Processor selection for X201

[KnightZero]

So, I'm picking up my X201 on Saturday. I'm going for fairly basic specs, since I'm planning to do the memory upgrade myself, and toss in an SSD once the size I want comes down to a reasonable price. I did bump up to the 250gb hard disk, just so that I have enough room to handle dual booting the way I want it. I am splurging on the CPU, somewhat. Right now, I'm looking at $1034 for the unit with my student discount, specced with the I5 processor. Seeing as I do intend to make this my primary mobile computer for a few years, is there any compelling reason to upgrade to the I7 processor, and blow another 200 bucks or so on the build? I know that I will be looking at slightly worse battery life with the I7, but if the performance is truly night and day between I5 and I7, I may make the somewhat pricey jump in my spec for it. Benchmarks that I'm finding on the web seem torn - some say that the I5 and I7 are almost in a dead heat, but I've also seen a few that have the I5 winning by a considerable margin - that was a headscratcher for me. I'm willing to give up a bit of battery life for a significant boost in power.

Just for a bit of context, the system will mostly be used between school studies and work as an IT consultant. I'm heavy on multitasking, and I do have a nasty habit of running more virtual machines on my mobile unit than I should. I'll be decking out the system with 8gb of memory as soon as it shows up on my doorstep, I just want to know if that little bit of extra turbo boost and cache on the processor will make a significant difference in the real world.

[penartur]

So, I'm picking up my X201 on Saturday. I'm going for fairly basic specs, since I'm planning to do the memory upgrade myself, and toss in an SSD once the size I want comes down to a reasonable price. I did bump up to the 250gb hard disk, just so that I have enough room to handle dual booting the way I want it. I am splurging on the CPU, somewhat. Right now, I'm looking at $1034 for the unit with my student discount, specced with the I5 processor. Seeing as I do intend to make this my primary mobile computer for a few years, is there any compelling reason to upgrade to the I7 processor, and blow another 200 bucks or so on the build? I know that I will be looking at slightly worse battery life with the I7, but if the performance is truly night and day between I5 and I7, I may make the somewhat pricey jump in my spec for it. Benchmarks that I'm finding on the web seem torn - some say that the I5 and I7 are almost in a dead heat, but I've also seen a few that have the I5 winning by a considerable margin - that was a headscratcher for me. I'm willing to give up a bit of battery life for a significant boost in power.

Just for a bit of context, the system will mostly be used between school studies and work as an IT consultant. I'm heavy on multitasking, and I do have a nasty habit of running more virtual machines on my mobile unit than I should. I'll be decking out the system with 8gb of memory as soon as it shows up on my doorstep, I just want to know if that little bit of extra turbo boost and cache on the processor will make a significant difference in the real world.

All CPU options in X201 are of standart voltage with 35W of TDP. There will not be any significant difference in their power consumption (except for difference caused by CPU speed - e.g. CPU with max.frequency of 1.33GHz and power consumption of X W will do its work 2x longer than CPU with max.frequency of 2.66GHz and power consumption of X W and therefore will consume 2x more power for the same amount of work, because while the latter did its job and went into sleep with power consumption close to zero, the former will still do its job and consume X W).
If you're choosing between i5-560M and i7-620M (the choice currently offered on lenovo website), then i'd recommend you to go with i5-560M. The only advantage of i7-620 is slightly higher TurboBoost frequency (3.33GHz as opposed to 3.2GHz of i5-560M) and an extra megabyte of L3 cache. It certainly won't help too much.
Also, it seems like Lenovo is trying to get an extra $200 just because i7 sounds cooler than i5. Actually, there is no such a price difference between i5-560M and i7-620M. i7-620M was released in January 2010 for $332; i guess its price significantly decreased since that time. i5-560M was released on September 2010 for $225. Maybe the actual price difference between these CPUs is e.g. $10 now; and lenovo is trying to charge you $200 extra.

