1080p screen vs I7 Quad Core

I can only afford one of the two, so which should I get? I can either get the 1080p screen with a dual core i5-2410 (or an AMD Quad Core A8 3530MX), or get the 1366x768 with the I7 Quad Core.

Help me decide.... =(

EDIT: And which is better? The AMD Quad Core A8 3530MX, or the i5-2410?

 

I'd get the screen

i5 is much better

 

The screen. The A8 is not as fast as the i5, but it's still plenty fast for pretty much any application.
The low res screen isn't that great on a 15incher...

 

Id say get the 1080p screen with the AMD Quad Core A8 3530MX.

You need a quad core processor, there is no reason not to have one these days.

 

is the hp 768p screen really that much worse than what's usually found in other notebooks?

 

Mixed answers lol. Seems the screen is better though. Not sure about A8-3530 vs I5-2410 though...
Probably going to play (but not limited to) some newer MMos', Starcraft 2, Skyrim when it comes, and applications a Computer engineering major would use. (such as matlab)

I'm sure the 768 screen would be fine for me. A lot of people speak horribly of it, but unless you are used to high quality screens it shouldn't really bother you if you can't afford the upgrade.

 

No, it is actually slightly better than average if you ask me. The problem is that most people on this board don't like normal resolution screens, thus why you see so many that hate it.

 

Quad core from AMD is NOT better than a dual core i5. misinformation

 

There are no reviews up for A8-3530MX so no one here can tell you for sure that the i5-2410M is better.

My guess it the A8-3530MX is better than the i5-2410M is multi-core applications including CineBench R10 (muit-core, 64-bit) but slower in single thread application and in dual-core optimized games but the HD 6620G is up to 2x faster than i5-2410M IGP which more than makes up for the CPU performance lost in games.

If you really want the 1080P screen then take a chance and go for the Llano A8-3530MX but if you want to play it safe ATM with the CPU performance then go for Intel i5-2410M.

 

If you think you'll be happy with the low res screen then go for it.
You'll get better performance with games on it anyway.

 

Actually there are reviews on it. AMD is so bad CPU-wise that a dual core from intel will outperform it.

AnandTech - The AMD Llano Notebook Review: Competing in the Mobile Market

Here a i5-2520m, which is not *that* much better than a 2410m, easily beats the llano CPUs.

AMD is bad. Really bad.

The reason you get a llano is for graphics and graphics only.

 

couldn't i just run the games at 768p on a 1080p and still have it display better?

 

@ jiggawhat

The review is based of the A8-3500M 35W CPU not the A8-3530MX 45W CPU OP is asking about, it's like says a review on the i3-330M is the same as the i3-390M or a i5-430M is the same as a i5-520M. Just off the bat without the assumptions of a fully working Turbo Core the A8-3530MX is 25% faster than the A8-3500M and if the Turbo Core works as expected on the 45W MX CPU's then we're looking at a possibility of up to 50% more CPU power that puts the A8-3530MX at just 10% slower than the i5-2520M and 15% faster than the i5-2410M.

But this is all still just speculations cause no one has the A8-3530MX DV6Z on hand and there are no reviews up online for it yet.

So as you screenie name says "Jigga What Are You Talking about"

 

No, it's not worse than other displays of that type. This is not like the Dell XPS 15 where the 1366x768 option is utter garbage. But on the other hand, the 1920x1080 screen is still better in every way (not just resolution, but also contrast, color, etc.) and it's matte which is a rarity in consumer-grade notebooks. The only downsides are the price and the fact that some text may be too small, but you can fix that by fiddling with the font settings. The thing that really gets my goat is that the 768 pixels of vertical resolution mean it is worse in that respect than any display sold for a long time before this 16:9 craze -- you'd have to go back years to find something so low.

Yes, you can -- but with the 6770M, you probably don't have to, at least not for most games.

 

Dude you're way to optimistic about Llano.. You're the guy who said that Llano (still using the old k10.5 arch, mind you) could match Clarksfield clock for clock... And the 6775g2 could match a 6950.

Take a look at some more benchmarks, I don't know where you're getting your %s from but they're just unrealistic.

edit: Definitely go for the 1080p screen. The 760-whatever res screen in my friends dv6t looks terrible... Colors are really washed out, and this is coming from a guy using a ~3 year old Dell Vostro 1310. The i5 will handle pretty much all games you throw at it. So will the A8, if that's a cheaper alternative, though the TDP is 10w higher so it'll probably run hotter.

