Opinions on dual core versus quad core CPUs on 8740w for general purpose work?

Hi,

To all those that have helped me this far, a big thank you. I am learning loads.

On CPUs I can see that Quad Core may not be the only answer on laptops instead of Dual Core CPUs.

For example

Quad Cores:

1) Run hotter which is not good on laptops.
2) Probably run the battery down more quickly
3) Only specialist software uses it to the full ie 3D. Quad core have a lower clock cycle per core(720's 1.7GHz than dual cores(ie 540M's 2.53GHz) So if only 2 cores are used then the total is less for the Quad Core or am I talking rubbish

I will be developing software in the main with some use of virtual machines to run server OS with databases and sharepoint etc. I will run Video Editing from time to time, but not all the time.

So when using the laptop for less intensive graphics work is the i5 A540M or i7 640M a better all round solution than the i7 740M.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Sam

 

well, that is a good question sam!

I use the quad core because i have a need for 3-4 VMs on occasion within my work situation, but if you only need 1-2 that should be fine. (2 cores - 4 threads / 4 cores 8 threads)

now as for temperature, a clients 8740w was about the same in temperature compared to mine, he had a i7 5xx i can't quite remember what.

the limitation on the dual core is you will only get 2 sticks of ram, HP is limiting dual core chips to 8gb as it is the 'recommended' maximum for dual core chips, even though they can take higher, i think they aren't as stable.

battery life, well from experience, there was maybe 10-15 minutes difference to be honest, both the quad and dual have good power management.

if a program doesn't use all the cores, say 1, then the core i7 will 'turbo boost' which will increase the clocks up. the 720qm i have in here sometimes goes up to 2800mhz on a thread.

at the end of the day, it's truely up to you - dual will give you slightly longer battery, and slightly punchier performance on non multicore programs.

 

There is no i7 5xx... there are only the i7-6xx, which are dual-core, and the i7-7xx, i7-8xx, and i7-9xx, which are the quad-cores. For general use, a dual-core is probably "good enough", although remember the previous notes about how a dual-core board will probably only have 2 memory slots, unless they make a mistake and give you a quad-core board with a mounted dual-core... it's happened at least once the other way (although that might have been a Dell M6500, quad-core CPU in a dual-core motherboard).

 

What are the specifications of the computer you use now, Sam? What do you think of it?

I ordered the dual-core 8740w; I simply don't stress the processor enough to need anything even close to a quad-core. The dual-core i5/i7 are able to run four threads quite well. The quad-cores are without a doubt better at processing multi-CPU apps but are not twice as fast as the dual-cores; the dual-cores have higher clocks.

 

yea my bad was a typo. it was really early when i typed that, i didn't proofread >.>

 

Hi All,

Thanks for all of the wonderful replies.

I currently use a nx8220 with 2GB RAM. It is at least 4 years old. It is still going strong, but it is struggling abit with all the S/W I use.

I also have a Micro-ATX desktop which I built myself as a fairly portable heavy duty machine (well it was in 2008!!!) It has a Q6600 Quad with 8GB RAM (Can go to 16GB). I run virtual machines on this including Virtualbox and VirtualPC as well as my video editing setup.

Due to what the 8740w can do I have suddenly awoken to transferring what I do on the Q6600 to my new 8740w especially the virtual stuff. However there will be a trade Off since all of this cost money ie > 2000 GBP for quads

I am mainly a developer using:

Visual Studio 2008 (Work)
IIS
SQL Server
Sharepoint
Workflow
VirtualBox (Windows Server 2k3, 2k8, linux)

Modelling (Work)
Visio and addins
Sparx

Video (Hobby)
Sony Vegas and others, also codec s/w such as handbrake etc.

Also Photographic editing (Hobby)

I quess I need to consider whether I can run enough of this stuff with a dual core setup rather than spending another £600ish on a quad core. I can get a "Renew" Dual Core WD938 at £1400. No Quad core renews available. So for Quads I would have to pay a full new price of around £2000 which I am struggling to justify!!!

Sam

Thanks,

Sam

 

Thanks for this great reply. I was particularly intrigued by your reply about the maximum of 8GB for dual-core due to stability problem. 8GB sticks will soon appear on market, ie Samsung, but you intimate that upgrading a dual core to 2 x 8GB would not be recommended. HP specs seem to point to a max of 16GB on all these systems. I have never heard this before?

