i7 620M vs. 720QM

This is also the problem in UK and europe and even in Asia like Singapore... my laptop was super overpriced... found out only now when i talked with some ppl who bought it in America....

 

But I think the memory will be downclocked to the highest freq that CPU supports. You can put higher freq memory, but it will be downclocked. Right?

That's old, from 2007. I'm sure there are more programs on that list now.

Nice math, but I'm not sure if this can be applied just like that.

 

Actually Singapore is not that expensive. It's just that you won't find gaming laptops easily. At least not in main Singapore IT malls, Funan and Sim Lim. But Europe and especially France and Scandinavian countries are pricey. Basically you can say that xy$ is in Europe xy€.

 

ya that's my problem... that's why i'm stuck with Dv5t ... best i could find... i didn't even know there was a brand called MSI or ASUS untill i came to this forum otherwise i would have looked for their laptops in Sim lim and funan... Sian sia as they say in singapore.

 

New benchmarks, didn't want to open new thread.

Notebookcheck

A quick comparison can be done

i7 620M
i7 720QM

Here are the differences

Cinebench R10: - Single Rendering
620M - 3346
720QM - 2952-3757

Cinebench R10: - Multiple CPU Rendering
620M - 7002
720QM - 7791-10398

Super Pi 1M
620M - 13
720QM - 15-19

Super Pi 2M
620M - 33
720QM - 35-37

Super Pi 32M
620M - 799
720QM - 839-857

3DMark 2006 CPU (1280x1024)
620M - 2994
720QM - 2934-3284

wPrime: - 32m
620M - 16
720QM - 15.26-16.58

With all this, 620M jumped above 720QM in the Notebookcheck CPU Benchmark List

 

That site seems to think the 720qm gets 29seconds for WPrime 32m, when really it gets 15seconds.

 

But I didn't mention that, I believe that's an error.

 

i dnt know why they rated the 620m higher but the 720qm seems to beat it in all tests except superpi
also the l2/l3 cash of the 720qm should make a difference.
another reason i opted for the 720qm is so i could swap it for a 920 or something better down the road.
but as of now its performing extremely well in my multithreaded games, editing software, and bd playback sw.
it seems to have sped ur chrome too, which is multithreaded.

 

That's what I was thinking. If looking objectively, quad wins in most of the tests. They should have benched more. I would like to see some temps as well.

 

here you go. thats was after gaming for an hour or so.
game was nba 2k10 with every thing on highest. ambient temp of 29celcius.
in eu or usa , your cpu/gpu temps should be 10celcius less, more or less.

 

Thanks. Now I'll wait for some 620M temps.

 

the 620 temps will be lower for sure consireing its 35w tdp and 32nm.
but those temps i showed you arent bad considering it so warm here.

just be aware that if you choose an i5 you will probably not be able to move up to an i7 with the same motherboard without a bios update which could be unlikely for notebooks

 

I heard that the first generation 32nm aren't as effective at lowering power consumption as they ought to be due to leaky transistors. Anyone have any insight on that?

 

I configured my m17x refresh with an i7 620m, I would assume I could upgrade it later to an i7 920xm.

 

could you ask guys in the aw forum if this is indeed possible just by plugging in the 920xm.
i think a lot of people would be v interested to find out.

 

There is no application to overclock the i7 720QM or i7 820QM for the moment ?

 

I'm in between i7 dual and quad, as the title says.

As the reseller already has the option to choose between the two, guess the support is already there...

 

yes that would seem possible, best to be sure though. maybe you could ask the reseller.
do post your findings , im interested to find out.

cheers

 

Check that they use the same chipset in both cases, one could be the HM55 and the other the PM55, and in that case, I dont think it can be done.

 

No one has the m17x refresh yet, the earliest delivery date I've seen is 2/3 but it has options for i5 520m, i5 540m, i7 620m, i7 720qm, i7 820qm, and i7 920xm. It only lists the possiblity of PM55 chipset, it supports crossfire ATI 4870s which the HM55 doesnt support crossfire. What people believe is going to happen is that you will not be able to use the integrated switchable graphics on the PM55 chipset.

 

Supposedly the PM55 does not support the IGP, but I cant tell just yet...it is a matter of waiting.

Seems like Arrandale came with more problems than solutions honestly.

 

It's Clevo 860CU, so there is no need to check with the reseller as the chipset for sure is PM55, just don't know if the motherboard will be able to use IGP or just Arrandales without the IGP. For that maybe just a BIOS update is needed.

 

<thread>720 for gaming </thread>

the PM55 per intel say you can't use it

 

So Arrandale on PM55 is not using IGP?

 

If you check Intel ARK and compare PM55 and HM57/QM57, PM55 doesn't support integrated graphics.

 

It's not due to leaky transistors, but because it was released much earlier than schedule. Due to Auburndale/Havendale's cancellation, the 32nm parts had to be forwarded significantly earlier. The optimizations that might have usually gone to the 32nm parts, might not have occured.

Arrandale/Clarkdale is a bit of a hasty release product that was resulted from significant timeframe differences from the enthusiast parts, and the cancellation of the 45nm predecessors.

Everything seems to indicate that it was released a bit too fast. From the higher-than expected memory controller to power consumption. The refresh in Q2 might be better off though.

 

And in the point of view of battery?

What is the best autonomy when the processor alternate between high and low CPU usage.
Does the base 2.66Ghz of the 620M decrease the autonomy compared to the 1.6Ghz of the 720QM when on few CPU usage? What could be wattage in such a situation?

 

i7-620 > 720 for nearly anything

 

Too bad PM55 can't handle IGP, maybe I'll wait a bit.

 

Thank you for the answer.
But that is a little short as an answer for me.

