i5-520 vs i5-430

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-520M Dual Core processor (2.40GHz, 3MB L2 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 2.93GHz

vs


Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-430M Dual Core processor (2.26GHz, 3MB L2 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 2.53GHz



which one? it is $100 more for the 520m is it worth $100 more.

 

The difference is ~5% more speed on two cores, ~15% on one, and the addition of AES-NI. It's up to you whether that's worth it.

 

of course the i5-520M. For me, it is worth that 100. But it depends on your economic situation.

 

I'd say no.

What system is this for?

 

I would say no as well.
Performance difference is marginal at best, I don't suppose AES instruction set processing is commonly used as well.

 

Take that $100 and put it towards something that will give noticeable performance improvements.

SSD's come to mind

 

Actually it seems 430 is faster pper this benchmark
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Intel Core i3 M 350 @ 2.27GHz 2057 165
Intel Core i5 M 430 @ 2.27GHz 2391 136
Intel Core i5 M 520 @ 2.40GHz 2215 156
Intel Core i5 M 540 @ 2.53GHz 2274 146

 

That list seems rather unreliable to me - even more so than Notebookcheck!

 

They take the average values of the reports...
And some CPU that have thermal dissipation issues will not reach peak performance dropping the reliability of the benchmarks.

 

There should be not much difference between them for the normal user...the 430 is however much cheaper, you therefore get simply more bang for the buck.

 

well depending on ur uses , both will be better in 2 cases...

if ur gaming or using CPU intensive apps , i5-520m will be better

for normal stuff like browsing , office work , i5-430 will be enough.. and generally , the $100 will be better spent on getting an SSD...which will be a super upgrade..

 

What do you mean by "better" in this case? A better purchase?
I can't see how the i5-520M is justified for gaming, not for $100.

 

with more and more games needing more CPU power(GTA IV , Metro 2033 , Shattered Horizons etc ) , it does help...

 

That doesn't change the fact that the difference between them is only 5% or so.

 

No , not worth the extra 100$

 

Which would be better for Starcraft 2, in the GX640? Would i5-430 be strong enough for actionpacked gaming on ultra settings on battle net with hundreds of stuff happening at once?

 

The i5-430 should be strong enough. If it isn't, the 520 isn't really going to do the job either, since the difference between them is quite small.

 

Get the cheaper one.

I usually try to get the latest/fastest/most efficient CPU type, and the cheapest/slowest CPU model.

A couple of hundred megahertz more have never done any difference for me.

A good display without laughable resolution (15.6" 1366 x 768) or with a better GPU (if you need it) is much more important,
and they're also much more expensive to replace, if possible at all.

 

Only reason I ask, is cuz I want the MSI GX640 (or any other 15-16incher that has greater than or equal to the GX's specs for ~$1k). Also, the only game I will ever play is SC2, and I intend to do it on all max (ultra) settings if possible.

 

i5-520: 18 watts and VT-x AND VT-d.
i5-430: 35 watts and only VT-x

The i5-520 is worth $100 more? Probably. If one can afford it.

 

The i5-430M and i5-520M are both 35 watts. Apart from VT-d, they differ in that the i5-520M has AES-NI, and slightly higher clock speeds (+133MHz difference normally, with a +400MHz difference in single-core turbo mode). Overall, I'd say the difference is worth $50, not $100, but it really depends on what you personally get out of the extra speed.

 

Oh, my mistake. I was looking at the i5-520UM.

 

Hopefully, it's not too late to post here, but I've got the same query. Except, in my case, the difference is $255 :O

I want to play games like Crysis, BFBC 2, Arkham Asylum, Borderlands, Mass Effect 2, Old Republic (upon release), as well as not run into bottlenecks anytime in the next couple years. 420M will do it? (My GPU will be a Mobility Radeon HD 5870, 4gigs 1066MHz RAM, 17" 1680 x 1050 display)

 

I'd say depends if the laptop uses socketed cpu's or not. If the cpu's are soldered then you will never ever be able to upgrade it to a faster cpu down the road when the prices crash on the core i series cpu's. If it's soldered then you should get the fastest cpu you can now cause you will be stuck with it forever.

 

I would say no. Best case scenario is that the 520M gives a 10-12% increase in performance.

 

That's just wrong. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that something other than the speed is influencing these figures. If operating at its 2.40 base speed (520M) and engaging turbo up to its maximium 2.933, there is no way the I5-430M with its base speed at 2.27 and its max turbo at 2.533 can hold a candle to the I5-520M. That is a difference of .4ghz at maximum turbo. These results either make no sense or are influenced by a badly designed test.

If you are using the CPU for business applications, the I5-520M is more the clear choice IMO. The performance curve from the I3 to the I7 is not linear, once you get to the I5-520M. There is this article that suggests certain advantages to the I5-520M CPU's and above. Notebookcheck: Review Intel Core i3/i5/i7 Processors ?Arrandale?

