Thinkpad X220, i5-2410 x i3-2310

With both lacking the VT-d /AES features found in the i5-2520, it seems there is less real difference between the i5-2410 and i3-2310 than most people realise. Here, the 2410 costs £75 more than the i3. That's about $120.

For mainly browsing and multimedia, would the turbo feature of the i5 be missed in practice? Would the lower graphic clock of the i3, at 1.1 GHz compared to 1.2 GHz for the 2410, have a negative impact on multimedia activities, such as streaming HD to a 24" monitor?

Make your case for the i3

 

100MHz graphics clockspeed is pretty minimal.

I had to make this call when purchasing a batch of systems for work. In the end, I went with the i5, but I did because the machines will have to last us five years, something you may not have to worry about. Turbo will become relevant to us as time passes.

I'd say the bonus also comes in single-threaded app performance. For single-threaded stuff, the Core i5 will have a noticable advantage. However, 75 quid for that upgrade is ridiculous; it cost $25USD per notebook to go from i3 to i5 in my case.

For you, I'd go i3.

 

Is audio editing in Wavelab, for example, a single-threaded application? I do that about 5% of my PC time.

 

The easiest way to tell is call up Task Manager on your current system (assuming it is dual-core) and monitor core activity while running what you normally do.

 

I'll grab hold of a copy of wavelab and see what it reports.

 

Even if Wavelab is single-threaded, Windows itself is multi-threaded so there's no way for your computer to be using a single core for an extended period of time. It might switch to a single core for a few milli-seconds at a time. All the milli-seconds add up, but to how much?

I also do corporate purchases and our systems also have to last at least five years, so I would go for the i5 since locally the i5 variants are about US$100 more. For you, I also say i3.

 

100mhz is not noticeable in real life. Go for the i3.

 

Except i5 has Turboboost, which delivers extra speed if you stay within the thermal envelope.

 

Here is the wikipedia copy and paste [not sure how relevant]

Practical concerns

While Turbo Boost has the potential to speed up single threaded tasks that are unable to otherwise take advantage of the additional cores, it is very rare to see the full advantage in practice. At issue is the need for two or three cores to be inactive to reach the two or one core active turbo speeds; Windows will take a single thread and run 25% of it on each of four cores instead of putting it all on one core.[citation needed] While, since it is a single thread, there is only one core active at a time, the other cores need time to go to sleep and allow the running core to boost up. As a result, the single-core speed is not seen and the two-core speed is rarely seen unless processor affinity has been set to a single core.[6] Technology like core parking [7] will need to evolve before full benefit is seen.

tl;dr version: turbo boost is a marketing gimmick, save yourself the money and go for the i3 instead. you should at least get 4 GB of ram.

 

i3.

Save the money for RAM and/or SSD upgrade. For "browing and multimedia" (as you stated), the extra physical RAM will be fully utilized by Windows 7.

 

Save the money for the IPS screen upgrade (listed as "Premium" HD display)
No really, I'd really suggest going for this upgrade if it's available and doesn't cost too much in your country. It's a much better quality display with super-wide viewing angles.

EDIT: ooh, it's only +£33.60. Definitely go for the IPS screen.

 

Thanks for the replies. The i3 seems the best choice.

Lenovo UK have the X220 with an extra 5% discount at the moment. Unfortunately, they have also changed the OS to windows 7 pro only (previously it was home), which costs an extra £47, wiping out the 5% discount if you have no need for pro. Crafty!

EDIT: They are now offering 7 Home again.

 

Keep telling yourself that. In a laptop where the cooling system is done right (which I believe the X220 is), then Turboboost do provide extra speed. I do a lot of PS2 emulation, and the extra Turbo Boost multipliers really help out in making my games run full speed. (As monitored with Throttlestop)
At the same time, I also work with emulation, and really need the extra encryption instructions, plus the virtualization technologies.
Of course, if you don't need these features, don't get it, but don't assume that you know everybody's needs.
Also, if you want a credible source, don't quote Wikipedia.

 

I agree with Kaso.

Save your money. You'll get a vastly better ROI from putting the money into an SSD or RAM.

 

The i5-2520M in my T420s will run 2 cores /4 threads at 3GHz for substantial periods. That's effectively 20% more than the nominal CPU base speed and may be worth paying for. However, the CPU only seems to run at more than 3GHz (the TurboBoost is up to 3.2GHz) if it is on idle and I use the maximum turbo setting in Power Manager.

John

 

Even worse for me - my x220 i7 dethrottles from 3.2ghz all the way down to 800mhz running just civ5 or 3dmark06 - and it won't throttle back above 800mhz without a cold boot!!

Petrov.

 

+1

I don't think I've ever seen mine run at nominal. Even at 80C it stays at 3ghz.

I've brought it up before, but no one seems concerned that even when plugged in these processors throttle down to 800mhz.

 

I have gotten mine to 3.2. Not for long periods, but my use doesn't stress it enough to stay there long.

Remember that 3.2GHz is max with one core active; 3GHz is max with two cores active (at least, on the 2520M it is). I'm guessing it's rare that only one core is active as well. So, "nominal" is a question of how many cores are being utilized, not just clock speed.

 

While on the subject, would there be much difference between 4 and 8 GB?

 

That depends. Do you regularly use more than 4GB of physical memory? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

 

Price-wise, 8gb from Newegg is the saem as 4gb from Lenovo... so no, no difference price-wise.

Performance-wise, I don't think most people would get much use from the extra RAM. If you're not sure, you probably don't need it. That being said, see the above paragraph.

 

I wasn't meaning to start a discussion about the differences between 4 and 8GB of ram because it has been argued to death in other threads. A previous poster seemed to suggest that maxing the ram becomes more necessary with an i3 and multimedia tasks. But I probably misunderstood- so forget it.

 

Likely, yes. And, with 2x4GB RAM getting less and less expensive, why not?

(Windows 7 includes proactive disk caching called SuperFetch: certain file data is preloaded if the OS detects that it is used regularly, even if there is no specific need for it at any given moment. SuperFetch makes best use of the available physical RAM for caching, but if the applications make more memory allocation requests (the classical case), Windows will selectively discard cached data to make RAM available to the applications. Filling unused memory with data from the disk just in case that data is needed is much better than leaving the memory unused. If that data is needed -- and SuperFetch strives to ensure that the data it loads is likely to be needed -- having it already in RAM means it can be used instantly, rather than having to wait to load it from disk. (For example, a replayed YouTube video clip may be rendered entirely from RAM.))

Huh? RAM abundance is unrelated to the i3.