Core i7 Quad and TurboBoost tech question...

[Crunch]

I know that we are blessed to have some of the highest caliber experts that are members on this forum, so I'd like to ask what will likely sound like a couple of n00b-ish questions here.

I recently read a couple of articles on the whole Quad vs. Dual core question and I was surprised to find that this is still up for debate. It sounds a lot like what everyone said over a year ago: Get the Quad now, so you'll have it in a year when most applications will have been rewritten to support multiple cores. Has that truly not happened?

So isn't this is essentially the same thing all over again? One of the articles concluded that there are still a lot of people who will benefit more from a Dual-Core CPU with a higher clock vs. a Quad-Core processor with a slower clock but twice as many cores. It goes on to say that "...unless you're going to specifically use one or more of the few applications that support multiple cores in existence today, you will be better off going with a faster Dual-Core than a slower Quad".

Lastly, I'd like to get a better understanding of exactly how 4-core (or more) CPU's work. For example, will a Quad Core benefit me when I actively use multiple applications at once and have various different browsers open with 60 tabs between them and I have a bunch of stuff running in the background...would more cores benefit me here? Let's say I had the choice between a Core i7-870 (2.93GHz, 3.6GHz w/ Turbo and HyperThreading, 8MB L3) and a Core i5-680 (3.6GHz, 3.86GHz w/ Turbo, but no HT and only 4MB of L3 cache). What would be the better choice?

I thank you in advance for your expertise. I'm really hoping for some responses. Thanks again!

[ausmike]

Hiya Crunch....

Nicely said ! however I am no EXPERT nor even anyways a TECKIE person
but the flattery - hope it works; as I have kinda tried to get this same question ANSWERED or CLARIFIED on this and couple of other forums.

Seems for one or many reasons there comes a point where NO ONE in the "know' wants to clearly divelge critical info - so that users like you and me CAN clearly see that the TRUE ANSWER is!

Am left with few questions for you though (as am between flights @ airports at the moment)
a) what you going to use this 'proposed configuration' for in this 'super thinkpad' ?
b) how much money would you spend to get that 'ideal config'?
etc

FYI - maybe look at some of the posts I have had here ,,,,, re : 16GB RAM; Video Performance etc etc
more later
cheers

[AMATX]

Short of using a sophisticated performance monitor, one could crank up the Windows monitor and observe not just total cpu consumed, but the split amongst different apps. If you have more than two apps consuming a bunch of cpu, then a quad core might be better. If you have one app that needs a LOT of cpu, then going with a dual core higher clock speed chip may be the answer.

It always boils down to total mips burned vs. requirements for the top few crunchers...

I'm in a situation myself where I may eventually get a W700 chip, extreme with two cores, vs. the quad core, as the dual has a higher clock speed. I have one app that really burns mips, so if I got the quad core, it would max out one of the four cores and the other three would not be heavily utilized.

[Crunch]

Hiya Crunch....

Nicely said ! however I am no EXPERT nor even anyways a TECKIE person
but the flattery - hope it works; as I have kinda tried to get this same question ANSWERED or CLARIFIED on this and couple of other forums.

Seems for one or many reasons there comes a point where NO ONE in the "know' wants to clearly divelge critical info - so that users like you and me CAN clearly see that the TRUE ANSWER is!(...)

Hey Mike, hope you're having a good flight. Yes, I realize that the overall computer experience depends on many different factors than simply the clock speed of the CPU. As you correctly noted, I was hoping for a technical explanation. And yes, I tried to "kill 'em with kindness"

This is actually for a desktop computer to augment my ThinkPad. The Core i7-870 is cheap now and the base clock of 2.93GHz is plenty fast. However, more is better, and the TurboBoost feature is theoretically supposed to increase that clock all the way up to 3.6GHz, is it not? This is according to Intel's own specs of that particular processor.

In other words, hypothetically, if I have an app that will only use 1 core, will TurboBoost really accomplish that just like a non-hyperthreaded and non-TurboBoost'd CPU that runs at a base clock of 3.6GHz?

Short of using a sophisticated performance monitor, one could crank up the Windows monitor and observe not just total cpu consumed, but the split amongst different apps. If you have more than two apps consuming a bunch of cpu, then a quad core might be better. If you have one app that needs a LOT of cpu, then going with a dual core higher clock speed chip may be the answer.

