i7-3612QM vs. i7-3520M?

On the 15" S series the quad core i7 is only an extra $150 while the i7-3520M is an extra $250. Does the 3520M out perform the 3612QM, or is the QM cheaper because it forces you to get the 2GB graphics?

Also is there a performance increase between the 1GB and 2GB graphics? I'm guessing there wouldn't be

 

The 3520M is a dual core processor and 3612QM is a quad core processor. Therefore, the 3612QM will be much faster in CPU intensive tasks such as video transcoding.

Here are the link to the two processors:

i7-3520M
i7-3612QM

The video memory allows you to play games at higher resolution and settings. However since it is likely most games will be running in middle resolution and setting with mobile graphic card, 1Gb VRAM should be enough. 2Gb will give you more head room and possibly few frames per second increase in some games.

 

The 3612QM is way more powerful than the 3520M. So its more likely down to the fact that 3612QM forces you to get the 2GB Graphics.

 

Odd this option is not available in canada, only i5-3320M or i7-3612QM which needs the 2gb option which tacks on even a higher price.

 

Looks to me like the 3612QM's worth the extra scratch.

i7 3612QM

Intel Core i7 3612QM Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech

i5 3210M

Intel Core i5 3210M Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Best of luck!

 

Hmm interesting. Now what about heat? I'm probably going to get a 13" so would the 3520M produce a lot more heat than either of the i5's?

 

The 3520M is a dual core i5, where as the 3612QM is a quad core i7, both of them have 35W TDP (the maximum power a processor can dissipate while running). However, I'm sure the quad core 3612QM will produce more heat when stressed. Therefore, more fan noise.

I'll let you know when I get the machine and ripped couple of Bluray DVDs.

 

The 3520M is a dual core i7, and I was wondering the difference between the stock i5 on the 13" since the QM isn't available on the 13".

 

My bad, 1MB extra cache and bit extra clock speed seems to be the main difference, not sure if there are noticeable difference in extra heat and power consumption. To be honest, I'm not sure there will be any noticeable performance difference either.

 

In Belgium the upgrade from the 3210 to the 3612 is currently free Quite a steal in my opinion!

 

the i7-3520 is the "high end" dual core ivy bridge with base clock of 2.9 Ghz out of the box while the i7-3612Qm is the "entry level" quad core ivy bridge with only base clock of 2.1 Ghz. So it is the old question again Dual core or quad core?! and it mainly depends on the apps/games and the degree of support to multi threading and etc. in my opinion the dual core will give better performance in the present. if someone has different idea i would like to hear from why is the quad core is better ! as i am facing the same choice.


note: i focused on base speed because turbo boost may be affected by heat, power supply and manufacture preferences and thus one may not be getting the max speed advertised on Intel website.!!

please correct me if any of the above is wrong.........

 

the quad core will produce much more heat than dual core. the quad core is based frequency of 2.1 ghz but runs two cores at 3.1 ghz under turboboost, and one core at 3.4 ghz. generally speaking though, you hardly ever get to use those frequencies because alot of applications are spread over all available cores quite often. this problem could probably be mitigated by disabling the two extra cores in the quad in windows environment setting so that it runs as a 3.1 ghz dual core and run 4 cores when needed. could also lock the apps to two cores but that method isn't as effiecient. the dual core one has a slightly higher frequency at 3.4ghz with turbo boost. but this is just to show people, that the quad core can run at 3.1 ghz in a dual core config it doesn't have to be the much lower 2.1 ghz rating.

 

Not to rain on the parade, but has anyone out there had a Sandy Bridge dual core i7 machine on which inadequate cpu performance was a bottleneck? I know that large scale RAW file editing really chews through CPU power and for speed, you can't have too much of it. But almost everywhere I read that 95% of all users/uses of laptops wouldn't see appreciable difference between a Clarksdale/Arrandale vintage i7/i5 and anything newer and faster. In fact, I've seen it written with C2D substituted for Clarksdale/Arrandale.