I thought base frequency was also the frequency at idle.

I understand more the i7 720QM. It is 12x133=1600 for the base frequency (when 4 cores works, the minimal frequency when all cores work) but 7x133=933 at idle (if additional throttle state are disabled - default but can be change - details here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5571515&postcount=1). But I don't know to how much then decrease the CPU wattage.

I thought the turbo boost widget of intel were a good indicator for the CPU frequency. But it is not it gives 1600Mhz at idle for the i7 720QM although the multiplier is only 7 and not 12.

For the i7 620M. It is 20x133=2666 for the base frequency (the minimal frequency when all cores work). How much at idle? And Wattage?

 

The thing is, at idle, there really isn't a point to compare frequency as the performance difference would be negligible (CPU not being stressed). Power consumption is measured in several reviews with the i5 dual core < i7 dual core < i7 quad core in idle and load.

 

Are those review for mobile or desktop.
I found some figures for the i7 620M at idle:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Core-i3-i5-i7-Processors-Arrandale.25085.0.html

I can't find some figures with similar configuration for i7 720QM. Best would be to have the two in the same review to compare.

Sometimes I'm not good to google some information.

 

I was able to find more benchmarks either. So far, in this post is all I've found.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5764463&postcount=55

 

Did you see that thread ?

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5804717

 

Yes I did infact. Thanks anyway.

 

If i had the choice of the 620m or the 720QM where money is not a problem and want to play the latest games such as bioshock 2 and mass affect 2 and future games later this year.

 

If money is not an issue then go for either of the faster Quads...the 820QM or 920XM.

The whole debate between 620M vs. 720QM is because they usually cost the same in notebooks that use either, and people want to know which is the better CPU at that price point.

 

i want to know which is better to run the mass affect 2 and bioshock 2 and future games in the next 2 years.

i cant have the 820 it has to be between the 620m or the 720QM

 

I wouldn't even waste my money on upgrading to the 620M, and stick with the 520M or 540M. But if you had to choose only between those models, I'd stick with the 620M.

 

If you're playing "regular" games, the 620M will probably be better. If you play more of the really big RTS games, then the 720QM might pull ahead, due to all the CPU power required for the unit AIs.

 

So are there any real results? I am planning on buying an m17x and I also have the same question... and like 3d mark, FPS.

And is it worth to upgrade to like an extreme processor ?

 

for 620, idle is 26W, full load 64.7W, more than 720.

 

http://www.notebookcheck.com/Intel-Core-i7-720QM-Notebook-Prozessor.22734.0.html
Cinebench R10 im Vergleich
Intel Atom Z520 (min)
706
...
Intel Core 2 Duo T9900
6886
Intel Core i5 540M
7043
Intel Core 2 Extreme X9100
7299
Intel Core i7 620M
7530
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000
8202
Intel Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q6600
8800
Intel Core i7 720QM
9326
...
Intel Core i7 (Desktop) 975 (max)
19189

 

Without seeing both the 620M and the 720QM tested with the same methodology, I wouldn't be so sure. Besides that, min/max power figures aren't particularly representative of how the CPU behaves with typical usage.

The IGP probably hurts Arrandale's power usage a little, but I still doubt that the 620M would use more power than the 720QM much of the time.

 

i doubt there is any typical usage in generic sense, too many scenarios...

 

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that min/max figures don't tell you very much. In any case, if the i7-620M is significantly more power-hungry than the i5-520M or 540M I'd personally just go for one of those.

Besides, the OP doesn't care about power consumption.

 

well then thx Vostro... I see there isn't much logic in buying a extreme processor for the difference of 550 pts, whereas the 620m and 720qm having the same 3dmark score and the 720qm edging the 620 by about 1000pts in cinebench (also just the fact of having 4 cores in a laptop ) i would definitely go for the 720qm

 

For the minimal performance difference, the 32nm process and IGP of the 620M would be preferable. But as above, going down to the 540M or 520M would be even better, given the pricing difference.

 

Congratulations! You have just replaced "MHz is good" mentality for another single-minded one, "Cores are good".

More cores are good, but when the comparison is against a CPU that is clocked 1333MHzhigher, that's quite unfavorable.

Most people say the Turbo Mode for 720QM and 620M are like this:

720QM:
1.73GHz-4 cores
2.4GHz-2 cores
2.8GHz-1 core

620M
2.66GHz-2 cores
3.33GHz-1 core

when in reality, its

620M
3.06GHz-2 cores

Let's go back to Cinebench comparison which are flawed.

Cinebench 64-bit runs about 15% faster than 32-bit version of Cinebench. In fact if you go back and find Shirleyfu's benches you'll see that the 620M edges out 720QM in Cinebench slightly.

For power consumption: lackofcheese mentioned it well in his post. The Notebookcheck review tested the entire laptop, not individual CPU, so comparing your own laptop and saying its lower power is not comparable.

And considering how the 620M with mere 10% faster clock contributed to 15% increase in system power with exact TDP figures, one must wonder how reliable Notebookcheck is.

Usually, the higher end CPUs are binned better so its safe to say 620M=540M in power usage.

Truth is, you can never look at one metric of performance, whether its frequency, cache, or even cores. One must look at everything for final performance. Most people are simpletons in that way, so they focus entirely on one metric.

There are people that defend 720QM quite a bit, but I think most of those people own quad cores, or even the 720QM itself. Sorry to say this, but 720QM is obsolete. Don't say we didn't warn you when we told you to get 820QM instead.

 

my apps contain 21-40 real-time data streaming threads and need as much hyperthreading as possible, 620 is simply not a good choice here. if 720 is not up to the tasks, i can upgrade to 920 later, but 820 is clearly not an option for only about 10% advantage over 720.