Core i7 DUAL-core HIGH clock vs Core i7 QUAD-core LOW clock?

[Crunch]

I asked this question before when I was pondering getting either a T9900 (Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz) or a Q9000 (Core 2 Quad @ 2.0GHz) when I was about to buy a W700. The almost unanimous consensus was to get the T9900, as I was more likely going to benefit from the (much) higher clock in a dual-core over a quad-core because there were very few applications that could even take advantage of a quad-core.

Fast-forward to the new Core i line from Intel and once again, I'd like to know your opinions as to which of the following CPU's I should get. The clock difference is once again over a full GHz, but now we have Turbo Boost Technology, Hyper-Threading and automatic overclocking to consider as opposed to the Core 2 series.

Funnily enough, it's also the fastest dual-core Core i7 vs. the (or at least one of the) slowest quad-core Core i7 again, so...should I get the

Core i7-620M running at 2.66GHz with a max. Turbo speed of 3.33GHz, 2 cores/4 threads and 4MB of SmartCache

OR

Core i7-720QM running at 1.6GHz with a max. Turbo speed of 2.8GHz with 4 cores/8 threads and 6MB of Smart Cache

Even a higher QUAD Core i7-820QM that runs at 1.73GHz which has a max. turbo speed of 3.06GHz along with 8MB of cache, still has a slower max. Turbo speed than the aforementioned DUAL-core i7-620M with a max Turbo of 3.33GHz...

With all that said, and I'm sure there are plenty of theoreticals involved, in the "real world", what would I be better off with here? Have the majority of applications really caught up with taking advantages of quad's now vs. a year ago??? Of course, it depends on what I'm running, I know. But in general, on average, in most circumstances, (you get the idea...) what are the advantages and disadvantages here?

Thanks a bunch! This should be interesting!

[visionviper]

Do you use a lot of multi-threaded CPU intensive apps? Go with the quad core.

Don't? Dual core.

[w0qj]

> Do you use a lot of multi-threaded CPU intensive apps? Go with the quad core.
> Don't? Dual core.

On this note, it would be brilliant if the W510 can come with a Dual-Core CPU option for those who are buying the W510 for the better graphics GPU only, this would kill 2 birds with 1 stone:

~Much better power consumption for much longer battery life
(Currently the W510 with 9-cell are being called portable desktop workstation, just 90-120 minute battery life).

~Much lower heat output due to Dual-Core CPU, much less W510 overheating issues.

[rcepek]

In today standards try not to relay on Mhz but more oin MIPS, I don't have the actual misp for each processor but I can tell you that regardless of the MHz listing a Quad Core processor is going to be much faster then anyhitng else. Especailly when you throw heavy tasks at it. i.e. Encoding, Rendering etc. I tried to find a link to some each to read benchmarks on the Mips for each type of processor but was unable to locate anything easily.

Personally I have a Quad Core 820 and it's fast - I can encode a 45 min video in less then 10 minutes to an iPod compatible format

Rob

[Marin85]

Isn´t it possible to turn off 2 cores and further overclock the other two? I even heard that one could manually set and even raise the clock levels of Nehalem cpus (this may have referred only to the desktop extreme versions of i7)?

Anyway, isn´t most of the modern software already multithread-capable? I can´t think of any demanding application that does not like multi-core cpus. That includes audio and video editting software, Adobe CS, compressing/encoding/converting software, CAD/CAM software, computer animation software, engineering and mathematical software and last but not least games (since 2007 till now?). Given the fact that multi-core cpus have been existing for some time now, even some "old-fashioned" applications will not escape the trend. Software is made and advertised as making good use of multi-core cpus, and users want such software for performance reasons (and to better utilize their already bought multi-core hardware ). In other words, the quad-core choice seems to be much more futureproof IMHO.

Regarding the choice of cpu for W510/W701 ThinkPad, there is also anothing thing to consider. If I am not mistaken, by the end of this year we will be seeing the i7-940XM (2.13 GHz -> 3.33 GHz, TDP of 55W same as i7-920XM), so one may want to save now in order to upgrade later to this beast.

Also, I completely agree with rcepek. There have been times where both the engineering and consumer philosophy was "if you want better performance, get higher clocks"... in fact higher clocks doesn´t necessarily mean better performance. If one wants to measure the real performance, then one should look at the IPS (instructions per secons) or FLOPS (floating point operations per second).