Thanks,

Sam

 

One thought that has gone through my head is to wait for a quad core "HP Renew", at decent money, to come along if the argument for a quad core is strong enough, else go for a dual core setup now.

Deliberations, deliberations..... But thanks for helping me so much. It is important I get it right. These machines cost and I had not planned to get a 8740w to start with!!!

 

well i am only speaking from the fact one of my clients had a quad core i7 machine he downgraded to a dual core, it had 16gb ram in it 4x4gb, but it kept on hard locking alot and the machine sometimes actually only stated there was only 8gb installed!

but this was back in april, and could have been fixed.

 

I know you have a quad, but do you have views on the "Turbo" facility on these quad core processors that are supposed to kick in if not all cores used by general purpose apps or apps not written for multicore processors. For example the i7 720QM turbos up to 2.8 while the i5 540M turbos up to 3GHz. My hunch is that these are just numbers which would present no discernable difference????

 

There isn't going to be a practical difference between 2.8 and 3.06GHz on two cores.

The Q6600 was (and still is) a great processor; according to Passmark CPU benchmark, the i5 dual-cores are very close to it overall:
PassMark CPU Lookup

So if you are happy with the Q6600, you will be fine with the i5. The 8740w comes standard with the 520M, which is 2.4GHz and turbos to 2.93GHz. However, the 520M is being replaced by the 560M (2.66GHz, 3.2GHz turbo) and as a result the 560M is a $0 upgrade (which I took advantage of when I ordered mine a few days ago ).

What is your CPU usage like while you do your work? If it 70-80% for extended periods of time, which shows that you are approaching the limits of your processor, I'd probably go with a quad-core like the i7-740QM to be more future-proof.

 

Charles,

Great post and on the nail. I am happy with the Q6600, but one of the problems I have discovered with the dual core 8740W configs are that they have only 2 sodimms and not 4 . I will be buying this machine for 3-4 years as a work machine and use virtual machine etc. so upgradeability is important. Although the i5 560M would probably be fine with a max of 8GB RAM (Still seems a lot of RAM), probably I could more with a machine with a quad and upto 16GB memory. Paying in one go seems expensive, but when one writes it off over 4 years and is my main work capital item it seems a little different.... I initially built the Q6600 in a Micro-ATX pc with upto 16GB RAM, but currently with 8GB(2008) so I could lug this around as a foundation for a virtual network etc, but that was before I discovered the 8740W and I would far prefer to lug the 8740W around !!

Cheers,

Sam

 

All the more reason to go with the quad-core then, looks like you figured this one out yourself.

You could get 2x 4GB sticks now, and then maybe in a year or so you could add two more.

 

Charles, Sam,
seeing as both of you are using HP's running both 560m and 740qm, could you please both give me your subjective remarks about using both chips. I'm going insane trying to decide between the two given real world usage and the numerous heat complaints I've read about the i7's. I'm actually going for an Envy 17 mostly for web/graphic design, writing, gaming and movies. Please help me make an informed decision.
Thanks in advance.

 

I would do that . . . alas, my 8740w has not been built yet. I will be posting all kinds of stuff once it arrives.

You can check the owner's thread here for other people's 8740w impressions:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/hp-...ial-hp-elitebook-8740w-owners-lounge-new.html

 

I have a 520M(M17X) and 840QM(8740w) and honestly, don't see a huge difference in real life computing. Unless you count every minute in HD video encoding or must run all games on max, there's no real need to go for quads.
Temps difference is huge - at least 10C @ max load.

 

agreed, the 620M in here runs about 5c cooler idle compared to the i7, and is 14c cooler under max load.

just to think, i'm giving up a nice cool laptop for my 920xm shortly >.> lol

 

Thanks guys. Finally some actual info on the temperature and real world usage differences.
Lastly, what are your thoughts on future proofing? I'll be keeping this laptop as my main machine for the next 2-3years. In that light, would you still say I go with dual when quads are slowly becoming the accepted norm?
Thanks

 

well kata, i have experience in both, as at the moment i have a dual core in my 8740w instead of the stock 720QM, i swapped cpu's to answer some of sams questions.

if you want to know something specific, please ask, i have good and bad comments about the difference, but that is only because i do 3D Animation and Post production work in adobe cs5, so come render time, those extra cores count. but for everyday stuff, the dualcore is actually a bit punchier.