It always boils down to total mips burned vs. requirements for the top few crunchers...

I'm in a situation myself where I may eventually get a W700 chip, extreme with two cores, vs. the quad core, as the dual has a higher clock speed. I have one app that really burns mips, so if I got the quad core, it would max out one of the four cores and the other three would not be heavily utilized.

Well, isn't this where TurboBoost and Hyper-Threading are supposed to come in? (also see above response) Thank you!

[AMATX]

I don't know that much about Intel processors to adequately answer your questions...

HOWEVER, I found this thread quite interesting...lots of posts, lots of info, so I'd recommend starting at the beginning and wading through it over a couple of days. There are some examples of this overclocking working on Thinkpads, so could work for you...

http://forum.notebookreview.com/hardwar ... ndows.html

[ausmike]

hiya Crunch*
Sorry for the quick previous post - but this topic has been a BIG concern to me(us) as a whole....

My work involves in construction/deploy and manage very large DATABASES (often billions rows+)
and most of these are large coperate institutions all over the world.

Am ALSO ONLY can talk about "thinkpads" and not Desktops - as we dont carry them around with us.
I do know there is a HUGE DESIGN and or Performance advantages at the 'desktop' levels which are often not avalible in laptops due to size/weight/heat etc etc considerations.........

to our frsutrations; a new model of Intel comes out , and we get told a WHOLE NEW story -generally = " this will work BEST for you"

We also have had LENOVO tell us whole bunch of things - since being their NO#1 PRIMARY TEST facility for REAL LIFE WORK - we often get to use the newest and fastest and tbe best of best configurations all over the world.

We have also had a team of 'experts' from Intel + Lenovo + Software APPs ( eg SAP , MS etc) create a TEAM to do some of the 'teckie work' and really come up with a 'non gamer' laptop that would be able to do the 'grunt work' that we often need ; eg massage/review/update DATA outside Databases abd than import them to the main databses. These (edits updates) are often done on Excel, Access etc .....

What my main frustration has been is ability to get a configuration that we are told would work is actually SLOWER than our previously slow model we had eg the latest i7 models (with SSD) of w510 seems to be slower than the previous Quad Core Extreme with normalk HDs to DO the SAME SAME WORK on SAME DATA SET

since we dont really use much of the VIDEO memory - I cannt comment much about the "display" side performances ....but I am very impressed watching movies on a BRAND NEW Y5603d
beats ipad screen anyday or night !


but in summary = Highest proc speeds with currently released apps , seems to do lots better performace than the MULTI CORE stuff

sorry about the rant ,,,, hope its not too far off the topic

[Crunch]

I don't know that much about Intel processors to adequately answer your questions...

HOWEVER, I found this thread quite interesting...lots of posts, lots of info, so I'd recommend starting at the beginning and wading through it over a couple of days. There are some examples of this overclocking working on Thinkpads, so could work for you...

Thanks for the link. Definitely an interesting read! I haven't even gotten to the topic of overclocking yet...but I will.

hiya Crunch*

(...)

our frsutrations; a new model of Intel comes out , and we get told a WHOLE NEW story -generally = " this will work BEST for you"

Yea, I hear you on that. IMO that can be summed up to conflict of interest and special agenda issues on the part of those who are trying to (up)sell you something.

What my main frustration has been is ability to get a configuration that we are told would work is actually SLOWER than our previously slow model we had eg the latest i7 models (with SSD) of w510 seems to be slower than the previous Quad Core Extreme with normalk HDs to DO the SAME SAME WORK on SAME DATA SET

since we dont really use much of the VIDEO memory - I cannt comment much about the "display" side performances ....but I am very impressed watching movies on a BRAND NEW Y5603d
beats ipad screen anyday or night !


but in summary = Highest proc speeds with currently released apps , seems to do lots better performace than the MULTI CORE stuff

That's interesting that your experience with the older-gen Core 2 Quad Extreme CPU's was better than the newer Core i7 Quad's. The hard drive vs. SSD question is a separate question, but I see that how it serves to bolster your conclusion about the Core 2 Quad's being faster, or at least the same, even more. Please correct me if I misunderstood anything about that.