Just my 0.02$

Marin

[pae77]

Speaking as one who is currently using a machine equipped with the lowliest i7 quad core (see sig), I think they are awesome CPU's. I'm really enjoying having what feels like very snappy desktop performance in a laptop. I also think the quad cores are much more future proof, as someone else noted above. Also, doesn't W7 already take advantage of hyperthreading? If so, that would be another reason to lean towards the quad core based machine with its 8 logical cores.

They do tend to run hotter than dual cores like i5's (not sure about the dual core i7), but still fwimbw, my i7 quad core based machine runs much cooler than my T61p ever did. I can game on it for hours without any external cooling and the CPU never gets hotter than the low 80's. The T61p feels very slow (as well as hot!) by comparison now.

[at both ends]

Passmark says the quad core wins: 3236 versus 2866. But that's a highly threaded benchmark, so all depends on how much you have going at a time.

[AMATX]

I'm in a similar situation; getting moderately close to maxing out a W700 dual core, 2.80GHz setup. The quad core 2.53GHz chips don't appeal to me much, so I've been waiting for the W700/x9100 chip with quad core 3.06MHz to get cheap, at which time I'll probably jump on it.

To get a definite answer, you have to look at two aspects of your apps load. Doing so will probably point you in the right direction:

* Concurrent apps running? How many mips hog apps will you commonly run at the same time. If much greater than '2', the quad core is the way to go.

* How much does your biggest mips hog app use of a SINGLE core? Use the performance monitor or an after market app to get some sort of a reading. If you're anywhere close to maxing out a SINGLE core, then you're hitting the wall. Only way to get relief for this situation is IF your app is multi-processing, in which case you'll likely benefit from a quad core chip. Otherwise, your problem is not mips on the box, but mips max of a single core. Going to a quad core, each of which is slower than a single core from the dual core setup is gonna hose you up. If you need a 1/2 gallon of water, better to use a 1 gallon jug than try to get by with several quart size jugs.

And, lastly, if BOTH of the above affect you, then you need a FAST quad core to get you over the hump.

Amazing how many apps will run on only ONE core/cpu, so don't assume anything; run the numbers, see where your mips are really going.

In my case, I'll actually need a fast quad core, as I have one app that's gonna chew up a single core big time, and I also have several other apps that'll be running concurrently, so could use more than a dual core setup.

Fortunately(for now), I've managed to tune things well enough to get by for a while, but as I'm going to expand what I'm doing, I know I'll need to go quad core. Only question right now is whether I'm better off with a W700 X9100(the fastest quad core Lenovo offered) or should suck it up and spend major $$$ on a high end W701. $$$-wise, no comparison; the W700 is a LOT of bang for the $$$ right now.

[Marin85]

The fastest Quad Core for W700 is QX9300 clocked at 2.53 GHz each core. If you mean X9100, it is a Dual Core processor with two cores clocked at 3.06 GHz. If it is about fast Dual Core cpu, I would rather go for T9900 instead, same specs, better technology, less heat output (35W vs. 45W of X9100), and it should be compatible with the chipset of W700 (?). Not to mention that it costs at least 300 bucks less...If you mean QX9100, it is noticeably slower than QX9300 with its clock at 2.16 GHz vs. 2.53 GHz.

Cheers,

Marin

[AMATX]

The fastest Quad Core for W700 is QX9300 clocked at 2.53 GHz each core. If you mean X9100, it is a Dual Core processor with two cores clocked at 3.06 GHz. If it is about fast Dual Core cpu, I would rather go for T9900 instead, same specs, better technology, less heat output (35W vs. 45W of X9100), and it should be compatible with the chipset of W700 (?). Not to mention that it costs at least 300 bucks less...If you mean QX9100, it is noticeably slower than QX9300 with its clock at 2.16 GHz vs. 2.53 GHz.

Cheers,

Marin

Hmm, thanks for the update; maybe I got a case of 'bad info'. I thought there was a quad processor out for W700 that had four 3.06 cores in it. Guess I was mis-informed.

If this is the case, then my above post about dual vs. quad should be viewed from a 2.53 quad core angle.

Basic info still stands; one must analyze their workload to determine whether more horses are needed to pull the wagon, or whether one just needs a faster horse for the lone rider...