 

Siorah,
here's my major concerns. To begin with, I am in Africa ordering the notebook online. So in terms of warranty issues, I'm concerned about my processor frying the laptop due to the general higher temps and humidity. So i5 looks better in that regard.

Secondly my research shows that in real world everyday tasks, I won't be able to notice any difference in performance between the two. But in about a year or so as new software becomes more quad optimized, i will. So for future proofing, the i7 looks better.

I'm a web & graphic designerr.I stopped doing animation and video so the quads don't really matter to me in that respect. However, I'm an avid gamer. So once again the i5 wins.

Given what i've shared, which would in your opinion and experience, serve me the best for the next 2-3years. Please give me as many of your good and bad comments on both.

Thanks

 

well. the easiest way would be to see if you can get a custom build with a quad motherboard but with an I5 chip in it. someone i know has done that (it was about $400 more, but it's somewhat future proof, he enjoys the cooler I5 with the quad core heatsink.)

The good things about the Dual core, is with the slightly overall higher clocks, the system is somewhat punchier, like adobe illustrator and flash run a lot nicer than with the 720qm. temps are as above, even if i max them out, (bear in mind i have the QUAD CORE heatsink) it doesn't top 73c in a 26c room.

generally, the machine runs in fan off mode when i'm just doing web browsing or coding, or in some cases, building things in 3ds max. which also reduces the dust into the system, with the 720qm, the fan was on a lot more often. so this is a bonus if you run it in a dusty area.

my 620m seemed to be happy with all 16GB in the machine that i have, even though a lot of people have issues with more than 8gb. i've not had a sniff of a lockup or bluescreen or anything running with the max ram.

my SSD is a touch slower - this is one of the bad things about the dual core - it does seem to downclock the chipset a touch. my ram also is running at 1066 instead of 1333. overall the system loses maybe 2-5%, but it gains 12% roughly in performance in general stuff.

For Gaming - i play mainly Everquest 2, which with the 2800M i can play at highest settings and enjoy a ~30FPS experience. so that is quite impressive, as the quad gave me around 22-25FPS.

other games are a bit better too with the dual core, mainly due to the higher frequency of it.

Photoshop 64Bit is multicore from what i've seen, but again seems slightly better on the dual core.

the only downside for me - which isn't for you of course, is the heavy rendering stuff. but i would ask HP if you could get a quad core mobo with an i5.

For increased cooling, use the quad core cooling heatsink, it's just nicer - and will save you more than a few degrees.

hope this helps mate.

 

Fantastic,
this helps alot. I'm especially stoked cause your i7 620m compares almost exactly with the i5-580m i'm looking at. Your point about the fans in the i5 running less often than in quads and the issues with dust is extremely valid. Dust is a big deal around here.

What you haven't talked about tho, is your opinions on whether the i5 will be able to continue to perform excellently with newer software in the next year? I know gaming will be fine cause I saw a review that showed after you go duo in gaming the returns aren't that much in getting a quad or hex core. What do you have to say about the future proof aspect of these chips?

 

well, although many places have it on the cards, remember - most places still haven't even got *64bit* versions of software.

So for it to suddenly be completely quad core capable, unless you're doing rendering or animation, your chip will be more than capable - and by the time you *are* ready to switch to quad, 18+ months, i feel the quads will be cheaper too.

the I5 and the dual core I7's will be fine for some time, the new intel architecture isn't going to be changing the way programs are made lol, it's an upgrade of things internally. i doubt there will be an issue for our processors any time soon. especially from companies like adobe/autodesk/microsoft etc.

 

You won't notice a difference even if you got the lowest CPU they offer. If that CPU isn't sufficient, then 99% chance that the i7-640M won't be able to either. That being said, even the lowest i series CPU will be able to handle pretty much every software.

 

ok to help those who are still deciding on this topic, i did a bit of 'application' benching last night. I had already done some with the 720qm, in prep for my 920xm which is coming, but i've done the same things with the 620m.