 

We haven't seen any benchmarks of the A8-3530MX but we know, based on clock speeds, that it will be at worst 25% better than the A8-3500M

 

Actually, we can do a fairly decent qualitative comparison of the A8-3530MX and i5-2410M. Regardless of how Turbo Core works, the 3530MX will always be slower in single and dual threaded applications. Also regardless of how Turbo Core works, the 3530MX will always be faster in applications that are heavily multi-threaded (4 or more threads). Intel probably wins the scenario with exactly 3 threads (it would take 3-core Turbo fairly close to maximum Llano clock speed and I don't see that happening). In all of the other scenarios, Turbo Core just determines the margins; it doesn't change the outcome.

 

It helps if people learn to read though threads before posting. I've changed my expectation on a HD 6775G2 to around the speeds of a HD 6870M. The HD 6755G2 (HD 6750M) is already 25% better than stock with current drivers and the HD 6770M is about 15% faster than the HD 6750M.

A8-3500M 1.5Ghz to A8-3530MX 1.9Ghz is not 25%? Are you kidding me, now you can't do math too?

PS. Please learn to read and go take so school lessons on math before you give out you opinion and start bashing on someone else s opinion.

Yup, I already said that with my first post on this thread. I never said the A8-3510MX with working Turbo Core could beat a i5-2410M in single and dual-core application but if Turbo on the A8-3530MX is anything like the A8-3500M then it'll be slower than a i5-2410M in all scenarios including multi-threaded application unless the application specially prefers cores over threads.

 

I'm gonna say go with the quad core. I mean the differences between the processors aren't that great, but I felt as if the 1080 wasnt worth it.

I had noted that on other people's laptops (15 inchers mainly) that you really can't tell the difference between 1080 and 768. I mean there is a difference, but on such a small screen, it really isnt that big of a gap.

Personally, I'd go with the i7 quad. I had the same decision to make, whether or not the 150 bucks for the 1080 was worth it, and i decided that it wasnt. Good luck with your decision...

 

I'm also personally trying to decide between the DV6Z and DV6T too but in my case I'm deciding between a A8-3530MX and i5-2520M.

Both CPU's support DDR3-1600 and are pretty much comparable in multi-core application (still assuming A8-3530MX has working Turbo Core).

The i5-2520M will be faster than the A8-3530MX in single and dual-core applications but the HD 6620G will be faster than the HD 3000 for Internet Hardware Video Accelerations, video editing and games but the i5-2520M has VT-d for visualization (good for XP mode in Windows 7 Pro).

Now, I also plan on pairing the A8-3530MX with a 1GB GDDR5 unknown card (assuming HD 6750M for now) which will be faster with Dual Graphics enabled than a paired 1GB GDDR5 HD 6770M with the i5-2520M.

However, I'm still leaning towards the AMD cause I just know I will enjoy Internet surfing a lot better with HD 6620G on battery and plugged in. Plus I like what AMD did with Llano, the Dual Graphics, everything under the AMD umbrella and it's a quad-core (not i7 please don't compare).

A i7 is not even in the same league both in price and performance as the two compared CPU's mentioned above, it's not that I'm cheap (I've highly considered i7-2630M options but I just don't need the power and maybe a little cheap) but I think a i7 is paired better with a GTX 560M and beyond for what AMD says it best called "Balanced Computing". Lastly, I cannot afford the i7 + GTX 560M combination. I just know I'll want to upgrade the HD 6770M if bought with i7 later on but it's will be impossible and end buying a new laptop because so but will be hesitant cause I spent so much and the i7 CPU. In the case of a A8-3530MX with HD unknown they both will go together when upgrade is needed no problems, same goes for the i5-2520M with HD 6770M.

 

If I took the I7 with the 6770, I wouldn't be able to upgrade the graphics card later on? Not sure I understood correctly.

 

No you won't as the HD 6770M is most likely soldered on to the board unlike a HD 6870M, HD 6950M, GTX 560M, HD 6970M and upcoming GTX 580M.

So say you get a i7 with one of the above mentioned GPU's lets just say the slowest one being HD 6870M then you'll be able to upgrade to a GTX 580M later if you want to still keep the laptop for the i7 CPU.

Thus why I'm saying a i7 is best paired with a GPU that can upgraded cause you know that i7 will outlast the HD 6770M.