Here's an example of an ebay listing that made me think that towards the end of the run, Lenovo offered up a quad core W700 with cores running at 3.06 speed:

http://cgi.ebay.com/LENOVO-THINKPAD-W70 ... 335c856f1b

We all know that ebay is 100% correct/legit; guess I coulda/shoulda dug around a bit more...sorry for the mixup.

[Marin85]

There must be some mistake with that ebay article!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core ... tecture%29

A quadcore clocked at 3.06 GHz for W700 would have been nice though

BTW, that is one of the reasons to prefer W701 over W700. Even so soon after the release of W701, the latter delivers all in all same if not even better performance for the same price (not counting other important aspects).

[AMATX]

Well, the good news, if any, is that I'm better informed on W700 procs...bad news is that you burst my bubble I was hoping to pick up a W700 quad core on the cheap in coming weeks/months, but now I'm not sure the 2.53 chip will do the trick. I have one app that seems to be mips hungry, so I need to be sure the single core speed is pretty high, which could rule out the 2.53 stuff. THAT means I've gotta take a closer look at the W701, which is gonna be a lot more $$$.

But, better to be spec'd up vs. buying the wrong thing, tho...

[ausmike]

Hi everyone;

I am not sure this info wiil suprise everyone here (These are real life experainces)
from the field:

We have a number of W701 and W501 in field where most of them are nearly SAME configurations ( proc,mem,HD etc) ...

...and most have same 'Busines' apps; SAP Client; MSO Pro 07; Adobe Cs4MSuite;AutoCad 2010; LNotes; etc ....

Intel Core i7-820QM Processor (8M Cache, 1.73 GHz) seems to always outperforms the Inel Core i7-920XM Processor Extreme Edition (8M Cache, 2.00
GHz) using AutoCad2010....

>>now awaiting marin's comments <lol> as he alwys picks on moi!!! > cheers mate <<<

[Marin85]

>>now awaiting marin's comments <lol> as he alwys picks on moi!!! > cheers mate <<<

Lol, I guess I am supposed to say now NO, not always, but that would be simply not true, so pleasure is all mine

What you are saying, is indeed VERY surprising! You have both W701 and W510 in both configurations i7-820QM and i7-920XM? (to exclude system design issues)

[ausmike]

marin ..lol > ok ok ...here is the "Configs" that normaly we order for Senior Sales Staff but mostly pple prefer W510 - simply from the less 'weight& bulk' issues with W701! ..AND carrying the W701s over your shoulder for weeks on trips does build up your muscles well!!


OPTION ONE:[u]W510s' = 4318CTO <fully optioned>>[/u]
.. i7-920XM [Extreme Edition]; 16GB Kingston HyerX;Win7X64; 128GBSSD, WiMAX 6250 withGPS;NVIDIA Quadro FXwith 1GB......

OPTION TWO: W510CTO <= 4318 <fully optioned> but with Intel Core i7-820QM Processor (8M Cache, 1.73 GHz)



OPTION 01:[u]W701s' = 4323CTO <fully optioned>>
.. i7-920XM [Extreme Edition] ; 16GB Kingston HyerX;Win7X64; 128GBSSD, WiMAX 6250 withGPS;NVIDIA Quadro FXwith 1GB......

OPTION 02:[u] W701 = 4323CTO <<full optioned>> as above but with Intel Core i7-820QM Processor (8M Cache, 1.73 GHz)

Note I have not listed things like camera , bluetooth, FP etc etc
(however our Wseries do have DUAL OS (win7X64 & IBMLINUX) AND W701 do have RAID options but not used for this comperissions)

We did lots of comparissons (even had benchmarking softwares etc) but my best way to tell = OPENING A LARGE CAD FILE (with embeded RAW JPEG) size = 8.56GB)..... and the "QM" processors were slooooower than "Q_XM - [Extreme Edition] " proc.
Yips we have lots of 'teckies' who can baffle even the best engineers from intel......

so my moto = order that works and what pple 'prefer' while INTEL/IBM/MS work on 'issues' etc etc....

>hope this helps my mate Marin and keeps him happy while I drink my stein@Munich!


>>edited>> to make few changes to 'clarify' the detials ....

[Manuel_A]

marin ..lol > ok ok ...here is the "Configs" that normaly we order for Senior Sales Staff but mostly pple prefer W510 - simply from the less 'weight& bulk' issues with W701! ..AND carrying the W701s over your shoulder for weeks on trips does build up your muscles well!!


