a gamer anyway. Now I just want to play the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. serie on high settings, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. doesn't give a flying f*ck about quad cores. Some other games may benefit, but I still have my Xbox 360 that I play on "for fun". Big screen, controller, it's fine with me. Don't really care about graphics anyway.

So, what other games am I going to play? Well, I don't know. There may be games that really benefit from a quad core, but then so be it. I don't care about future games. Anything that hasn't been released yet, isn't important to me. I am going to college in a year and I doubt I will be playing much games then.

Why the GT 650M anyway? I think it is a very capable card for the price that has power to last 4 years if you don't care about playing future games on high. The same goes for the i5-3210M. I don't want to spend 100 euro extra for a quad core, just so I can get a 10% increase in FPS in games that I probably won't play that much.

Now > future. I am happy with playing on 25-30 FPS (not really going to play online anyway, I use my Xbox 360 for that), and 10% of 30 FPS is only a 3 FPS increase... Might be different if I wanted to play on 60 FPS on higher, because at that point you can see significant increases.

And besides gaming, what other things do you need performance improvements for? Is there going to be something in 2-4 years, besides new games, that I am really going to need a quad core for? Graphic design, video editing maybe, but these things already exist and I know I am not going to use them. If I can edit a 1080p video sometimes after a vacation (so that would be at most 3 times a year), and then I don't care how long it takes.

 

If you are going to college in a year and not play much, then I think you should purchase a laptop then, when you fully know what you are going to be doing on it. Many applications make use of multiple threads nowadays. Games aren't the only ones. In fact, other than RTS style games, like you said, few show any performance increases. Everything from startup (windows) to the internet to word and whatever college programs you will use will make use of quad cores. The 100 euros aren't going to grow much sitting in a bank and in three years, they will offer you no better than what they do now.

 

I might run word, excel, google chrome with 5+ tabs and some other things at the same time, but I doubt I'm going to see much improvement with quad core. And the 100 euros aren't going to grow, but why spend them if I don't need it?

 

I normally am not one for using the term "futureproof" but I will here. If you plan on playing games and keeping the laptop beyond 12 months, the quad core is your best bet imho. Even if the game itself doesn't take advantage of more than one or two cores, the OS will. Multitasking is a wonderful thing and Windows 7 manages threads quite well, and Win 8 even better. User habits change, new software constantly released/updated, etc. A PC is designed to multitask and serve many roles. I wouldn't entirely consider a laptop based on a few games you play today because that can easily change in the next 12 months.

 

Because you don't know if you will need it. You don't know what applications you might end up using in college. What is your major? Most science, technology and management related majors use apps that make use of multithreading. Even some other majors use such apps. The probability that you might use such an app is pretty high.

 

Let's say I won't play any game. Do you still recommend quad-core? Because then I'm curious for what exactly. I mean, isn't dual-core also for multitasking? It depends on what you think of as multitasking of course. I don't want to scan for viruses, play a game, download a torrent and render a video all at the same time. And I can live with the fact that a virus scan or whatever might take a little longer on a dual-core processor.

What I DO want to be able to do, and fast, is having Chrome open with some tabs, while editing a word document, while looking at video of my dog, while talking with someone on Skype. That's the kind of multitasking I want to do. But I've never heard of a dual-core processor that couldn't do that.

 

Your original post you quoted games FPS so I assumed that was important to you. For no games and basic web browsing, Office suite tasks, etc. An i5 is more than adequate. It sounds to me like you already have your mind made up. And it can/will play games just fine, just possibly not optimal with games released in the next year or so.

 

GPU > CPU... and those dualcore with Hyper-threading are pretty good... if you have the choice... save that money and buy an SSD

 

Well, I made this thread basically to ask for comparisons between the i5-3210M and the i7-3610QM in terms of games that are out now. I kind of already have my mind made up, but I'm still curious; what games benefit from a quad core? That's why I made this thread. For example, I found it interesting to see that Anno 2070 got a pretty big increase in FPS.

Games ARE important to me, but I am afraid that I won't play games anymore in college. I know it sounds fun and all, a quad core, and being able to play the latest games, but I'm afraid I'm barely going to use the 4 cores. There I am, in college, with my quad core. What am I going to do with it? I doubt I even have time to play games.

