Top i5 vs. Low i7

I am considering the core i5 2540 instead of the i7 2670 on the P150HM what you guys think? I have seen so many people say the i7s are too powerful for today’s demand, and it won't benefit (in real world not bench) much because not many software (games and programs) use all the 8 threads, and that the most important is the gpu and ssd nowadays. But their price is the same when building the notebook, so which one to go for? Higher clocks and lower max tdp (>bat life, <heat) but fewer threads/cores, or higher cores/threads and higher max tdp (<bat life, >heat) but fewer clocks? By the way the gpu would be a GTX580 and using an SSD.

 

I'd personally stick with the 2670QM at the same price point. It's a mistake to say there aren't any programs or games out there that will take advantage of the quad core. There are quite a few, especially when you're talking applications (VMWare, video encoding, encryption, etc). The trend now is going more towards multi core machines, not away from it. So the long term relevance of a multi core machine is only going to be greater.

Considering you'll get ~60% greater performance with the 2760QM over the 2540, it's definitely a no brainer when you're talking the same price point. Clock speeds don't matter much either because the 2670QM can turbo boost two cores up to a reasonable level from stock.

Intel Core i7 2760QM Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech
Intel Core i5 2540M Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech

That's just my thoughts on it and others can feel free to disagree

 

Modern operating systems take advantage of the cores... it will reduce load on individual cores during any situation and it would be naive to go with a dual core for the same price.

 

Thanks, and what would you say just about games, since this is the only thing I will be doing besides the regular computer use. I am asking because of this video NCIXcom's Channel - YouTube . We should remember that both have turbo boost and if we consider it the i5 is also higher in clocks, not to say battery and temperatures. And quad and even 8 cores are around for a long time and the developers (games) still aren't using their full power that’s why I am asking, if in less than 3/4 years they are changing anything about that.

 

I Agree with Anthony, the i7 is the way to go.

It is true that if you have a game that doesnt take advantage of the all 8 cores on the i7 it will actually run faster on the i5 since they are higher clock speeds.

In my opinion its not worth it just for a few games. Many/Most new games and programs take full advantage of quad cores and hyper threading. You're overall computer experience will be much better with the i7 quads.

 

During certain games, the i5 might create a bottleneck for that 580M.

 

Which gasmes? In the video I posted the guy is playing BF3 which I think is the most demanding today. Is there a list of games/apps that uses all cores/threads?

 

Games that are heavily GPU intensive, such as Battlefield 3, wont see much of a difference with lower end CPUs.

However DX11 games, Starcraft, and even Skyrim present bottlenecks where the CPU is concerned.

Have you considered the 2630? That's on the low end of the i7 line. It's Hard to find, though.

 

Skyrim, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolutions, Civ V, Dawn of War II, and Alan Wake are among the modern games which will see bottlenecks on dual cores vs quads.

This number is only going to increase through 2012, and then when the next generations of consoles hits dual cores are officially DEAD for gaming purposes.

It's not 2005 anymore. There's no logical reason for a gamer to purposely choose the two core processor.

 

The 2760QM is more than enough for any game anything above it is just future proofing. You need to look past the clock speed of the processor because the speed can only do so much, when a CPU can spread out its workload over 4 cores and 8 threads it can process more efficiently and if a program can make full use of it you will want to make sure you have the 4 cores available.

If I was going for a M11 the I5 would be fine, for a desktop replacement you want I7.

 

dudeeee i7

 

i7 all the way. Even if you run an app/game that doesn't utilize all cores, it will have twice the L3 cache.

 

And who's to say other or smaller background processes aren't running on the other cores.

 

One more vote for i7 - might as well "future proof" it even the the i5 will be ample enough.

 

dont bother with an i5 if you want to go dual core get the 2640m!

 

So it seems the guy on the video is not righ? The i7 is worth... well but the low i7 clock seems to low for me, still can't decide, I might just wait for the IB to make up my mind.

 

The guy in the video is just showing that gpu is the nr 1 factor when buying a gaming notebook, nothing else.

 

Sure, plus that the i7 doesn't add anything over the i5 on games (or at least BF3) that is what I understood. And that is why I thought the extra clock and less power on the i5m were better than the extra cores on the i7m, but that is not the crowd opinion for some reason...

 

It doesn't matter to FPS directly(just staring at scene), but when when there is CPU physics involved, you will notice less lag with the i7.

 

That's because at the same price, there's no reason not to go with the quad core for future proofing. The i7 performs at least as good in gaming and is much better in quite a number of other applications. Clock speeds aren't comparable when you're looking at a difference in cores and threads. It's the same thing that happens when people (like my parents) buy based on the amount of RAM and HDD space- bigger numbers don't always mean better overall.

The i5 is not going to be drawing that much less power- at least, not enough to make any noticeable difference. The i7 is a 45w TDP part and the i5 is a 35w TDP part. When you're running on battery, both parts will be running at heavily downclocked speeds and reduced power. The overall difference can be as little as a watt or less when on battery. Even on AC power, you'll only rarely see them ramp up to that full rated power.

Hope this helps explain it a bit better.

 

Theoretically, it's possible that some games that came out last year or before would run better on a higher clocked i5 than lower clocked i7.

However, these days games are programmed to take advantage of at least 3 cores. Some might even take advantage of all 4 cores, e.g., Skyrim.

With this in mind, the comparison of an i5 to an i7 is like the comparison of a Pentium Extreme to a Core 2 Duo. It just doesn't make sense to get the former over the latter unless you need it for a specific purpose.

 

In the end, you will probably be happy with either choice. Right now the decision is basically coming from splitting hairs on which one is the better choice. The reality is you probably won't notice much difference between the 2 in day to day tasks and gaming, but when and if you ever decide to encode a video or something else that takes full advantage of all cores/hyper-threading, you will either a. be glad you went with the i7 or, b. wish you had.

 

Stop making it seem like i5 vs i7 is still trivial for gaming. Pretty much every game released this year will want a quad core for the best performance.

 

The few games that aren't console ports...maybe...

 

This thread has served its purpose.

There are benefits to either, but with the increasing quad-core optimization, there is no reason to fall back to an i5 in the foreseeable future.

Closing.