W510s' = 4318CTO <fully optioned>>
.. i7-920XM ; 16GB Kingston HyerX;Win7X64; 128GBSSD, WiMAX 6250 withGPS;NVIDIA Quadro FXwith 1GB......

W701s' = 4323CTO <fully optioned>>
.. i7-920XM ; 16GB Kingston HyerX;Win7X64; 128GBSSD, WiMAX 6250 withGPS;NVIDIA Quadro FXwith 1GB......

Note I have not listed things like camera , bluetooth, FP etc etc
(however our Wseries do have DUAL OS (win7X64 & IBMLINUX) AND W701 do have RAID options but not used for this comperissions)

We did lots of comparissons (even had benchmarking softwares etc) but my best way to tell = OPENING A LARGE CAD FILE (with embeded RAW JPEG) size = 8.56GB)..... and the "Q-XM" processors were slooooower than "XM" proc.
Yips we have lots of 'teckies' who can baffle even the best engineers from intel......

so my moto = order that works and what pple 'prefer' while INTEL/IBM/MS work on 'issues' etc etc....

>hope this helps my mate Marin and keeps him happy while I drink my stein@Munich!

Hi ausmike,


Are you saying that the Intel i7-920XM, is slow with Autodesk products?

I am running Autodesk Revit 2011, and my New W701 is due to ship on May 21, 2010




Processor
Intel Core i7-920XM Processor Extreme Edition (8M Cache, 2.00 GHz)


Operating system Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64


Operating system language Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64 US English


Display type 17" WUXGA RGB-LED-BL


System graphics NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M 128-core CUDA parallel computing processor 1GB (dedicated)


Base W701 Base for Planar eSATA, USB3.0


Total memory 16 GB PC3-10600 DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz SODIMM Memory (4 DIMM)


Keyboard Keyboard US English


Pointing device Ultranav + Number Pad + Fingerprint Reader + Pantone Color Sensor + WACOM Digitizer w/ Stylus


Camera Camera, 2.0 MP


Storage subsystem Internal RAID - Not Enabled


Primary Hard Drive 128 GB Solid State Drive, Serial ATA


Secondary Hard Drive 500 GB Hard Disk Drive, 7200rpm


Optical device Multi Recorder Optical Drive (12.7mm)


System expansion slots Compact Flash (PCIe) + Express Card(34mm)


Battery 9 cell Li-Ion Battery


Power cord Country Pack North America with DT Line cord & 230W AC adapter


Bluetooth Bluetooth w/ antenna


Integrated WiFi wireless LAN adapters Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 (3x3 AGN)


Language pack Language Pack US English 230W AC adapter


My old W700 was slower then shi- with Autodesk Revit 2010 And would crash all the time, don’t tell me this

[ausmike]

NOTE:: -
Edit my comments above - to clarify few details; as I can now "blame" munich stiens & Marin's country-womens excellent hospitalities helped in my foggyness and lack of detials> lol .. lol

My/Our work involves (very specialized) General Business Consulting - often companies we deal with have 'very large data files' and great volumes off these data....Some of file are - "CAD" files and or "MRI/CT" scans - is a good examples of such files. Its also not uncommon that the DataBase rows = over BILLIONS+ rows!!!!

So to do work/edits of such data we need the ability to load these files on to a laptop from time to time and DISPLY/REVIEW etc > do normal work - the consultants often not only load these fiels on to their laptops once , but repeatly load various files everyday for weeks and months.

As most pple who have used AutoDesk Software would know- its a real PAINFULL process if the "file loading" takes extra 'seconds/minute" to do!!!

So we did some tests with 12 LAPTOPS 2 off each MODELS from DELL; IBM/Lenovo ; SONY : ASUS ; Toshiba and HP. we got 2 of each models with their 'highest sepc'ed' QM - intel i7 proc'or and the same in XM- Intel i7 EXTREME EDITION proc.

In short > results = IBM/Lenovo = best choice= with QM processors but its wasnt much of a 'choice' as NONE OF THEM performed well enough to what we were looking for!!! ( thus the teckies chatting with AutoDesk/IBM/Intel) as to what is the optimal design for 'our use' .....

