np9130 i5 vs i7

Sager - 3rd Generation Intel® Ivy Bridge Core™ i5-3210M (2.5-3.1GHz, 3MB Intel® Smart Cache, 35W Max TDP) (SKU – S2R173)
Sager - 3rd Generation Intel® Ivy Bridge Core™ i7-3610QM (2.3GHz - 3.3GHz, 6MB Intel® Smart Cache, 45W Max TDP) (SKU - S2N224) ( + 70 )

do you guys think the 70$ will be worth it? I just plan to play d3/bf3/dota2 and will the i7 produce more heat than the i5 or vice versa?or both will produce same heat? in what apps do i see/feel the advantages of having the i7? thanks in advance

 

Well, this would be 2 cores vs. 4 cores. For just gaming, you most likely won't notice a massive difference. If you were doing any rendering type programs such as CAD, Adobe Creative Suite, etc. you would notice a large difference in processing speeds. Depending on what programs you are running, that would make the biggest heat and temp differences. For basic gaming, very little temp difference would be seen.

 

Ah, an honest answer, not just suggesting to get the quad core because "it is better".

A good thing to do is looking up specific benchmarks for the games you want to play. A lot of people compare games on dual core laptops vs quad core laptops. You will see that most of the time, the difference is hardly noticeable. And remember that the i5-3210M is clocked at 2.5 Ghz, while the i7-3610QM is clocked at 2.3 Ghz.

I suggest reading this: Dual vs Quad core CPUs for gaming - what's better?.

Some comparisons that test the FPS in reality, instead of using benchmarks: **Contagion Review**Dual Core vs Quad Core**Gaming Results**

 

Thank you for the links. Really helped alot. I guess getting the i7 will somehow future proof the system since i read that only some games support a qcore, correct me if iam wrong. Although it is noticable in some games right?


Currently:Macbook unibody 13.3 late 2008.
Getting a 6165 or a 6110 as soon as i see reviews when playing games!

 

There already are a lot of reviews of the NP6165 and NP6110.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...er-np6110-clevo-w110er-first-look-review.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...clevo-w150erq-sager-np6165-owners-lounge.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...-clevo-w110er-sager-np6110-owners-lounge.html
Review Clevo W150ER Barebone Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews
Review Clevo W110ER Barebone Subnotebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

The i5-3210M has a base speed of 2.5 Ghz, which is .2 Ghz higher than the i7-3610QM, which has a base speed of 2.3 Ghz. BUT, the i5-3210M only has a Turbo Boost of 2.9 Ghz for 2 cores (.4 Ghz increase), and a 3.1 Ghz for 1 core (.6 Ghz increase), while the i7-3610QM has a Turbo Boost up to 3.1 GHz (for 4 active cores), 3.2 GHz (for 2 active cores) and 3.3 GHz (for 1 active core). So let's say most games don't use the 2 extra cores in a quad core anyway. That means that although the i7-3610QM has a lower base speed, it can go up to 3.2 Ghz for 2 active cores while the i5-3210M can only go up to 2.9 Ghz for 2 active cores. And this is the performance difference you are going to notice.

Is this worth the price? I would say no, unless you know for certain that you are going to use applications/games that actually use 4 cores. That .3 Ghz increase with Turbo Boost for 2 active cores is a good 10%, but this isn't going to increase the FPS. I would say a SSD is a better investment.

I'm planning to buy a similar laptop as you, probably the NP6165 or maybe one of the later models that should be released soon. Instead of the i7-3610QM, I'm going to buy the i5-3210M for considerably less money, and use the money I saved to buy a 128 GB Samsung 830 SSD + the slowest 500GB/1TB HDD there is. That way you can put everything you actually need on the SSD (games, OS), while you can use the slow 500GB/1TB HDD for storage. You don't really need a fast SSD for storage anyway, but for games and applications it really makes a difference.

