Question about C2D, i3 and i5 Processors

Hi...

I was checking out some of the T series available in India on the Lenovo India website, and I came across something that puzzled me. Hope you can clarify the matter.

Take a look here.

This has a i5-520M Processor. Look at the GHz and MHz numbers - they are 2.4 and 1066 respectively.

My current machine has a P8600, which also displays the exact same numbers - 2.4 GHz and 1066 MHz.

But the i5 is more recent than the P8600. So, how are the numbers the same?

And, if you look here, you will find a i3-based machine with lower Ghz and MHz numbers.

Also, what is the significance of the GHz and the MHz numbers?

Thanks

Edit: I hope this is not an inappropriate place to post these questions! If yes, mods, please advise. Thanks.

 

You have remember about turbo boost and hyper threading with the i5. The i5 can get up to 2.93 GHz with one core and 133Mhz more(In short bursts). I have T8300 and the i5-520 was twice as fast while encoding.

 

lineS of flight,

I noticed the same thing, I also have the P8600 in my T. It seems Intel likes to make it as confusing as possible to the consumer. There are i5's that rate less than i3's. Maybe this list will help.

PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

drake

 

Thanks! That's an amazing list and damn confusing too! That's a huge family of processors!!!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the i3's that were faster than i5's(M) were desktop processors.

 

This might be little bit less confusing:

Mobile Processors - Benchmarklist - Notebookcheck

 

clock speed is not the best determinants of CPU speed. No one really uses clock speed as the clear indicator of processing power after the demise of Pentium 4 Netburst architecture.

Hence why Intel uses the i3, i5, i7 moniker instead of quoting clock speed.

i5-520m is about the same speed as the T9900 Core 2 Duo cpu.

 

If clock speed is not the best of determinants of CPU speed, then why do they mention it when listing out the specs of machines like in the links I put up in the first post?

Would you say that the i3 and the P8600 are about the same speed/ capability? And, should the clock speed mentioned in specs of machines figure at all in purchasing decisions?

What I find strange is that if - as you suggest - the T9900 (C2D) is roughly equal to the i5-520M, then why introduce the i series of chips and why not stick with the T series?

 

Clock speed does matter when the processors use the same architecture, are made by the same manufacturer, are part of the same generation, and have the same number of cores. Basically, the performance can be compared between current dual core i3, i5, and i7 processors with clock speed accurately for the most part.

Because that's how technology is. If companies thought that way, we'd either still be using the same tech from 20+ years ago or prices would increase. The i5-520M (a midrange CPU) is less expensive and more energy a efficient than the T9900 (which was a high-end CPU in it's time), but offers the same performance. Meanwhile, Intel's current high-end dual cores (the i7-620M/640M) beat all other (mobile) dual cores on the market, past and present, but they are expensive. I know I'm not being all that clear, but it's hard to explain.

 

Because there are range of intel customers with different level of computer knowledge or literacy. Some people still uses Pentium 4 equipped computer or still have the higher mhz/ghz is better mentality, so Intel provide these information to better cater to these people's need and profiter from their lack of understanding. If everyone is super-computer literate then they wouldn't have to use new marketing slogans and i3, i5, i7 monikers.

i3 CPU is about the same speed as the T9400 in processing power from memory, there are obvious improvements to the CPU architecture like the Hyperthreading function, etc. Also the GPU/Northbridge is integrated onto the CPU packaging, so this decreases the cost for laptop manufacturers and for Intel. Also, like Apple, Intel practices a marketing/industrial design technique called planned obsolescence or more specifically systematic obsolescence. This is how these companies keep the users from purchasing a new laptop or desktop (well at least the parts for them) every year or so, when they are perfectly capable of functioning for 3 years or more.

See the above explanation. Don't worry i am not tricking you.

 

People way overemphasize their CPU needs. If you're just going on the internet or typing up a word document whether it's a Core CPU or a Pentium M probably won't matter much.

 

That's what I figured. Optimally, I think I would stay in the P8600 category. As per my experience on my R400, I don't feel that I am lagging in any way when I am using the machine. While it is not cutting edge, it is certainly not a fossil either.

The problem is that when I go to upgrade the machine - say to a T410 or even a X201 - I will always get a processor which is not actually required by me. It's potential is wasted on me. How do I know? Because I know what I am doing - I am using multiple MS Office documents (including a mail client) of all kinds, am online with at least two browsers open. Often I watch movies and listen to some music. The machine remains on for around 18 hrs a day. That's about all and I don't see this changing in the very near future. It's not like I am going to be doing complex mathematical or statistical analysis anytime soon!

Btw, this argument does not apply to the GFX options. I am partial to integrated options, but there I would prefer the latest available.

But in so far as processors are concerned, I would rather opt for the P8600 till it becomes obsolete for my use. Obsolete - maybe new features will come up and/ or newer software may require more processing power and/ or different processors altogether. In the meantime, I can use some of the upgrades and refinements that the T410 and its class of machines currently offer.

Makes sense? Or, is what I am thinking simply wrong?

 

wasn't this issue of whether you should upgrade or not already been discussed a while back? I don't think the situation really have changed all that much.

 

No...not really. That was me speculating if I should get a X200/201 (I think, if I am not mistaken).

This question was prompted by looking at the types of processors and the costs associated with the relevant machines - as is available on the Lenovo India site.