Link for Wiki = might be of intrest to some folks........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7


>>hope this clarify\ies some of things i was talking about ABOVE POSTS; and is usefull data for someone.............

>sorry for typos in advance

[AMATX]

Before everyone gets too excited about these results, I'd recommend anyone really interested in this comparison consult various benchmarking tests and websites for more info. After all, that's the purpose of these tests; running/testing various workloads on different platforms, under very strict control conditions.

While at first glance, the OP's test looks valid, there's certainly a possibility of something different being in place that's not been noticed that could impact the results.

That said, I'm not at all familiar with either of these configs to comment one way or another. However, I spent many years doing performance analysis & tuning with very large computer systems. Things are not always what they seem at first look. And, one workload or simulation doesn't equal overall capabilities.

[ausmike]

Yips... ...its NOWAY definiteve solution(s) for everyone; but works for US!!

1) these ARE LAPTOPS not some "large systems'......
2) and BEST WAY ..... is to have your hands on ALL THIGS and ASEQUAL as u can ....(lots of $$).......but then we did OUR TESTINGS IN REAL LIFE ,,,,,, not some"workshop/benchmarking file" and ,,,,,,,,,,,,its wasnt about PURELY - READ/WRITE paramaters...

WE STILL VERY VERY HAPPY with what we got (results) and I WOULD DEFEND INTEL&IBM's EXPERTISE against anyone out there (BLOG-writers and all - no insult intended)

[Marin85]

@ausmike: I got confused now

Intel Core i7-820QM Processor (8M Cache, 1.73 GHz) seems to always outperforms the Inel Core i7-920XM Processor Extreme Edition (8M Cache, 2.00 GHz) using AutoCad2010....

OPENING A LARGE CAD FILE (with embeded RAW JPEG) size = 8.56GB)..... and the "QM" processors were slooooower than "Q_XM - [Extreme Edition] " proc.

we got 2 of each models with their 'highest sepc'ed' QM - intel i7 proc'or and the same in XM- Intel i7 EXTREME EDITION proc.In short > results = IBM/Lenovo = best choice= with QM processors

The second one contradicts a little bit to the other two, so just for my piece of mind to clarify this: you are saying that, when opening large CAD files, the systems equipped with i7-820QM showed better performance than the systems configured with i7-920XM And that was valid throughout for Lenovo, HP, DELL etc. (meaning at least 1 unit with the i7-QM and 1 unit with the i7-XM from each brand tested)?

I am asking this because, as AMATX already pointed out, there may have been other (subtle) factors that have influenced the performance of these systems when/while opening large CAD files. The first 3 that come to mind are some software glitch (resp. not well optimized software from the side of Autocad and/or some Windows quirk) and/or some rare (or yet unknown) SSD-related issue and/or RAM-performance*... It seems to me that when opening such large files the major performance hit would come from the storage device (even if it is an ultragigamegesuperduperlightfast Intel SSD), then RAM, then cpu. As for the software side of the problem, just hypothetically, the installations might differ in some driver versions or windows updates/patches.

*I am mentioning RAM, because in different cases 1333MHz vs. 1066 MHz RAM vs. the tuned HyperX RAM may in fact show different performance! But then I see that the systems in question were all configured with the same type of system memory, so your comparison appears to be indeed ceteris paribus.

[ausmike]

Aaaahhhh> me mate Maaarin again ::D:D:D

umm... <thinking this thread has gone way off track ,,,, and am tooo lazy to TYPE thesis's on here ,,,.....however (in short) > we 'engaged' IBM & INTEL 'solutions' team with help of LENOVO (HW-supplier) and AUTODESK (SW Suppier) to SPEC/RECOMMEND; come up with a best possible 'solution(s)' to our complaints(Just like mr mauel found out running autocad apps) .........

We have spent a ;lot of time; coming up with W Series 'solutions' for our use and happy with the results from this team of experts and their 'setup' recomendations. For NOW; untill futher 'tweaks are avalible from all of the people involved - we will NOT BE ORDERING ANY [Extreme Edition] proc machines

And as indicated earlier ,,,, what they come up with matched what our 'users' (very specific usage/needs) have been saying in real-life 24x7 use!!

Rest of debate for now ,,,,,,,,,,,,, for me as a 'Non teckie-end user'..... I wouldnt be able to debate anyone or say or indicated otherwise. Everyone has an opptions to use or not use informations from others!

~peace !