I can live with the fact that games in the next couple of years may going to be a problem with a dual core. Even now I'm still planning on playing "mainstream" games like Battlefield, FIFA, Call of Duty, GTA (V) on the Xbox 360. What I will be using my laptop for are games that aren't available on consoles (S.T.A.L.K.E.R. serie, for example, and old RTCs and AoEs). MAYBE there will be a new Total War released that fully utilizes 4 cores. Shogun 2 already does that, I think. But for the short time I will want to play that game, the extra 100 euro isn't worth it IMO. Now a SSD, I can see the advantage in that...

Sorry for being not clear. I started a useless discussion for which I haven't made this thread.

Wouldn't the GT 650M be the bottleneck before the i5-3210M is by the way?

 

Oh yeah, certainly going to do that. Samsung 830 128GB (aftermarket) + 750GB 7200rpm HDD. Together with 6GB 1600Mhz RAM, i5-3210M and GT 650M 2GB GDDR5, I think I'm going to be fine

 

This can be answered with this (below)

It isn't better programming or something that made Anno see a jump. It is a RTS. Like has been stated before, RTS games benefit from a better CPU and if you increase the core count, the results are, like you said, very interesting.

This tells me you did not either read my previous post or I was not very clear. So I will try to clarify. You are right. Games benefit very little from the i7. You said you won't play games. However, is all you are going to do in college going to be word processing, browsing the internet, etc.? Many modelling packages, design suites, programming languages and just college apps in general are written to make use of four cores.

No no I am not arguing here. I am just trying to clear up some, what are according to me, misconceptions. It is, after all, your money

Yes except the GT650m will come into play (at least when we talk about bottlenecking) when you play games. There are several packages and software out there that do not use the GPU.

 

There might be a possibility where I will be better of with a quad core, depending on the study. Truth is, I have no freaking clue yet what I'm going to do. Probably something technical, but my brother does aeronautical engineering and I've never heard him complain about his 500 euro acer with dual core that he bought 2 years back.

I doubt there is a study which forces me to buy a quad core processor. That sounds ridiculous. If I really need a quad core processor for advanced calculations, I'm sure there will be a computer available at campus.

I mean, would you advise everyone who is going to college in a year to buy a quad core? If a quad core really is that important, I would think it would be more mainstream. Seems weird to me that a study would force you to buy an expensive quad core laptop (expensive = relative. I know you can get cheap quad core laptops, but some people don't want to spend more than 500 dollar for a laptop).

 

The choice is too simple here..

Gaming?

you have a 650M GT included in both laptop, you don't need to worry about FPS with the HD4000 in the I5/7.

100 Euro difference?

I would say you are investing money into a laptop that will last you 3 years or more. Definitely go for the quad-core.
Whatever you will do with your laptop, 3 years from now almost everything will use probably 8 cores.

By that time dual core CPU will be history already.

 

No I would advise anyone who gave me those two options, to purchase a quad core.

This is a 100 euro difference. I am not asking you to throw away your one year old dual core and purchase a quad. Like I had said before, it is your money. We are just giving you advise. The majority seem to think a quad core is a better idea. Where I come from, they say - "Listen to the world and then do what you think is right".

 

Get the cheapest option now and upgrade your cpu in a few years. My T500 came with a lowly P8600 and upgrading to the T9900 offered quite a bit of performance increase.

 

While I have nothing against having a discussion, I was more asking for FPS results. I know I'm going to be fine with a dual-core, even if I would keep my laptop 4 years (which I'm probably not going to do). I'm not going to play future AAA titles. Hell, I'm not even going to play current AAA titles. I'm probably doing exactly the opposite of what other people are doing, but I play on the Xbox 360 for graphics, and on my laptop because some games just aren't available for the Xbox 360, and because I will be able to install mods. With the GT 650M I will easily last 4 years if I'm not going to play triple A titles. I will not be able to play on high settings, but like I said, not playing for graphics. And as for the i5-3210M: sure the i7-3610QM might come in handy in the next Total War (a game that I will maybe play, who knows). But then so be it. Not going to pay 100 euro for that.