[KnightZero]

If you're choosing between i5-560M and i7-620M (the choice currently offered on lenovo website), then i'd recommend you to go with i5-560M. The only advantage of i7-620 is slightly higher TurboBoost frequency (3.33GHz as opposed to 3.2GHz of i5-560M) and an extra megabyte of L3 cache. It certainly won't help too much.
Also, it seems like Lenovo is trying to get an extra $200 just because i7 sounds cooler than i5. Actually, there is no such a price difference between i5-560M and i7-620M. i7-620M was released in January 2010 for $332; i guess its price significantly decreased since that time. i5-560M was released on September 2010 for $225. Maybe the actual price difference between these CPUs is e.g. $10 now; and lenovo is trying to charge you $200 extra.

That price issue was a concern for me as well - while I do still see a bit more of a price difference (by Intel's 100 unit price) I didn't see anything near 200 bucks. If I recall right, it was more like $90-110 per unit. I admit, the I7 moniker was drawing me in, but I can't find any benchmark between the two that paints the extra 180 (with student discount) as worth it. I'm still seeing the 560M win in a few matchups, and lagging by next to nothing where it doesn't.

I'm still debating whether cache is going to make a major difference when playing with virtual machines. That's the only piece of the puzzle that I'm still evaluating.

[penartur]

That price issue was a concern for me as well - while I do still see a bit more of a price difference (by Intel's 100 unit price) I didn't see anything near 200 bucks. If I recall right, it was more like $90-110 per unit.

You should note that such a price for i7 was set in January, while such a price for i5 was set in September. Yes, they sold that i7 in January for $100 more than they sold that i5 in September; i guess that if we will compare prices with the same actuality, the difference will be $10 or $20 or so.

I'm still debating whether cache is going to make a major difference when playing with virtual machines. That's the only piece of the puzzle that I'm still evaluating.

RAM will make more difference. L3 Cache is for current execution, you may think of it as of some buffer for RAM (just like you may think of RAM as of some buffer for HDD). I guess that as long as you don't execute some tasks that heavily depend on cache size in all your virtual machines simultaneously, everything is fine. Even if there would have been some difference, it is certainly don't worth $180.

PS: And, by the way, you can get your Windows Server 2008 R2 copy for free on www.dreamspark.com or maybe on your faculty through MSDNAA program. IMHO Hyper-V is the perfect tool for running virtual machines, and it seems they fixed most major Hyper-V bugs in 2008 R2 SP1 beta, so it is quite compatible with the workstations now.

[Maryland, USA]

penartur's first post is right on the money. In December, I bought my wife a loaded X201 and dock. I would have gladly opted down to an -5xx CPU and saved myself $160 to $200, but this configuration wouldn't allow it. I understand that you're fearful of locking yourself in to a CPU speed that can't be upgraded once it's built. But the difference between these two options is dwarfed by the difference between either of them and the CPUs with the new Intel architecture. For startup and launching, an SSD will make the biggest difference of all.

With NewEgg's insanely low price on X201-compatible Laptop Memory, don't even think of using less than 8GB. As I write, 8GB of G.SKILL 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500) costs just $85 shipped.

[KnightZero]

PS: And, by the way, you can get your Windows Server 2008 R2 copy for free on http://www.dreamspark.com or maybe on your faculty through MSDNAA program. IMHO Hyper-V is the perfect tool for running virtual machines, and it seems they fixed most major Hyper-V bugs in 2008 R2 SP1 beta, so it is quite compatible with the workstations now.

I've been an action pack subscriber for quite a while now, so I'm covered on the software front. I may just give HyperV another go, though. I've been using VMWare products for the past few years, mainly due to adoption of ESXi for a major project I worked on early last year. I should probably give the Microsoft way a try.

With NewEgg's insanely low price on X201-compatible Laptop Memory, don't even think of using less than 8GB. As I write, 8GB of G.SKILL 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500) costs just $85 shipped.

I threw in 8gb of memory when I ordered some workstation component upgrades last week - its here waiting for the laptop to show up.

Right now, I have two quotes sitting in my email inbox from Lenovo - one with I5, 250gb 7200rpm HDD, and 2gb of memory, and the other with I7, 500gb HD, and 4gb memory. The difference between the two is less than 100 bucks with the web special going on right now, so I will probably end up with the I7 after all. All that time I spent talking myself out of it didn't count for much, I guess.