[Manuel_A]

Aaaahhhh> me mate Maaarin again ::D:D:D

umm... <thinking this thread has gone way off track ,,,, and am tooo lazy to TYPE thesis's on here ,,,.....however (in short) > we 'engaged' IBM & INTEL 'solutions' team with help of LENOVO (HW-supplier) and AUTODESK (SW Suppier) to SPEC/RECOMMEND; come up with a best possible 'solution(s)' to our complaints(Just like mr mauel found out running autocad apps) .........

We have spent a ;lot of time; coming up with W Series 'solutions' for our use and happy with the results from this team of experts and their 'setup' recomendations. For NOW; untill futher 'tweaks are avalible from all of the people involved - we will NOT BE ORDERING ANY [Extreme Edition] proc machines

And as indicated earlier ,,,, what they come up with matched what our 'users' (very specific usage/needs) have been saying in real-life 24x7 use!!

Rest of debate for now ,,,,,,,,,,,,, for me as a 'Non teckie-end user'..... I wouldnt be able to debate anyone or say or indicated otherwise. Everyone has an opptions to use or not use informations from others!

~peace !

Hi ausmike,


What are your settings in NVIDIA Control Panel, In the Manage 3D Settings?
Did you Select a Program to Customize.

How do you upload pictures?


Thank You,

[Manuel_A]

umm... <thinking this thread has gone way off track ,,,, and am tooo lazy to TYPE thesis's on here ,,,.....however (in short) > we 'engaged' IBM & INTEL 'solutions' team with help of LENOVO (HW-supplier) and AUTODESK (SW Suppier) to SPEC/RECOMMEND; come up with a best possible 'solution(s)' to our complaints(Just like mr mauel found out running autocad apps) .........

We have spent a ;lot of time; coming up with W Series 'solutions' for our use and happy with the results from this team of experts and their 'setup' recomendations. For NOW; untill futher 'tweaks are avalible from all of the people involved - we will NOT BE ORDERING ANY [Extreme Edition] proc machines

And as indicated earlier ,,,, what they come up with matched what our 'users' (very specific usage/needs) have been saying in real-life 24x7 use!!

Rest of debate for now ,,,,,,,,,,,,, for me as a 'Non teckie-end user'..... I wouldnt be able to debate anyone or say or indicated otherwise. Everyone has an opptions to use or not use informations from others!

~peace !

Hi ausmike,

Question; you are running AutoCAD 2010 right, are you using two external monitors with
Your W701 display panel closed?

There is a problem with Autodesk 2010 Products and Windows 7 as well as hyper-threading, do you have Autodesk subscriptions?
the reason I ask is that is because Autodesk 2011 Products Are more suited for Windows 7, and Intel i7-920XM and Nvidia FX 3800M.

I find the very interesting, because http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc ... d=12431819 Autodesk Requirements state that you need 3.20GHz and 8MB L3 Turbo or Equivalent, Read the 64-bit Requirements.

And I have spoken with Autodesk Subscription Center, about the W701 and my configuration,
and my system meets and beats the Requirements.


Thank You,

[ausmike]

PM sent ....

[kaz911]

Autocad did have some issues on Multi core processors - and I don't know if they have been fixed. The performance increase when adding cores was not very good. A lot of Autocad is as far as I know - still single threaded and have not been reworked to multi-core.

[ausmike]

Autocad did have some issues on Multi core processors ............. A lot of Autocad is as far as I know - still single threaded and have not been reworked to multi-core.

Yip > in short > they STILL EXIT !!!
Thus the 'team of teckies' from MS/Autodesk/intel = to fix the ONE TARGET we gve them = come up with software that WILL MAKE USE of multi-core design

To answer Manuel's earlier question; yes even 2011 does NOT MAKE FULL USE of the newer "Q" series proc from Intel........... and make matters worse ,,,,, it wont even support most of features off the latest "i-series" proc!!

am not holding my breath ,,,,,,, but am hopefull ,,,,,, and am not even a FULLTIME USER of AUTODESK prodcut !!

[Crunch]

Alright, I just read through the entire thread. In my OP, I was asking about the FASTEST DUAL-core i7 (the i7-620M @ 2.66GHz w/ 2 cores/4 threads/4MB L3) vs. the SLOWEST QUAD-core i7 (the i7-720QM @ 1.6GHz (which is over a FULL 1 GHz (1000 MHz) *slower* but has 4 cores/8 threads/6MB cache).