For other tasks, normal tasks, like word, browsing, basically things we already did 5 years ago, and even before that, it seems highly unlikely to me that I'm going to NEED a quad core. Sure applications will BENEFIT from a quad core. A word document might be converted twice as fast to whatever format using quad core as opposed to using dual core. The virus scanner may be done twice as fast. But how will I ever NEED a quad core, besides for gaming and very specific things for studies/jobs like 3D modeling, or video editing?

So now you know why I don't want to spend 100 euro on a quad core. I would be glad to continue the discussion, but that isn't really why I opened this thread.

 

Can't say I agree with 'upgrading' even a desktop system's cpu - let alone a notebook system's cpu... - in the end you're still at the same (low) level the (old) platform is at.


Buy the best you can afford now - any other use of your money is irresponsible in the long run.

While the sentiment that you buy a 'laptop for now, not for the future' sounds good - it only works if you buy at the bottom of the performance scale - or the top.

At the bottom; you'll know what you gained: $$$ in your pocket - at the top: you know you have the fastest experience possible at the time of purchase.

But buying below the middle to save less than 10% (and yes, dual cores are obsolete in 2012...) is not like saving $$ - it is more like throwing away $$$$ in my eyes.


Win7 fully utilizes more than 2 cores now - many programs are 2x faster with each doubling of cores - with Win7x64 and enough RAM, you can easily create a usage/workflow that needs more than 4 cores today (and not in a 'professional' environment either). Furthermore; this trend will only continue in the future - it certainly won't wane.

Buying a Dual Core setup at 90% of the cost of a Quad Core is slightly insane in my view. Unless you have money to burn - and/or - you simply want to upgrade your systems every few months.


But, you're convinced in your mind that you're right.

I can only predict that you'll have this system for (much) less than 18 months - if you have a real use for a system at all (now or in the future).

Good luck.

 

I am not convinced I am right. I don't think you can be "right" in this case. Maybe I will still go for the quad core. I still have a month or so before I will buy. With discount the difference between dual and quad becomes even less than 100 euro, so I might go for a quad after all.

But still, while I'm sure win7 fully utilizes more than 2 cores, and other programs are 2x faster: what is faster if it's already fast? There is a difference between actually needing a quad core, or just benefiting from one.

 

What is faster if it's already fast?

Good point - if it was true.

Until the operating system and the programs we use are written so efficiently that they literally 'disappear' and let us consume/create/enjoy the output our systems allow us 'instantly'; there is nothing that is 'fast enough' that we can purchase today and still be happy with tomorrow.

Not it 2012 - and probably not in our lifetimes (or those of my great, great, great grandchildren either).

If you are not convinced that you're 'right' - take a chance and listen not only to me, but the others that say that a quad core is the right choice now.

If we're all wrong - you'll have made (only) a 100 euro 'mistake' and will KNOW better next time. If we're right though - you'll have saved making a 900 euro mistake that you won't be happy with from (basically) day one (once/if you could compare it to what you could have had).

Will a quad core give you better FPS in games (sure, in some).

Will a dual core save you some money (sure, initially).

Will a dual core make sense in your planned 4 year ownership (no, period).

 

To be honest, I haven't really looked at how I would benefit from a quad core besides gaming. And for gaming, I always thought it was overrated. I still think it is. Depends on what you want, but don't care about keeping up with the latest games (GPU is going to cause problems anyway).

I have always thought like that; "what is faster if it's already fast?" I mean, laptops WAY WORSE than a notebook with the i5-3210M and GT 650M run daily tasks like word, excel (whatever everyone basically does all day long now) fine. I have always thought that "the best" hardware was for gamers. Or maybe some people that had a reason to need it, for 3D modeling or whatever.

 

Hmmm...

I see where you're confusing yourself:

Just because 'way worse' notebooks can run Word and Excel doesn't make them desirable or 'worth it'. Nor should that fact dictate what conclusion you should come to for your needs (current and future) for the next few years.

You are ignoring the facts: you're buying a 900 euro system in the middle of 2012 (and thinking you're going to keep it for 4 years) and failing to see that an additional 100 euros is the best thing you can do for your computing 'experience' (over the life of your new notebook).

Could a single core setup with 256MB of RAM still run Word and Excel in 4 years? Sure.