Bear in mind, i have the quad core cooler, its available for about $35/£27 from the parts store, or cheaper if you find a reseller.

the following is a REAL WORLD comparison, things i've personally seen/tested.

Code:

620M							720QM
====							=====

Temperatures:

Fan Off							Fan Off
Idle: 44C						Idle: 48c

HWINFO Forced On					HWINFO FORCED ON
Idle: 35C						Idle: 40C

Max Load						Max Load:
73C							85C

HWINFO32 Forced						HWINFO32 Forced
69C							79C

Browsing / typing Temp					Browsing / Idle Temp
46C							49C

(this is with fan off)

Computing Time:

Opening Laptop Forums Webpage

0.88sec							0.93sec

Office Bench for word 2007

1.2sec							1.5sec

Converting a Targa to JPEG (Photoshop 32)
2.54sec							3.01sec

(this software isn't that multicore, only used 2 cores of the 720)

Converting a 2000x2000 Bmp into a vector in illustrator
19.2sec							22.4sec	

Opening VS2008
3.4sec							3.9sec

Converting a CD to MP3 in media Player
9 minutes 9 seconds					10 minutes 12 seconds

===========================================================
For non Multicore applications, as shown above, you can see the performance
of the dual core in comparison.

The multicore Applications follow.

3DS MAx 2011 Test Render:

2 minutes 11 seconds					47 seconds

After Effects CS5 Test output render (multicore)

11 minutes 23 seconds					6 minutes 55 seconds

Premiere Pro Export to MOV test file.

4 minutes 28 seconds					1 minute 59 seconds

Converting a targa to Jpg (Photoshop 64) (multicore)
1.92sec							0.74sec

I hope this gives some insight for you guys, as i'm taking out the dual core soon, so will be losing the ability to run tests like this, but i still like the dual core!

For general everyday things, the dual with it's higher clocks does have the advantage. and it is cooler. bear in mind the 520/540 will be a touch cooler than the 620M - i found out its a touch warmer due to the GPU embedded, even though it's not being used. so yea, rough real world things for you.

Room was 25.74C i was testing her in, no cooler, wooden desk.

So i hope that helps in making the decision!

 

Thanks for your very informative post. I am in the process of picking up a new laptop and cannot decide if I should try the i7-640m of stick with the i7-740m, but your observation has shed a lot of light on some of the concerns I have regarding speed. Looking at your results I observe that in non multi-core applications the I7-720m is just slightly behind the higher clocked dual core, but in multi-core applications the i7-720m smokes the i7-620m, it is as much as three time faster. If battery life is not a concern (which it is for me) I would recommend the quad-core over the dual-core even if you are not currently using multi-core applications.

 

if anyone wants anything else done while i have the 620M in this machine please let me know today - my 920XM has arrived, and i will be swapping them tomorrow.

So ask away!

 

Hi,

Been away and reflecting ! Great posts though.

My budget is restricted and the retail price difference between dual and quad models seem to be about £1000 with the WUXGA panel which is a lot. So this conversation is really useful. Is one getting £1Ks worth of difference I ask myself? I am not convinced, especially for general use. Also one can upgrade to a quad with a new quad heat sink which I guess will not cost anywhere near £1K.

The biggest gotcha is the memory restriction on the dual mobo IMHO. By going for the dual I am restricted to 2 slots so 8GB(4GB+4GB). This may well be enough although in theory 8GB sticks might come down in price significantly .... however I am not planning on this or holding my breath!. So for me the decision is really about do I want to pay the extra £1K ish for a 16GB mobo. My price difference would actually be more since I can get hold of WD938s as part of the HP Renew scheme (Silver quality, but maybe Gold, "As New"). I will also buy the HP 3yr next business day onsite repair warranty. However by going down this route I cannot get a Quad Mobo with a dual. Actually Quad Mobo are very rare in the "Renew" market. So it comes down to budget and what you actually need as opposed to what you would like... well it does for me at any rate

Thanks to all for being wonderfully helpful and good luck to all who are making decisions,

Sam

CORRECTION: It seems that the panel is the main cause of price difference. ie WSXGA £1500ish, WUXGA £2500ish, WUXGA DreamColor £3300ish