 

Althernai, I'd think that smooth 1080p gaming with decent settings is an unreasonable expectation for the 6770M.

I'd probably be better served with running games at 1366x768 and crank up the settings as far as the 6770M can handle comfortably.

 

Nemix, how do you have the 2520 option?

 

You certainly have a short fuse, don't you? Let me break this down for you.

My point: You are either biased or misinformed to the extent that you overrate the capabilities of Llano. (i.e read my other post)

Reasoning:
1. You said Llano could match the i7-740QM (Clarksdale) clock for clock. Taking 3 seconds to look up benchmarks would tell you are wrong. In overall performance? Maybe. Clock for clock? Never. You are misinformed or just delusional.

2. You said that the 6755G2 could be around the same power as a 6950m(same post). Comparing the specs between the two would show that you definitely wrong. Adjusting for the poor CF scaling and current dual graphics performance would show that you are ludicrously wrong. Clearly, to even post that, you must not have known what you were talking about. You are misinformed. Yeah, you changed your expectations, after someone pointed out that you were wrong. (Though curiously, you didn't get angry at him.)

3. You said "HD 6755G2 (HD 6750M) is already 25% better than stock with current". You just cherry picked the best possible scenario for the 6755G2 and ignored all the (more numerous) instances where the 6755G2 only slightly more, the same, or even significantly worse performance than the 6750m. That's like me picking out the worst scenario using that to say the 6755G2 is worse than the 6750m. You are biased.

4. You cite 25% higher clocks as evidence the A8-3530MX performs 25% better than the A8-3500M. The clock difference between the 6770m and 6750m is about 20% yet you say the performance difference is only 15%. You are misinformed about the clock speed difference or are ignoring it on purpose.

Now let me set some things straight:

1. You said "Just off the bat without the assumptions of a fully working Turbo Core the A8-3530MX is 25% faster than the A8-3500M"

Last time I checked, "without the assumptions of a fully working Turbo Core" does not mean "with absolutely no turbo core".

Yes, your reading comprehension is much better than mine will ever be.

There's only a .2ghz difference (8% difference) in clocks when turbo core is active. You're line of reasoning (comparing base clocks) is the equivalent of saying "the 3530MX is 25% faster than the 3500M... when your workload is light enough to not cause turbo." Absolutely useless when when comparing performance.

Yes, there is a 10 watt tdp difference but I'm not even going to address that because you chose to talk about base clocks for some reason. However, I will concede that it may allow the 3530MX to perform 25% better.

2. Your "if the Turbo Core works as expected on the 45W MX CPU's then we're looking at a possibility of up to 50% more CPU power that puts the A8-3530MX at just 10% slower than the i5-2520M and 15% faster than the i5-2410M." statement is just as misinformed your "I think the Llano could match i7-740QM the Llano could match clock for clock" (paraphrased) statement. All I have to say is, do some research, use some common sense.

3. I know this is really off topic, I usually would not type something this long up, but if you're going to insult somebody, prepare to be called out for it.

 

1. That's my ball park, also meaning guess not fact. Remember i7-720/720QM has 8 threads and we have not seen Turbo on a A8-3530MX yet.

2. Hah right down that line is my changed realistic (6870M/6850M) guess with future improved drivers. Reading much still???

3. I sure am cause 80% off the games that matter have proper CrossFire support and for the games that don't matter heck even a HD 6650M/GT 525M could run those games.

4. Yup that how it works when both cards are using the same design architecture 480SP same GDDR5. You try overclocking your videocard by core 20% and see if you get 20% more in games and 3DMark. You'll have to overclock the memory too by 15% or more to see the 20% gain on the core (HD 6770 and HD 6750M use the same memory miss informed by NoteBookCheck as 1600 and 900 when in fact it the same 800Mhz or 1600Mhz/2)

@ Kalookakoo

It was there yesterday, HP took it off cause someone here probably works for HP. Also, the DV6Z was cheaper yesterday too.

I had the DV6T with i5-2520M and HD 6770M 1GB (no 1GB option today), 9-Cell and 3 Years Norton for $730 yesterday.

I had the DV6Z with A8-3530MX and HD 1GB Unknown, 9-Cell and 3 Years Norton for $730 also yesterday.

 

Aw darnit. HP is so shifty sometimes. When I ordered a dv6t quad the first time, the day after I ordered, they tacked on 50 bucks and gave a "free blu-ray" player along with it.