As far as laptop CPU's only are concerned, I do wonder as to why the base configuration of the Core i7 Quad, the i7-720QM, is only 1.6GHz per core whereas the previous-generation Core 2 Quad's were at least 2.0GHz per core to use the Q9000 as an example. The Core 2 Quad Extreme QX9300 at 2.53GHz was also quite a bit faster (per core that is) than the Core i7 Quad "Extreme Edition", as it is called, which, using the i7-920XM as an example, is "only" 2.0GHz per core. Of course, the Core 2 Quad's do not have Turbo Boost or Hyper-Threading, which makes a (big?) difference.

This leads me back to my original post and question and, most of all, my request that some of those members in this forum who are more "in the know" about the more intricate details of these new CPU technologies, to please explain it to people like you and me a little better. Pretty please?

[ausmike]

humn ,,,,, well as far as "teckie' bits > I do have access to a WHOLE TEAM of experts - my company has had a year long team (staff from Intel, Lenovo, AMD - Video; MS & SAP, etc etc) of so called experts trying to come up with a configuration of laptop..............
and from this team > (few breif points here - extracted/edited due to COPYRIGHT/PRIVACY issues)1) - seen all sorts of "DATA" as to why things are what they are !

a) generally if u look @ intel things > they seem to imply " software or Hardware" cannot fully COMPLY
and or "ake advantage of their 'design features' ... blah blah ,,,
b) .... generally Lenovo = we give you best we got .." tech is always changing faster than what we can
make "... blah blah ,,,,,,,,,,,,,<<< atleast we get given heaps of FREE SUPER FAST MACHINE to use for
up to 12 months > so thats always a PLUS !!!>>>
c) Softwre guys (MS, SAP, IBM etc) .............just as vague ,,,,,, lots of talk/marketing feature and function
talk .... blah blah ,

So in end > we use = what works best for the job we do ! <<< our kidna OWN config ... by changing RAM , PROC, HD etc etc>> and for me; none of the so caleld 'ecxperts' would ever have solutions for what we do!

However I have seen and done too hours of 'talk and touched far too many alptops from ALL MAJOR mfgers ,,,,,,,,, if you a Gamer, Video Editor - movie convertor ................theres are Great great laptops out there for that !!


Srry this might sound very genral > as am limited to what INFO i can give due to reasons stated above

[Marin85]

@Crunch: It all depends on the application one is using. If it is designed to run in multiple threads/cores, then a quad-core is clearly an advantage. Current Windows and Linux OS are natively multi-core "applications", so for general tasks quad-core cpus will do better than dual-cores. To be honest, I don´t understand all the fuzz about quad-cores vs. dual-cores. With quad-cores one has TurboBoost, which can shut down, say, 2 cores in order to increase the clock speed of the remaining active cores. As a result, the difference between a quad-core turbo-boosted into a dual-core and a real dual-core becomes marginal... Not to mention that in general the Xtreme quad/hex core editions have outstanding overclocking capabilities... So, in my view, multi-core cpus are the way to go. It is a "simple fact of life" that Intel and AMD can´t boost clock speeds forever to keep their sales, and high clocks don´t necessarily mean productivity. That is also one of the reasons why GPGPU platform is so successful: because gpus have so many "cores", so they can DO more.

Just my 0.02$

[ausmike]

giday Marin; long time no hear :

.....for me if I can use the car analigy(since just about everyone knows about cars)....

I drive a car _ yip a Sports car to some - Audi Rs8.....> I own it , I drive it - sometimes to its limit but mostly to drive back and forth at normal everyday driving!
When I ask the 'dealer' or 'mechanic' why my car sometimes does not go faster; than I get answers like - " it all depends " .....what roads are like ; what wind direction there is ; what grade of petrol you used ...blah blah blah ,,,,,
or
I get the SUPER TECKIE answers ....
The car multivalve trigger points were in need for reclibrations; the antilock and ALES were not in sync ,, blah blah ,,,,,,,

frustrating for me ..I need a plain simple answer
WHICH is better faster more suited for my work ? Dual Core? Quad Core ,,, blah blah ,,,, dont mean much when you ( like in car eg) ,,, you cannot drive as NORMALLY EXPECTED SPEEDs , and you have paid for this "super dooper high fancy price for it"

since the powers to be has had this 'dream team' to come up with this configurations - I juz want an ANSWER and a CONFIG that with WILL WORK!!
lol or is it like the saying goes > after pentiumIII anything else = waisted money and just a marketing............. blah blah

Btw- audi = replacing my car ..Yipeeee! > good to see lemon law actually works in Australia!