Why is this of such interest to me? Because the DUAL-core runs at 1.06GHz FASTER but only has 2 cores. Over 1GHz in speed difference is a LOT, and even the maximum Turbo speed that you'll get is 3.33GHz, which is again significantly higher than the max. Turbo of either the QUAD Core i7-720QM, or the QUAD Core i7-820QM.

I'm still interested in someone's take on what makes more sense to buy right now!??? Is it still true that most applications can't take advantage of four (4) cores and will therefore run slower, despite Hyper-Threading, and despite Turbo Boost.....?

***
This thread turned into a back and forth about the QUAD (i7-720QM/i7-820QM) vs. the QUAD EXTREME (i7-920XM). I don't understand why either the i7-720QM or the i7-820QM would be faster than the i7-920XM, which is still a QUAD, but has a higher clock and the same amount of cache (8MB).

[Marin85]

I'm still interested in someone's take on what makes more sense to buy right now!??? Is it still true that most applications can't take advantage of four (4) cores and will therefore run slower, despite Hyper-Threading, and despite Turbo Boost.....?

See my first post If you ask me, buy now cpu that you can sell later with still recovering most of your money (that is, not the slowest and not the fastest cpu) and then upgrade to i7-940XM (up to 3.33 GHz), when it is out (not too far in the foreseable future). It is not like you don´t have any experience with upgrading cpus Also, your question depends on what you see as "most applications" and whether this makes much sense for a particular application, i.e. if it is not resource-intensive at all, then there is pretty much no point in developing a multi-thread-capable version of it. (Maybe, if you tell us what applications you want to use, we can check whether they have good support for multithreaded computing.) Also, performance-wise, the i7-820QM is not so much better than the former QX9300, but it offers 4 additional threads. Now, I believe the general opinion is if you care for something future-proof, then go for the Quad-Core without any doubts (then you can sell it for a faster one)!

This thread turned into a back and forth about the QUAD (i7-720QM/i7-820QM) vs. the QUAD EXTREME (i7-920XM). I don't understand why either the i7-720QM or the i7-820QM would be faster than the i7-920XM, which is still a QUAD, but has a higher clock and the same amount of cache (8MB).

This is what ausmike has observed with Autocad and cared to shock us all with But it seems it is bound only to the Autocad product.

Cheers,

Marin

[ausmike]

...trust me mate Marin ...to be on Ball ,,,,,

FYI ,,,'maybe' am going to start new Thread(s) ,,,,, ANYONE know of a 'software/apps' that REALLY MAKES USE of the newer " i series" and the " Q series" intel procressors ,,,,
<<have a thread in intel forum... as of yet ,,, lots of Blah blah ,, nothing specific to show me that INTEL IS BEING used to its potential or the 'marketed capabilities..........so "show me the money" is my personal view!!>>
(BTW : nope - NOT instrested in Read/Write capabilities of these proc'sors)

.....off last few weeks ; I have seen some very "CRAZY" things as far as 'intel teckies goes;" with MS apps ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, needless to say its frustrating and might force me back to me attachin myself to few more steins in Munich soon ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,marin>be in your part of world again next week but for now enjoying CLEAN CRISP CANADAIN AIR !!

Cheers everyone ,,, happy weekend!

[AMATX]

Crunch, maybe you should contact the vendor(s) for your main apps in question and scope them out on multi-processing, multi-threading in regards to -their- specific apps. Also, what are their near term future plans on expanding the app(s) capabilities?

Once you have this charted out, the answer for -you- will probably be obvious.

In my case, I have one app that burns a lot of mips. Under control for now, but I plan on expanding it's usage in the near term, as $$$ permit. So, I contacted the vendor, found out they have no immediate plans to expand to multi-processing. So for -me-, this means I need a minimum number of mips/GHz on each core, so that I can handle this particular app. On the W700 platform that I currently use, this probably pushes me to fewer/faster cores, vs. more/slower.

Along the way, I'll check some comparisons between W700 & W701 cpus to determine if any of the quad cores on the W701 have enough individual mips to drive my app.

If things got crunched enough, I'd have to consider going to some sort of workstation/tower setup and leave the Tpad behind, but for now, I think I'll be ok.

Trade offs, trade offs...