NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Grab Quad-Core Notebook or Wait for Mobile Core i7?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Grab Quad-Core Notebook or Wait for Mobile Core i7?

post #1 of 16
9/10/09 at 3:42pm
Thread Starter 
Usage: Animation rendering; Video encoding; Video Authoring; Audio/Video Editing; Encoding & Converting 1080p / 6 Channels Audio/Video.

Budget: $2,000 ~ $2,500

I've been looking around at the HP HDX18t & the Alienware M17x Notebooks. I was pretty much set on buying one of the two; but today I saw news regarding the Mobile Core i7 being released by the end of this month, which means soon we should have Mobile Core i7 in the market. There's already news of the an HP Dv8 which is looking pretty promising.

My question is: Should I grab a Core 2 Quad notebook now or wait for a Core i7 notebook? Considering my primary usage of the notebook (Video Encoding, Rendering), will I gain any advantage waiting for a Core i7? Is it better then Core 2 Quad in the Video Editing/Encoding area?

nVidia GTX is a must for me as I'll be using CUDA as well.

Any suggestions or advice would be highly appreciated!

Thanks guys.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 16
9/10/09 at 9:05pm
Due to turbo boost and the new technology, a mobile Core i7 will be much better than a current quad-core for single- or dual-core optimized programs, although for quad-core optimized programs, the new mobile Core i7 CPUs may still lag a little bit behind the current quad-cores.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 16
9/10/09 at 9:44pm
Have you looked at the NP9280 with i7? And yes the i7's are more powerful for your uses.
Quote:
A Core i7 920 system scored 16,294 3DMark Vantage benchmark running at stock clock rates. An Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770, a very expensive member of the previous generation of Intel processors (costing over four times the price of the 920 at its launch), scored 13,182 also running at stock clock rates.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 16
9/11/09 at 8:46am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djembe View Post
although for quad-core optimized programs, the new mobile Core i7 CPUs may still lag a little bit behind the current quad-cores.
That's an interesting statement; very pertinent to me. Do you have any details on this? The program that I use specifically (TMPGEnc Xpress) is indeed optimized for Quad-Core processors.

@ powerpack: Yes, I've looked at that. Apart from the Core i7 I'm not too impressed with the notebook; it's over-priced for what it's offering in my opinion. And the Core i7 they are using is not the mobile Core i7. If I do choose a Core i7, I'll prefer to wait for the mobile version.

Thanks Guys!!
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 16
9/11/09 at 9:27am
We really will have to wait and see. But from what I have read I think Djembe has a point. First we must remember Intel with their mobile platforms are not concerned so much with the absolute max performance. They desire improved battery life and also always face thermal limits. So these i7 mobiles sound like not very high clocked. They do have a Turbo feature where one maybe even more cores can upclock until they reach the thermal limit. This could be good for many people not using quad threaded apps. Will save on power when not being stressed and help control heat. Problem for you running quad threaded is your clocks will be the lower if all cores working. So is 1.66Ghz i7 four cores more powerful than 3.06Ghz C2 4 cores? I think C2 wins on that.

But we will have to see. i7 would be a better balanced mobile solution but for some of us all we care about is performance.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 16
9/11/09 at 9:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpack View Post
Problem for you running quad threaded is your clocks will be the lower if all cores working. So is 1.66Ghz i7 four cores more powerful than 3.06Ghz C2 4 cores? I think C2 wins on that.

But we will have to see. i7 would be a better balanced mobile solution but for some of us all we care about is performance.
I do completely agree with you. I honestly am looking to 'burn' my notebook. In other words; I really don't care that much about a 'better balanced mobile' solution or saving power & battery; I'm truly looking for as much Performance as possible.

I think we will have to wait and see and it seems I don't have a choice but to play the waiting game & postpone my purchase towards later this years; when there's some choice available; better benchmarks & performance comparison between C2Q & i7 notebooks.

I wasn't sure if there was a clear-cut winner; it appears there isn't!

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 16
9/12/09 at 12:27pm
I played with a couple of numbers.

I took the i7920 2.67hz Pass Mark-CPU Mark converted to 1.66Ghz and came up with 3382 score. The Q9300 2.5Ghz is 3491. Now I know the mobile will not have tri-channel but I think the numbers are at least close. That said kind of amazing how well a 1.66Ghz i7 does.

I guess I should not be surprised, Intel engineers while improving many features know they can't put out a "wet noodle". So a Q9300 might hang close it has none of the advantage of the i7. And the i7's will release higher clocked CPU's that will crush C2 at any clock.