Is it about futureproofing, bragging rights or are newer applications written to take better advantage of faster cpus?

 

Part of my usage of the Z3 quad core will be transcode 1080p videos and rip DVD/Blu-ray. So it will be a major improvement over my current Sandy Bridge i5 2.5GHz, which reaches 100% usage with those tasks. Beside the quad core upgrade is currently free on the Z3 in the UK.

 

what about battery life and Fan noise (Heat), i think the quad core would be worse because it will always run with turbo dual core mode in order to match the base and (relaxed) speed of the 3520m. am i right?

 

Very few applications will bottleneck on a high end i5/i7 with 4+ threads. So little of software is actually multithreaded. Even the ulv's (which some people compare to atoms) give pretty impressive performance these days. Having said that, there are some applications that will exhaust even the highest end cpus, but you would know if you use them. If you're ripping blurays you will use all cpu resources; multithreading works well. Of course, if you run it over night, what's the difference between 3 hours and 6?

 

If I understand quickly the improved quick sync function of the ivy bridge means video encoding is greatly improved so the quad core may not be such an important consideration if that's your main requirement

http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...why-quicksync-is-intels-secret-weapon-1077916

 

interesting debate, this is a big question I've been thinking about as well.

i7-3520M vs i7-3612...hmm

here is a comparison from intel's site
link

 

Actually, the i7-3520M will annihilate the 3612QM in 95% cases (1/2 cores. Only in apps efficiently utilizing 4 cores will the quad win, and even then not by a huge margin.

 

I'm not sure how you can justify the dual core will be faster than the quad core 95% the time.

In normal use, there is no difference in user experience between those two cpu, as they are not pushed to their limit. Also majority cpu intensive programs are designed with multi cores support, photo and video editing come to mind, so all 4 cores will be utilized by them. The only advantage the higher clocked dual core may be find in some games.

 

That's the point, the majority of applications out there don't have an efficient support for 8+ threads. There's a bunch of video encoding and photo editing programs that do have it but that's where the 5% come in as most people aren't going to render/edit 95% of the time anyway. Software is still lagging behind in terms of multi-core/thread support.

 

I'm currently streaming a 1080p Blu-ray from my NAS using VLC player, the CPU usage is between 27% to 35% with all 8 threads active, so 4 cores does come in handy with every day usage.

 

I would get a dual core over quad core without any hesitation. Benchmark is one thing and daily use is another. I even wish they put a ULV CPU in the Z.

 

Here's the benchmark for the i7-3520m has an average cpu mark of 4787
PassMark - Intel Core i7-3520M @ 2.90GHz - Price performance comparison

Here's the cpu benchmark for the i7-3612qm average cpu mark of 7706
PassMark - Intel Core i7-3612QM @ 2.10GHz - Price performance comparison

2919 points higher

for the record here is my passmark score with the 3612qm... scored a 7889.6

 

In the comparison chart it shows the quad core i7-3612QM does not have features like "Intel® vPro Technology" or "Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)", will this impact Vmware or VirtualBox performance? I'm a little surprised that a quad-core i7 would miss some virtualization technology features.

 

The i7-36XXqm line is the entry-level ivy bridge quad CPU. They put the vt technology in the 37XX and above. This is how Intel and most other hardware companies make the higher-end parts seem more appealing with more incentive for the consumer to upgrade.

Ps. To clarify, not to say that the 36XXqm is "entry-level" by any means. It is a powerful CPU and will hold its own. It is the entry-level amongs ivy bridge quad core CPUs. Point finished

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

I use VirtualBox at work daily, actually depend on it, and it works fine on my SVZ13 with the 3612QM. I had to enable VT-x in the BIOS, after that it works fine. I guess VT-d would make some I/O faster, but I doubt it would mean many %. As I understand it, vPro is mostly about remote accessing VMs in a dedicated VM server, so it wouldn't add much to a laptop.

Using 8 cores for the guest was a bit jerky at first so I reverted to 4 cores, but with the latest VirtualBox 4.1.18, it seems ok.