 

to the OP since you are doing virtual machines and video editing i strongly suggest you get a quad i7.
like you said the quad option for the hp offers you more ram slots and siorah's excellent comparison tells you how much more efficient a quad is doing things video.
you seem to be also worried about future proofing and with that in mind a quad would be the better choice too. like i mentioned in some previous threads, even everyday programs like browsers are moving into 64bit and multithreaded processing. in a year or less from now, we could see many multithreaded applications and games. the question of dual vs quad core could be a moot point by the same time next year. think about it

edit:
since the difference is so big between the dual and the quad, have you considered other brands that can give you a better price difference with a quad(pm55) chipset (and allow you to upgrade in the future)?
im thinking with the release of sandy bridge early next year, prices of oem clarksfields will drop significantly. also, es i7 cpus can be found in the cheap on ebay, or you could get good 2nd hand oem i7's in nbr's own marketplace.

 

@trvelbug,

Thanks for your post. Really appreciated. What other brands are you talking about? I was looking at a clevo, but went off the idea since I could not get an anti glare screen, and thus arrived at the 8740w. Also the 8740w would look good on a customer site.

I fully understand your view. I just need to work out whether I wait for a good priced "HP Renew" Quad comes up or go for a "HP Renew, As New" WD938EA (£1300) which is a good price and well different from £2k. It is case of you pay for what you get I guess.

Cheers,

Sam

 

yeah i was gonna suggest a sager/clevo but i think you really want an ips screen, and in that case your options might be limited to this model. if you want an nice rgb screen you could look into a dell but i dont know what odel no though.

 

Just had another thought on this dual versus quad debate. Duals can run faster on turbo and in many cases one only gets an advantage from quads when one is using demanding applications that have been coded to make using of quads like 3D S/W.

However there is another aspect to this which I have missed and that is how windows 7 can use Quads much better to allocate work. Thus if, like me, you are a developer that has multiple applications going then it is logical that a Win7/Quad setup will be more robust and productive since each application could run from a different core which Win7 manages for you automatically.

For example:

Core 1 : Visual Studio
Core 2 : IIS
Core 3 : SQL Server
Core 4 : Photoshop.

Each of these apps may not be Quad Optimised as far as code is concerned, but the overall experience is much better due to the much improved Win7 use of 4 cores in the Quad CPU.

Am I correct ?

If so then this is highly beneficial for me.

Thanks in advance.

 

Thanks for the reply.

I guess what I am asking is that if I have 4 significant foreground apps/processes( Visual Studio, SQL Server Manager, Photoshop etc) or background apps/processes (antivirus scan, Sql Server Engine etc.) then would these all run more quickly and efficiently on a quad core rather than a dual core. Conceptually a dual core would force more queuing so in theory the experience might be slower when you have a number of applications running.

Yes I appreciate that if the app is loaded, but not doing anything then it will not load the CPU.

Thanks,

Sam

 

If the programs are all CPU-bound, and won't depend much on other I/O like disk access, then I would say probably yes, assuming that the dual isn't clocked significantly higher than the quad. I think in practice, if you're going for a high-end dual like a i7-620M or an i7-640M compared to a lower-end quad like the i7-720QM or i7-740QM, the difference will probably be fairly negligible. This would become even more obvious if the applications become I/O bound (anti-virus scan and SQL server accessing database), as everything would slow down to the limits of your disk access at that point. I guess the point really is that it becomes really dependent on the limits of the exact programs you're using. To use a really bad analogy, it's kind of like asking if 2 faster trucks will complete 4 jobs faster than 4 slower trucks; it really depends on exactly what the jobs entail, how they're loaded, etc, etc.

 

@judicator,

Thanks.

I can see where you are coming from. Another analogy is a 2 lane 70mph dual carriage way versus a speed limited 50mph 4 lane motorway/express way. The dual carriageway make get clogged, so one can only go at 30mph anyway, whereas one can overtake on the motorway. However although interesting it may be slightly academic. I ended going for WD741EA, mainly because it has the quad 4 slot RAM motherboard. It has by default the slower 740QM Quad, but I could swap this out at a later date.

If HP has provide 4 RAM slots for both dual and quad configs, then my decision might have been more difficult and I might have been tempted to a dual to save a little money. However in the end I am awaiting the arrival of the WD941EA which will be a future proof machine for me for the next 4 years. In the end I save my money by using the "HP Renew" scheme.

Sam