[Question] Is there no 32nm/Arrandale options for the upcoming W510?

Hi all,

I am new here. As many of the members here, I am keenly looking at the upcoming T510/W510. But I have a problem figuring out what kind of CPU I will want.

I'd like to take advantage of the new Calpella platform. With that, a reasonably powered Quad core process with switchable graphics is great. But I don't know if such thing exists; I am all but confused by the naming schemes Intel opt to use this time around. I've been digging through quite some posts but still cannot have a solid idea.

1. Are all quad cores i7?
2. Is there any i7 chip using the Calpella platform?
3. Are all i7 or quad cores 45nm (meaning I can't have a quad core 32nm processor?)

Sorry for the newbie question. I'd greatly appreciate your help. Thank you!

Campion

 

Intel seriously messed up their naming scheme; some dual-core mobile processors also fall under the i7 brand.

The Calpella platform does not (or not yet) have a quad-core processor. In fact, I think there are currently no 32nm quad-core processors.

 

welcome,

intels naming scheme really sucks.

1. no. say the naming is i7-xxxyy, then only those cpus where xxx is >= 700 are quad cores.
2. i'm not sure.
3. not all i7s are quad cores as mentioned above. however i think until now only the arrandale cpus with integrated gpu are ade in 32nm process yet.

 

Thank you for your quick replies. This is an amazing community.

May I ask for some opinions about what I should shoot for (I understand this is a lot I am asking - I'd really appreciate your help!):

1. Should I look for a quad core processor or just take a dual core one for the sake of Calpella?

2. How does the Arrandale 32nm chips compare to the 45nm quad core on average in general? (i.e. in terms of speed, stability, heat, multitask etc.? Not sure what aspects I need to watch out for)

3. Are the quad cares gonna be significantly hotter and much more battery draining than the upcoming Arrandale/Calpella?


As a background info of what I'd use my computer in...
I am basically looking for a strong multitasking capability with good speed. In normal operation I would have a lot of browser tabs (~15) opened at the same time, Outlook running constantly in the background, utilities programs like Evernote, iTune, PersonalBrain always opened. I edit some photos and videos very occasionally, but it'd be good to have an option.

My current setup is a ~4.5 year old t43p with 1.86GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, 60GB 7200rpm HDD. This is basically too slow for what I need nowadays.

 

1) But reverse is not true. Not all mobile Core i7 are exclusively quad core, post CES.

2) I think the current mobile Core i7 quad/chipset can "become" Calpella with the inclusion a 6000 series wireless card, assuming they stay consistant with the branding patterns previously done. The wireless card series coming up is new, so that is why likely lack of Calpella offerings up to now. In the past, Intel would reserve the notion of a new Centrino until the mainstream offerings came out, yet released high end models first to milk niche demand for it (e.g. you). The same seems to be the case. However, I've heard Intel isn't going to place the same emphasis on "Centrino" for the generation coming up. Also Calpella is mostly a codename, so unless you're looking for a particular feature, I wouldn't place a high importance on that alone.

3) No. all Core i7 45nm are Quad. All Core i7 32nm are dual. At least for what's coming out this month.

 

I believe this will be of help:
List of released Arrandale CPUs

 

1) Based on your usage and assuming it doesn't change significantly, the Quad would actually be an overkill.
2) Wel you're comparing 2x vs. 4x cores, so for applications that leverage multi-threading, roughly two-fold increase.
3) Yes. The CPU portion of the Arrandale is supposedly 25W TDP, while the Quad Core i7 is 45W TDP. Plus you'll almost certainly get a discrete graphics option-only with Quad core, so that will consume even more power and generate more heat. With Arrandale, at least you get the option for hybrid graphics to use the integrated while on battery. The graphics chip is on the same die as the Arrandale CPU.

Basically, unless you have a particular need for Quad core on a laptop (ie your job requires the higher power, or you do a lot of tasks that require it, yet you need the mobility, too), you don't need the extra power. With the Quad, you lose flexibility as the laptop has to be larger, heavier, yet with lower battery life and portability. Based on what you said you use it for, you're far from it. If you don't game on computers, that further points to quad core as an overkill.