Would you spend real money today to end up with that (effectively) same (obsolete) system?

Your call.

 

Maybe my idea of where quad core technology is today was wrong. I did some googling; I had no idea quad cores are so "old" already. Maybe you are right.

 

Maybe? Lol...

If your budget was in the <400 euro range - we wouldn't be having this discussion - but you are ready to spend real money - you may as well get a current system to go along with it.

When even 'smart phones' are getting introduced with quad core architecture - buying a dual core notebook is not very forward thinking...

Good luck.

 

Intel's turbo boost technology really started to take off with the 2nd gen i series cpu's, and with the 3rd generation its almost (at least in my mind) stupid not go with a quad core cpu given the price difference. Unless of course you were looking at a small notebook and had thermal contraints.

Looking at the turbo for both cpu's, i5 2.5ghz turbo to 3.1ghz on 1 core, 2.9ghz on 2.

i7 quadcore 2.3ghz turbo to 3.3ghz one core, 3.1ghz on 2.

My G75 in my sig, has the i7 3610, and goes to 3050mhz while gaming or anytime anything taxing is running. Fact is it hardly ever runs at 2.3ghz unless its completely idle. When you compare the turbo speeds its really hard to not go with the quadcore, especially considering the price difference.

Only "negatives" is that its 10w more tdp (less battery life maybe) and price

i'd vote for the quad.

I also have a dualcore i7 in my b43j notebook, and until my g75 it was my main computer (keep in mind i don't really play games).

I can tell you i notice a difference in non gaming between a dualcore 2.8ghz (3.33ghz turbo) and my new i7 3610. I"m running triple monitors (a 30 19 and a 24")

netflix, google earth and tons of windows open, the dc would strain with that workload and the new i7 never breaks a sweat at all.

 

Smart phones with quad core... Lol

 

You really aren't up to date with quad core technology

 

My first post, yay..

Looking at the reviews around internet for this intel 2 vs 4 cores, overall gaming and productivity wise i7 quad core is better. If you have to join HJsplit file above 1 gb or unrar/rar big files, you'll be more happy to see quad core in your system playing around in your day.

I got n56vz i5/gt650/786p version, well yeah.. i am happy since it's an upgrade from old dv6000 and get a nice price around $780. Unfortunately, only FHD could be available around according to local asus at $1000. If there is HD version + i7 around $850-900ish. I won't buy the current one. It is a matter source, demand, and budget

 

I know quad core for phones exist. I had other reasons to "laugh out loud". If we are still discussing dual vs quad in laptops, why are we even thinking about it in smartphones? Even the internet will tell you quad core in smartphones is... utterly useless.

 

I am not sure what you have against quad core processors. I am also not sure where you got the notion of them being useless in phones. In fact, for phones they are going to be the most useful. You can sit for several minutes on a laptop waiting for something to finish but on a phone, you are usually on the go and need things quick. With the ppi increasing and Android already taking advantage of 4 cores (among MANY other things), it is more useful to have them in phones than in laptops.

We are not discussing whether it is worth upgrading to a quad in a laptop for 100 euros. The general consensus in this thread is very obvious. There is nothing more to add to the discussion. Time and again, it has been agreed that the quad is the way to go and you have been told why. Beyond that, it is your money and your machine.

 

quad cores for mobiles are great for high end users, but the average user won't notice much difference between a dual core i5 over a quad core i7. In fact a lot of syntehetic benchamarks run similar unless it fully utilises the quad core i7.

Overall an i5 3210m is a but faster then even desktops like a qx6850 back when it was amazing 5 and a half years ago on most tasks. Now remember the i5 takes around 1/4 of the power of the qx6850 and has its own gpu as well.

 

As i mentioned above with turbo speeds, the i7 quad 3610 will never be slower than the i5 3210.

While fully stressed with 4 cores my 3610 will do 3050mhz on all cores, and 3150mhz using 2 cores. I will post screen shots of it when I get home.

also food for thought

Intel Core i7-3610QM Mobile processor - AW8063801013511

i7 3610 2300mhz
1 core 3300mhz
2 core 3100mhz
3-4 core 3100mhz

Intel Core i5-3210M Mobile processor - AW8063801032301

i5 3210 2500mhz
1 core 3100mhz
2 core 2900mhz



As you can see with the turbo modes the 3610 is faster whether its a single thread or 2 threads(even 4) it turbo's faster than the i5 does.