 

Nope nothing free on the DV6Z today just $50 more. But they did add a 640GB 7200 RPM option to it today, yesterday just 5400 RPM.

Maybe tomorrow they add a backlit keyboard option...lol

Not that Norton is big deal, I can get Kaspersky for $5 a year but this does not look good for HP in my books.

Looks like they tracking our baskets and IP.

 

If they add a backlit keyboard, I'll send them their first satisfied customer letter. Lol.

 

nemix, you need to show a bit more discretion.

you're giving the 6755G2 a godly status when both it and the assumeably more powerful 6775G2 haven't been thoroughly benchmarked

 

I agree with the above statement.

Thanks for the reminder, I'll keep my mouth shut until I decide between the DV6T and DV6Z and place my order.

 

I want to place mine tomorrow so I can use it and get it set before I get into getting ready to start college. Estimated build date July 18th isn't looking forgiving.

 

Llano config is est July 11, 2011.

I think HP removed the i5-2520M cause they got the i5-2430M in stock a getting ready to put up as an option for $25 above the i5-2410M.

But it does not change the fact prices gone up, I'm really confused?

 

just attribute it to lolhp

 

lo and behold, I find a quickship model I love.

HP Pavilion dv6-6190us Notebook PC, steel gray aluminum | HP® Official Store

However, the ONLY problem I have is that it comes with a 750GB 5400rpm HD when I would have rather for a little less memory with 7200rpm. Sigh, will it make much of a difference? I can't afford an external/ssd right now.

EDIT: Wow nvm. Apparently the 30% coupon doesn't work on it. HP -_-

 

Get the i5 with 1080p. If you're not sure if you need quad core or not, then you don't need it. I am using the i5-2520m and never ONCE was CPU a bottleneck. The only bottlenecks in this system is the HDD and the GPU. You need to be doing video editing or research computing (i.e. hardcore MATLAB stuff) to fully utilize the quad. Besides, the quad will add more heat and reduce battery life.

 

Yeah I've pretty much settled on the i5-2410 (unless hp feels like putting back the 2520).

Now the aesthetic question. Dark Umber or Steel grey? Dark Umber looks nicer, just needs a wipe down once in awhile right? And apparantly it's not black,, but brownish?

 

it looks more black than brown, trust me

 

Takes an extra 10 days just for the 1080p screen.

On a random note, you guys know they have backlit keyboards on a dv6....but it's only for that one quickship model. Ridiculous...

 

Depends on the game. With games like the Mass Effect series, StarCraft2, etc. the 6770M can manage most or even all of the bells and whistles even at 1920x1080. With games like the Witcher 2 or many FPS games, you will have to make a choice. However, you have to keep in mind that the difference between 1366x768 and 1920x1080 is very obvious whereas the difference between some of these settings is difficult to see. A lot of them are well past the point of diminishing returns.

That said, if you want to play future FPS games, then yes, you will probably be forced to do so at 1600x900 or even 1366x768. The 6770M or 6775G2 are mid-high laptop solutions. They're not future proof. The reason I would advocate the 1920x1080 display is not so much for gaming as for everything else you would do with the laptop.

 

For me Starcraft 2 at ultra at 1080 is not really "playable". For an RTS you cant deal with the lag. I'd consider 20 - 30fps (which it is, at best, maxed out on 1080) not playable. Also when you get to areas of heavy army movement and battles that figure plummets down to about 10. No good for online gaming at all. I play on medium at 768 so I get consistently healthy framerates.

Anyone playing at maxed out settings at 20 -30 fps is doing themselves a disservice...might as well take it down a few notches to have fluid gameplay. At the end of the day, pretty graphics is useless if the gameplay is not fluid...and with Starcraft, if your gameplay is not fluid, you get your butt handed to you online

 

How about this - can you fully max (DX10 or 11 all high, max AA) every game at 1366 x 768?

 

I was able to play the Witcher 2 at 1080p on medium settings (SSAO disabled, motion blur disabled). The game was definitely playable, but after awhile, I decided to mess with the settings. I'm now playing at 1366 x 768 with ultra settings, everything turned on except ubersampling, and the game plays smooth as butter now and looks amazing.

Also, I've been playing the original Crysis at 1080p with high settings (a very graphics intensive game that can still hold a candle to many of the games coming out today). I do get noticeable FPS drops during heavy fighting, but the game is playable and runs well.