I own a comparable Dell as your current laptop. I can pretty much say it's faster than my Netbook, which really isn't hard to do. But that's about it (yeah it's slowwww....) I'd be surprised if your T43p still runs without it's quirks--though the Dell Latitude D-series of the similiar generation weren't nearly as durable.

 

Thank you all for these good information.

Now I need to debate with myself if Quad is really an overkill (and thus I should move down to dual core Arrandale with better battery life, mobility and flexibility). These considerations pop up:

1. I'd like my laptop to last up to at least 4+ years down the road (that's why I am still using my T43p). So an overkill now (as long as it's not TOO SERIOUS an overkill) may not be an overkill then?

2. I do indeed game a bit. It's not any very new fancy game, although I don't know how much their graphic demands are. I am lazy at updating games, so what I am playing now is still the C&C Red Alert 3, the old Age of Empire III, The Sims series etc .... and those strategy game

3. I sometimes do image processing with MATLAB. It's just one single application and I build my own code. Processing a stack of grayscale frames extracted from ~30 mins of videos at 30 fps. Typical processing time in my machine now takes ~10 hours (on the t43p). Surely I don't want to invest ~$700 just to get my application in this single occasion faster, but I don't know how much a quad and dual would impact this.

4. I'd like watch high def movies on my laptop too. I do appreciate a decent discrete switchable graphics that would be good down the road.

~~-> May I know if quad core (or even W510, compared to T510) is an overkill to the opinions of you all?

@hceuterpe: I am surprised at how long this T43p can hold too. I am even using Win 7 on it. It's however too slow for good and a bit annoying (maybe I am impatient)

 

Those games really wouldn't tax your system that much as they are simulator games and that they are quite old. If it were me and I played games, a hybrid graphics option would most likely suit this fine in a dual core system.

Ok, using MATLAB and video processsing is not the same as what you posted below!! I haven't personally used MATLAB, but from what I know about I'm almost certain processor intensive tasks would be multi-threaded so a quad core would help here. I guess it really depends the % of usage of this app and if you foresee continued usage of it. It sounds like you use this for either class or work, yes? If you're in school now using it, and foresee using it in a professional surrounding; unless you are going to be working for yourself, your employer would likely provide you with the hardware. If you don't see yourself using it outside of an academia surrounding, it may not matter if your laptop has to have the horse power to run it now, if you don't use it in a couple of years...

The only advantage a quad-core machine would be you, discrete graphics or integrated, would be to keep you warmer if you were playing your videos out in the cold An arrandale even with integrated graphics is more than enough for watching HD video, assuming you run Vista/Win 7. It would in fact be better because you'd be able to run your system longer while being portable...

 

Thanks a lot for your opinions.

Yes, I use MATLAB in research in my graduate work. I do have access to a high power parallel computing grid to do the programming. But I always prefer to have the option of running and monitoring everything local, as I need to see the processing result from individual frames from time to time. But it's not a lot of usage so it's not a major factor. MATLAB has a nice built-in function in that it'll automatically source for the local available threads in the CPU, so it's easy to make the code multi-threaded. I suppose moving the dual-core with HT will already be a marked leap of improvement over my current one, right?

Indeed, my main considerations lie with everything else I mentioned above (other than the MATLAB stuff). If an Arrandale suffices, I would love to reap from its power efficiency. Then do I really need a W510 then? Do we know the main difference between W510 & T510 other than the CPU yet?

 

The biggest difference for multimedia workstation users is that the W models will finally have better screen quality options than the T line. More specs can be found here. I haven't seen specs specifically for the T510 yet, but it looks like Lenovo is significantly differentiating the W line from the T line for the first time...

Brett

 

Really?! So this time W is very different from T. If I understand it right, W is very much like a slightly portable desktop?

Other things aside, I see the Tx10 only has SSD up to 128GB. Will it ever be possible to get a 256GB even the default doesn't offer it?