Just because the i7 is 200mhz "slower" factory speed doesn't make it slower in anyway, the new i series turbo's all the time within the thermal limits intel sets, and from my experience it is turbo'ing almost all the time.

I'd be willing to put money on the fact that an i5 3210 will never be faster in anything than an i7 3610 when everything else is equal.

Yes you could argue battery life becasue of the extra 10w of tdp, but other than that, 3610 far superior

 

Well to make it more fair I compared an i7 3520m dual core vs 3610qm quad core and the i7 3520m won on cinebench single score as super pi 1m and 2m and 32m. Not bad I say. 3520m must turbo better but my point is on most tasks or benmchmarks 2c 4t is enough.

 

3520m
2900mhz
1core 3600mhz
2core 3400mhz


Absolutely 2core would be "enough" but given the price difference I see no compelling reason to go with a dual core over a quad when you really don't have an negatives, and while single threaded cinebench may be faster multithreaded certainly isn't going to be. SuperPi isn't overly threaded either.

Not trying to prove you wrong or start a flame war, but i still feel a quad is the way to go if someone is purchasing a new notebook now

 

But most people don't need a quad. If you need a very fast cpu for rendering or any other cpu intensive work or you have a top end gpu like a 7970m/680m then a minimum is to get at least an i7 3610qm but mid range like a 650m/7770m gpu and you are gaming on it then something like an i5 3210m will easily work. Cpu's like core i5 dual core nowadays are fast enough to do most tasks very quickly as fast as desktop quad cores 4 years ago and even faster due to turbo boost.

Also lets not forget an i5 computer should run cooler when fully stressed so the components inside don't overheat and if you are not a technical person, it could throttle. i7 quads have very high temps normally unless you have a good cooling system. Overall an i5 3210m is the sweetspot.

 

Review Asus N56VZ-S4044V Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

This will prove my point as the 3610qm takes quite a bit more power then i5 dual cores when fully stressed most notebook manufacturers are cheap skates so the power adaptor is normally the limit. Under extreme use a 120w adaptor is not enough really with a 3610qm and 650m config. But an i5 3210m takes around 15-20w less power consumption and easily fits in wuth a 120w power adaptor. Normal test should show i5 taking less power then an i7.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Quad-Core-Processors.73624.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/In-Review-Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Dual-Core-CPUs.75342.0.html

 

Erm, my NP6110 runs fine at 90W, most games or apps don't exceed 85W power draw from the wall which equates to roughly 75-77W actual power used by the laptop.

 

bump.

10/char.

 

I know, problem is the np6110 cannot fully handle the 3610qm like on 3dmark06 yours ownly scored 4407. Yes your should take around 75w while gaming and I saw another review with i5 no throttling take similar so it seems about right.

Anyway have you managed to run the 3610qm at full power yet or is it just not possible.
Your cpu is running a lot slower then this that an i5 3210m would be nearly as fast on your w110er.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3610QM-Notebook-Processor.72681.0.html

 

Soon?

 

I can run it faster thanks to Throttlestop. It just won't boost when dedicated card is active, but Throttlestop fixes that.

 

reopening this rather interesting thread. When i read the comparisons between clock speed it is always going between maximum clock speed. But when i check on my processor use it almost never exceeds the 50%. Im running one of the first quads the q9550 and i've orded a dual core MSI. Is there any difference in speed between quad core vs dual on this low usage? The dual core might run a on higher procents but the preformance would be same (im just guessing). Would i notice any difference in stepping back to dual again?

 

There is no such thing as 'low usage' in my view - an old(er) processor running at, say... 25% cpu utilization with a certain workload will always see performance benefits from moving to a newer/newest platform even if on that new platform the cpu utilization is 12.5%.

What? Why? How can this be?

Simple: cpu utilization is dependent on how efficiently the code is written and even if it is only at 10% it doesn't mean that you're not cpu bound. Simply means that that is all the code is able to push that specific hardware platform with that specific workload.