[Marin85]

Good day,Mike! The answer to the question quad-core vs. dual-core nowadays is quite simple: get as many cores as possible!

Cheers,
Marin

[jdrou]

Good day,Mike! The answer to the question quad-core vs. dual-core nowadays is quite simple: get as many cores as possible!

Cheers,
Marin

Only if price is no object. The most expensive dual-core is both cheaper and much faster than the least expensive quad-core with only two cores active (within the same CPU family). To get a quad-core that matches the dual-core speed you have to spend at least several hundred dollars extra. So if most of your CPU-intensive tasks are not multi-threaded you will waste a lot of money by buying a quad.

[Marin85]

Only if price is no object. The most expensive dual-core is both cheaper and much faster than the least expensive quad-core with only two cores active (within the same CPU family). To get a quad-core that matches the dual-core speed you have to spend at least several hundred dollars extra. So if most of your CPU-intensive tasks are not multi-threaded you will waste a lot of money by buying a quad.

I agree. I was speaking only from a performance standpoint.

[Crunch]

@Crunch: It all depends on the application one is using. If it is designed to run in multiple threads/cores, then a quad-core is clearly an advantage. Current Windows and Linux OS are natively multi-core "applications", so for general tasks quad-core cpus will do better than dual-cores. To be honest, I don´t understand all the fuzz about quad-cores vs. dual-cores. With quad-cores one has TurboBoost, which can shut down, say, 2 cores in order to increase the clock speed of the remaining active cores. As a result, the difference between a quad-core turbo-boosted into a dual-core and a real dual-core becomes marginal... Not to mention that in general the Xtreme quad/hex core editions have outstanding overclocking capabilities... So, in my view, multi-core cpus are the way to go. It is a "simple fact of life" that Intel and AMD can´t boost clock speeds forever to keep their sales, and high clocks don´t necessarily mean productivity. That is also one of the reasons why GPGPU platform is so successful: because gpus have so many "cores", so they can DO more.

Just my 0.02$

Hey Marin, what's up! Yes, I understand all the "depends on what you'll be using it for, etc., but I like your other answer better: "The more the better". haha...simple, to the point, no BS. And that's exactly what I've done, because price was no object.

At least the difference between the highest Core i7 Lynnfield (the i7-870) vs. the highest dual-core i5-600 series (the i5-680) did not matter. Actually, the Core i7-880 is now the highest i7 Lynnfield, making it twice as expensive as the i7-870, whereas the i7-870 is now the same price as the i7-860. Intel must be laughing all the way to the bank. Before the year's out, there will likely be an i7-890 running at 3.2GHz w/ Turbo up to 3.86GHz, at which time the i7-880/870/860's will all be around the same price. In other words, we should always buy the 2nd best/fastest CPU from processor series so that we don't pay an extra $280-$300 for 133MHz more in theoretical speed.

Hiya Crunch....

Nicely said ! however I am no EXPERT nor even anyways a TECKIE person
but the flattery - hope it works; as I have kinda tried to get this same question ANSWERED or CLARIFIED on this and couple of other forums.

Seems for one or many reasons there comes a point where NO ONE in the "know' wants to clearly divelge critical info - so that users like you and me CAN clearly see that the TRUE ANSWER is!(...)

Yes, indeed. I find myself needing to agree with you on this one more time. lol...In a way, it wasn't such a bad thing, because it forced me to read up a lot on the whole subject myself.

The difference between the dual and quad CPU's in the Core 2 days was actually a real issue and at the time, I opted for the Dual-core (T9900 @ 3.06GHz) vs. a Quad (Q9000 @ 2GHz) for my then ThinkPad W700.

However, now that we are in the Core i3/i5/i7 "era", it doesn't matter anymore thanks to Intel's Turbo Boost Technology (and in the i7's case, Hyper-Threading on top of Turbo Boost), as the Quad can now "become a much faster Dual" whenever needed. Seamlessly. That makes a HUGE difference and add to that the fact that the two OS's I use the most, namely Windows 7 and OS X 10.6, have both been "optimized" for multi-threaded CPU's, that makes the case for getting a Quad over a Dual even more compelling.

Decision made. The Core i7 quad it is.

Thanks to all who cared enough to respond and thanks for nothing to all who didn't.