 

Buying a dual core for gaming in 2012 to me honestly sounds really...stupid. The performance benefit from quad cores in multithreaded games is huge, and games are only becoming more optimized for quad cores and up. The present standard is quad core, and has been for a while. If you go dual core (And I have to be frank) you will be wishing you got the i7 once you realize you can't get decent FPS. As you can see in the benchmark, Bad Company 2 can use more than 2 cores, and you see the quad core resulting in double the frame rate.

i5 3210QM score on passmark: 3,892
i7 3610QM score on passmark: 8,360

Speaks for itself.

 

It depends on what games you are going to play. If you only want to play games that already exist, you can just check the performance difference between dual and quad, and notice that the difference is minimal. No one knows about the future though, and how many games are going to be multithreaded. Probably more and more games, yes.

Before you call anyone stupid, think about what THEY want. I'm buying a laptop for NOW, not for the future. I've stopped buying technology for the future, because I realized technology improves too fast. If I want to keep up, I need to spend more money than I have/want to spend.

I will see what happens in 2 years. At the moment I'm just thinking about NOW. What could a quad core do NOW what a dual core can't do? What is the difference in performance looking at the games I want to play? Is it worth it to buy a quad core? For me, the answer to that question is no. For you it might be different. You want to make sure you will be able to play games with a decent FPS in the coming years. And yes, then I would definitely recommend a quad core.

I know some games already use more than 2 cores, and so do some applications. If you know what applications/games you are going to use/play, you can just look up the benchmarks. In the case of BC2, a quad core seems to help.

If you just want to play games in general, and want to keep playing games in the future, then I would recommend a quad core. If you know which specific games you want to play, I would think about it twice.

 

Some more useful links:
Multi-Threaded games - General info. - techPowerUp! Forums
How many CPU cores do games need? | bit-tech.net

 

I'll have to agree with Trantalocked. While it is true that many games are running on older engines that only really utilize two cores, almost every modern game running on a modern engine will show a major benefit of you are have a quad core. Even if the games you play now only utilize two cores, you have no idea what you will want to play in a year or two, and the majority of games being released now will use four cores.

Especially if you want the laptop to be future proof, that $70 investment is a very good one.

 

I also agree with that. The question is indeed: do you want your laptop to be future proof? For me the answer is no. I buy technology for now, not for the future. I want to play certain games now, like Call of Pripyat, and I know the games I want to play won't benefit from a quad core.

In my opinion buying for the future isn't a good choice anyway when it comes to technology, because you will always be disappointed. Technology improves way too fast to make a good purchase. Who knows what will happen in 2 years. There might be games that only run on a hex core, and there you are with your quad core...

 

Obviously it is impossible to future proof your system. But most people probably want a large investment like this to last as long as possible. For me, I need my laptop to last about 4 years, and while I know I won't be running BF6 on ultra settings in 4 years, I know that by having a quad core, I am slightly extending my life of my laptop. $70 is cheaper than another $1500 laptop.

My i7 quad core in my desktop has lasted me almost 3.5 years and I am still running games on high settings with it, so I feel good about having a quad core vs. a dual core. Hex core systems are starting to appear, but I know quad cores will continue to last for a long time, especially since most games are still not even utilizing all four cores.

 

I can't really argue with that!

Regarding the OPs question: as you can see, dual vs quad is a difficult subject. You have to decide for yourself if it is really worth it. Together with the links and the discussion between Hurricane9 and me, I hope you will be able to make a decision.

 

Androyed, buying a quad core honestly isn't even just for future proofing. Like I said, quad core has been the gaming standard for a couple years already. It would be hard to name one major title released this year that doesn't utilize multiple threads. At this moment, buying a quad core IS for the present. The OP mentioned he wants to play BF3, which is multithreaded.

The 3210QM is a really powerful dual core though, and is almost as powerful as the Core 2 Quad Q9650. I still believe that even for the present it wouldn't be smart, seeing that the quad i7 is only $70 more. In my opinion, adding more than double the power for $70 is an absolute steal.

 

Thanks for the inputs guys!

 

BF3 does seem to have a big FPS increase with quad core. But double? I'd like to see that backed up with benchmarks.

 

Yeah, I took that back. I assumed it would happen based on the last BC2 benchmark but I really don't know since I have only played it with a Core 2 Duo.