On the other hand, a platform upgrade offers many benefits - one of which is usually increased ipc (instructions per clock cycle). The same, poorly optimized workload on the new platform will still be significantly faster - even if the cpu still isn't 'pegged' at 100% (or anywhere close to it).

Using the task manager's cpu utilization read out is like peeking into cars and looking at the speedometer to see which is the faster one - a ridiculously error-prone and assumption-ridden way that only indirectly hints at what the platform (or car) is capable of.

For example: while a modern cpu may be showing 60% or more utilization - it may be doing that at it's idle frequency - a far cry of the platform being pushed to 60% of it's maximum performance.

While on an older platform the cpu utilization may be also 60% (at the maximum cpu frequency), it may also be a fact that the NIC's, the Sound card and the HDD('s) are using up to 20% or more of it's cpu cycles. The difference to a more modern platform is that those components are not affecting the O/S as much (or at all...) and for almost all intent and purposes it is effectively 0% (vs. how much a user sees them as a 'problem' that limits their cpu's performance).

Windows 8 Task Manager shows this effectively as it not only indicates % cpu utilization - but it also shows the cpu's clock speed at that utilization percentage too.

The key point to take away here is that 50% cpu utilization is not the same work performed between to different cpu's and especially not between two different platforms.

A cpu, like almost any 'system' we can think of, needs 'headroom' to breathe and be able to get out of it's own way. With today's (internally multi-tasking and optimized) O/S's - quad cores are what gives a platform this headroom. A core or two for the O/S to take care of itself and a core or two to take care of what we demand from it. No matter what might be happening (in the background) at that specific time we place our demands on the system.

While a current dual core might (superficially) match the raw performance a 5 year old quad core is able of; it will still be limited to 'light' usage (i.e., not multitasking). When the O/S, our programs or our usage patterns change to mostly multitasking mode (whether we want it or not; this is where we're heading...), the 'new' dual core will seem decidedly aged - even compared to the much older quad core.


If you do decide to go for the dual core - you will see a gain over your current setup - not a performance gain mind you; simply a more responsive and 'snappy' system as long as your usage patterns are mostly single tasks at a time (vs. multi-tasking).


(ALSO assuming of course that you get Win8 PRO, 8GB RAM (or more!) and an SSD)...



See (PM score: 4109):
PassMark - Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz - Price performance comparison


See (PM score: 3995):
PassMark - Intel Core i5-3210M @ 2.50GHz - Price performance comparison


But if I were getting a new system today - QC is the only way to go - no matter what the Task Manager says.


(And yes, if you're like me; you will feel the difference between a dual core and a quad core if both are setup exactly the same).


As a point of reference: the lowliest QC you can get will wipe the floor with both your old desktop cpu and your current dual core option (I'm assuming it is the i5 3210m you're considering, right?).

See (PM score: 7564):
PassMark - Intel Core i7-3610QM @ 2.30GHz - Price performance comparison


While an 89% faster PM 'score' may seem overkill (comparing the dc vs. the qc) - I consider it essential in giving me and my systems the reserve power today's and future O/S's and programs need to really shine.

As the numbers tell us here; your dual core option is not quite up to being the equivalent of your almost 5 year old technology desktop.

You may be happy with that, given that all that power is easily carried in a notebook form factor.

I, on the other hand, would be heading down to the local watering hole and crying in my beer for using real money to buy current technology with 5 year old performance...

 

thanks for the info, i have indeed no experience with computers and i will be more likly to know the top speed of a car than the usage of a processor Intresting, your comparison with the headroom. This thread made me think more about quads.

Im mainly going to use my system for web browsing and officer productivity. I mostly have like 5 google crome tabs open but almost never other programs. My system is from time to time a little bit slugish but that might be due to its 1x4gb RAM config. But i need a nice system for the times that i have to use 3D CAD for my study or have to do programming and run simulations.

I've orded one with indeed mSATA ssd but not windows 8 and ill add another tray of 4gb RAM myself. It was basicly chooising between i7qm and something like 610m or 630m and a 768p screen or an i5, 650m and full HD.
I'd like to do some benchmarking and see what my system will get and compare it the quadcore system of other felow students.

I thought things like the processor only worked like a bottleneck and you had to add an ssd for a preformance boost. But reading this thread nothing seems more wrong..