So C2 @ 2.5Ghz will hang with 1st release i7 @ 1.66Ghz in raw performance. Just proves clocks are not all. It is what is done with those clocks. I mean P4's had crazy high clocks but not that great?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 16
9/12/09 at 1:42pm
I got my estimates from PassMark numbers as well (since to date they're the only ones that compare CPUs across different platforms). I compared the same clockspeeds between Core 2 Quad and Core i7 processors as best as possible and came across an average 20% performance gain for Core i7 over Core 2 when using all 4 cores, as the PassMark benchmarking tool does. Or, to put it another way, a Core i7 will perform as well as a Core 2 clocked 20% higher. Then I increased the clockspeeds of the Clarksfield mobile Core i7 CPUs by 20% to compare them with the current Core 2 Quad mobiles. Here's what I found, comparing the CPUs by price point:
  • The Core i7 720QM (1.6 Ghz) should be equal in quad-core performance to a Core 2 Quad at 1.92 Ghz, just shy of the 2 Ghz Q9000
  • The Core i7 820QM (1.73 Ghz) should be equal to 2.076 Ghz, again a bit less than the 2.1 Ghz Q9100
  • Lastly, the Core i7 920XM (2 Ghz) should be equal to 2.4 Ghz, which is slower than the 2.53 Ghz QX9300

These differences are small, and since we don't have any actual data on the mobile Core i7 CPUs, they could be better enough that they match or overshadow their predecessors. However, judging from the desktop variants, the current mobile Core 2 Quads will still be the slightest bit faster than the mobile Core i7s for quad-core optimized applications, and that's why I posted what I did.

edit: it looks like I made some mistakes in my comparison method. look down to my next post to see more accurate comparison numbers and my revised opinion

However, on looking at some other factors, I may still recommend the mobile Core i7s over the current Core 2 Quads even if all you use is quad-core optimized applications.
  • According to the prices listed on Wikipedia, the mid-level Core i7 quad is around $300 less expensive than the mid-level Core 2 quad.
  • Also, since the features of the northbridge have now been added to the processor, platforms using the new Core i7 quads (with the exception of the 2 Ghz "extreme" one) have a lower total TDP of CPU + chipset than the current Core 2 quads have
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 16
9/12/09 at 2:14pm
How did you convert? I find you seriously low on i7 performance? And yes i7 is cheaper.

The features of the north bridge you speak of in common English means there is no longer a fsb. Just to clear up for the kids. No FSB anymore.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 16
9/12/09 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpack View Post
How did you convert? I find you seriously low on i7 performance? And yes i7 is cheaper.

The features of the north bridge you speak of in common English means there is no longer a fsb. Just to clear up for the kids. No FSB anymore.
hmmm.. I went back and re-checked my numbers, and it seems that you're right. When I first did the comparison several months ago, I was comparing Core i7s with the most powerful Core 2 based processors (Xeons) instead of the consumer Core 2 series. I just did the comparison again vs. the Core 2 Quad branded CPUs and got closer to a 37% gain, which I guess negates what I posted earlier, huh?
I apologize for my inaccuracy.

It looks like with a 37% performance gain, that the upcoming mobile Core i7 processors are actually better than the current mobile Core 2 quads for ALL types of applications, which actually makes a lot more sense to me than it previously did, as I was curious why Intel would release new CPUs that were less powerful than their predecessors in certain situations.

So the real mobile conversion chart should look more like this:

Core 2 Quad / Core i7 equivalent
Q9000 (2 Ghz) / 2.27 Ghz (1.6 Ghz i7-720QM)
Q9100 (2.1 Ghz) / 2.37 Ghz (1.73 Ghz i7-820QM)
QX9300 (2.53 Ghz) / 2.74 Ghz (2 Ghz i7-920XM)
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 16
9/14/09 at 3:16pm
Thread Starter 
Very interesting numbers there guys; and insight
I'm definately on board "waiting" for the mobile Core i7 Notebook to hit the streets. Most importantly I'm looking at HP as the HDX is what I was after currently.

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 16
9/14/09 at 3:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey79 View Post
Very interesting numbers there guys; and insight
I'm definately on board "waiting" for the mobile Core i7 Notebook to hit the streets. Most importantly I'm looking at HP as the HDX is what I was after currently.

Thanks!
Engadget just reported that HP is planning to release an Envy 15 notebook with a Core i7 720QM CPU and ATI Mobility Radeon 4830 graphics card in a 15.x" screen and only 1 inch thick(!) form factor. Looks like it could be a really great computer (although probably rather expensive due to the form factor)
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 16
9/14/09 at 3:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djembe View Post
Engadget just reported that HP is planning to release an Envy 15 notebook with a Core i7 720QM CPU and ATI Mobility Radeon 4830 graphics card in a 15.x" screen and only 1 inch thick(!) form factor. Looks like it could be a really great computer (although probably rather expensive due to the form factor)
That's interesting; although I will be looking out for nVidia Card notebook simple because of CUDA.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 16
9/14/09 at 11:40pm
OK guys hang with me I know I am a smart ass. But let me run this by you guys. HP is going to release one of the first i7's? HP does not know how to control thermal stress. Their MoBo's fry! Add to that the classic mix of HP offering weak graphics solutions. Yea I know a 48XX but a XX30? Come on a multi-media at best. Not a gamer.

So in closing It looks like another non gaming overheating HP offering.

I do know I am being very negative but I just can't help. Sorry.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 16
9/15/09 at 12:04am
We all know that you are a big "fan" of HP ;-)

But seriously, I am always optimistic, in that any manufacturers would always excel as time goes

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 16
9/15/09 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djembe View Post
Engadget just reported that HP is planning to release an Envy 15 notebook with a Core i7 720QM CPU and ATI Mobility Radeon 4830 graphics card in a 15.x" screen and only 1 inch thick(!) form factor. Looks like it could be a really great computer (although probably rather expensive due to the form factor)

http://www.hp.com/united-states/camp...nvy/index.html

They look promising too
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Grab Quad-Core Notebook or Wait for Mobile Core i7?