raw power wise, would the 1.7 gig I7 Mobile be able to take on the c2q 2.5 gig cpu ???

raw power wise, would the 1.7 gig I7 Mobile cpu be able to take on the c2q 2.5 gig cpu ???

 

So you're asking 820QM vs QX9300? Depends on the application/benchmark. You're also not really doing a fair comparison, since the "extreme" version of the i7 is the 920XM.

I have a thread comparing benchmarks for a chess program which is basically raw CPU power. I don't have a 920XM or a QX9300 but I do have an 820QM and a Q9200 oc'd to 2.7GHZ.

The comparison is below utilizing 4 cores on each, with the 820QM using hyperthreading.

sgilmore62 - 15.62 / 7497 - Q9200 OC 2.73GHZ

SUADE8880 - 15.35 / 7368 - i7 820QM (HT on - 8 thread)

The OC'd Q9200 barely edged out the 820QM. So I would think that in full quad-core mode the 820QM and QX9300 would be close, but the QX9300 would probably win.

The difference would be in apps that only use 2 or 1 cores, and the 820QM would destroy the QX9300, thanks to turboboost on the i7.

If you're interested in more results on my benchmark testing, the thread is here.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5362641

 

thanks a mil

 

In quad core applications, it won't hold a candle. In 1-2 core apps, it will stay in tow. The true test of course would be some benchmarking of a W860/W870 i720 owner against myself, and I'm up for the challenge whenever a challenger arises. Also keep in mind I'm running at 2.93ghz, thanks to included BIOS overclocking in the M570.

 

Babyhemi might be up for it, he's got the Core i7 920XM which OC's to ~2.53Ghz for quad, ~3.7Ghz for single core.. Should be interesting, but my money would be that his OC'd extrme beats your OC'd extreme..

 

babyhemi's 920XM will outrun anothergeek's QX9300. But anothergeek, for some redundant reason, is picking fights with people that have the 720QM, in which he would win because the QX9300 makes up in raw horsepower with the 15.8% overclock.

 

Ah, it all comes back to the old e-peen I see.

 

For me it matters that the I7 extreme uses 55W, 10W more in order to beat the quad. If you really want max power just go and get the D900F. But overall I think the quad is till a pretty damn good deal, on par I would say would the 820.

 

Certainly a valid concern, and I agree. As the i7's become more prevalent, the Q9x prices will drop, opening up an avenue for those focused on value for quad-core performance.

 

If it wasn't what the OP was asking for, I'd never have made the offer

And yeah, I can run at 2.53 if you want. And I'll gladly challenge 820 and 920 owners as well, if only to prove that CPU advancement is not what we need right now. (it's mainstreaming SSD's and advancing mobile GPU's that I'm asking for)

I don't question the perks of moving on to Clarksfield. It solves the long-argued issue of high-clocked dual cores versus lower-clocked quad cores. It brings improvement in CPU architecture, like removing the FSB and paving the way for integrated, on-die GPUs. Sandy Bridge is the marked improvement I will wait for, and for the next year, I will continue to hold my ground against Clarksfield, which will presumedly not see an update until Sandy Bridge takes over.

 

The OP always makes stupid questions and threads like this, so I'm not surprised.

 

Wow, SS, I just looked at the posts started by OP.. You're right. Now I feel stupid for putting the time in to answer that. Maybe I should turn my buddy list into a watch-list for these kinds of users.

 

It's difficult for me to remember people until they have an avatar

 

I better get a avatar than