Excerpt:

Apart from the "HDD Test Suite", which merely checks the used hard disk's performance and is consequently almost always the same, a constant increase of the Core i3-330M up to the Core i7-620M CPU can be seen in almost all sectors. That is, with one exception: The 620M, 540M and 520M chips show an excellent rate in the "Communication Suite". To be more precise, PCMark Vantage tested coding and decoding of data, data compression, email search and audio transcoding, all of which are very CPU-biased applications. The reason could be special features in the new Arrendale CPUs that can score especially in the cited processes and which have been left out on the smaller chips (new AES instructions, Intel trusted execution technology).

For my business needs, the I5-520M would be well worth the extra $100. In fact, from a business perspective, rather than that of a gamer, there is less incentive to choose the lower powered CPU, as the minimal savings, when amortized over the life of the unit, make it clear that the small additional acquisition cost can yield significant savings over time. The increasing demands of our business have taught me to consider the highest powered options that do not destroy the portability of the notebook. You can never be too rich, too good looking or have too much power.

Bronsky

 

So looking at the processor specs I am curious if the 520 is more likely to be "soldered"

According to this link, Intel® Core? i5 Mobile Processor Family , it says they are embedded which has basically the same meaning as soldered. Still I dont understand why that processor would even be embedded standard because no one these days really wants something they cant upgrade in the future... Or am I way off my theory and embedded means something way different? I ask because its only a $50 difference but I'm liking the 450 due to this issue.

 

Your theory is off. Just because it can be embedded, doesn't mean it will or lend itself to having higher likelihood of being soldered in. AFAIK every laptop currently with standard voltage i5s (or i3s or i7s) in it, are socketed.

 

found out the build won't have a soldered CPU - were I to get it with the i5-430M, it would be removable and upgradeable whenever I choose. So, better to not drop $250 for the 520M upgrade? With the given GPU, how much will the 420M bottleneck something like GTAIV or Supreme Commander?

 

Marked for deletion.

 

First of all, PassMark seems to be primarily a multithreaded test, which means that the dual-core boost is more relevant; when running on two cores, the i5-430M can boost to 2.53GHz, while the i5-520M can boost to 2.667GHz.

I don't think PassMark is to blame for the anomalous figure, either. It's highly unlikely that a test would cause a CPU with higher clock speeds give poorer results. I'd say it would have a lot more to do with the users and the systems they used to submit those results. For example, many laptops that use the i5-520M could have had heat/powre problems which prevented the turbo boost of the i5-520M from being used, forcing the i5-520M to run at 2.4GHz. It could even be something like the i5-430M generally being present in geekier systems, with people being more willing to tweak their systems for good results. There is a multitude of factors that aren't accounted for when the results are simply gathered from a multitude of tests under different conditions - it's the same with Notebookcheck, and we all know how reliable they are.

TXT is a security feature, so I don't see how it would impact performance. I'd say that the new AES instructions are responsible for the gain. However, it's important to note that not all of the areas you marked in red would necessarily benefit.

$250 is a lot for the i5-520M upgrade - that's the price of a new 520M, and any amount you could sell your 430M for would be a big saving. Besides that, the i5-520M is still only a slight upgrade, so if you felt the need to upgrade it would have to be the i7-620M, or perhaps one of the i7 quads.

 

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Having my build with 430M is really the only way the manufacturer could get away with its low price point (about $1200) considering the other parts, which is why there is so much charge to bump up the CPU I assume. I'm not in the market to upgrade to the 620M or an i7 anytime soon, unless you foresee any significant bottlenecks with the 430M in GTAIV, BFBC2, or Starcraft 2/Supreme Commander? If a crappy port, a CPU-intensive, and two big RTS's can run fine, I see no reason to.

 

Does GTA IV really run fine? I haven't tried it on my own i5-430M, but I've heard people say otherwise. In any case, I find the CPU perfectly satisfactory, and it's not like I could really do much better - the i7-620M or i7-720QM would only be around 20% faster, and the only thing better is an i7-820QM or i7-920XM, with very high prices, and high power consumption to go with it.

Sure, I could appreciate an extra 20%, but the i5-430M has run every game I've needed it to so far, so I don't see myself upgrading unless the price is very low. I might be doing some CPU-heavy work in the next year, but if I do that, why would I do it on a laptop? I can get a desktop with almost double the CPU power of an i7-620M or i7-720QM for a lower price.

 

@lackofcheese, could you run a test with PCSX2 or Dolphin on your 430M, and share some details/results? It'd be a great help!

Thanks!

 

GTA IV runs fine for me on native resolution, all high, even with draw distance set to 32, some minor lags like in every 2-3 minutes.

The in-game benchmark showed an avarege of 31.xx FPS, on HDReady resolution.

Nowadays I’ve set draw distance back to 15, since I’m not picky at all, therefore I don’t really feel the difference, but the game runs like butter.

I don’t know how the 450M/520M/620M would do compared to my 450M though.