I’m looking at buying a new laptop in the near future, and wish to go with Intel this time around.
I was just wondering if anyone can give me a heads up on which CPU is better, the duo or the quad.
IE, is there a real difference in actual “power on the ground” between the two, not just theoretical?
I’m mainly interested in 3d games performance, (yes I am aware that most of this will be handled by the graphics card[s]), but everyday stuff like firefox and video conversion/encoding is also a relevant factor.
So I guess my main question is: which would be faster all round -
Quad is always better in terms of performance (well, virtually always as it depends on other stuff too like clockspeed, arch, cache, etc) and if you especially do a lot of multimedia related stuff (audio/video encoding/editing) you cen benefit greatly from a Quad
Also, if you’re going for an Intel (cough) why not go the i7 way? Much better architecture and performance
With Intel’s CPU’s (up to Core 2 Duo) the main part that drives the performance is the FSB, clock frequency and yes, core amount too:) As it is easier to hit higher clock speed with dual-cores it gets better performance. Try just increasing the FSB and you will discover the difference (it’s FSB that slows down the whole PC with Intel’s CPU’s, the i7 is fine since it has it’s own memory lane).
Hmm, i guess buying a powerful laptop is just a waste of money unless it will be your only PC and in fact stationary
I can’t imagine taking with me a laptop that will last an hour BUT it is powerful indeed
Yes, the downside is that you can’t really improve a laptops performance besides adding some more memory and bigger hard disks
If you plan on using virtualization you should be aware that not all Intel processors have Intel’s VT-x technology enabled. from what I understand this has to do with “segmenting the market”. It’s the hardware equivalent of Microsoft’s million and one versions of Windows. Anyway it’s a royal pain if you buy a current model CPU thinking that all such CPUs support VT-x and find out otherwise.
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 15:46 +0000, saahne wrote:
> If you plan on using virtualization you should be aware that not all
> Intel processors have Intel’s VT-x technology enabled. from what I
> understand this has to do with “segmenting the market”. It’s the
> hardware equivalent of Microsoft’s million and one versions of
> Windows. Anyway it’s a royal pain if you buy a current model CPU
> thinking that all such CPUs support VT-x and find out otherwise.
>
>
It’s one of the biggest downsides with buying Intel.
Also, Intel varies the cache sizes in the same way. It’s a lot more
complicated than it used to be.
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 16:26 +0000, microchip8 wrote:
…
> 1) More complex model
> 2) Clueless public doesn’t get it and swims in confusion
> 3) ???
> 4) Profit!
4? Probably not. Intel ends up selling the user what he/she doesn’t
want and computer gets returned so the consumer can take another
stab/guess at it until they finally buy an AMD and have no more
worries
Intel created the complexity… IMHO, it hurts them. I think they’d
sell more and have happier customers if they simplified.
(but when you’re making the kind of money Intel is making, maybe at some
point you don’t care about making even more money?)
Yes, profit! If the customer buys something he expected to see in his purchase but he discovered it wasn’t there, when he returns the product, he’ll want one (and there’s good chance from the same company) that offers the functionality the customer wants/needs only to discover that he’ll have to pay extra on top to get such product as it’s more expensive than the previous one which doesn’t offer this functionality. Also, Intel often tricks customers by selling them the exact piece of HW with the minor difference that in one of the model, a specific feature is disabled, while in another model which is exactly the same HW-wise, that feature is enabled. For example, The P4 @ 2.8 GHz with HT is exactly the same HW-wise as the P4 @ 2.8 GHz without HT. The only difference is that the former has HT enabled (and thus costs bit more) while the latter has it disabled. Basically, if you bought the P4 @ 2.8 GHz without HT, in reality you are using a HT chip, but with a disabled HT inside the chip. You want HT? Pay up extra to get the exact same chip but this time with HT enabled
Further, you really think Intel is that dumb to not exploit its clueless customers? I doubt that
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:16 +0000, microchip8 wrote:
…
> Further, you really think Intel is that dumb to not exploit its
> clueless customers? I doubt that
Intel is certainly not dumb… evil maybe…
But I do think that confusing the customer isn’t wise.
But I think a lot of things are wrong. For example, why not allow all
phones to tether? Why not allow people to use iTunes? Why not make
digital format the norm for cable and dish (without doubling the cost)?
Granted, with phones, etc. the idea is to try to make as much cash as
possible before being driven out of business… but still…
So, no, Intel isn’t dumb… I just think they could make more money. I
disagree that grandma and grandpa will research and figure out Intel’s
complex CPU scheme. A more satisified customer is a repeat customer in
the tech market. Otherwise, just like phone/tv, people continually jump
from vendor to vendor until they realize they all stink and then it
becomes just a bargain hunt…
… and that means, for CPUs, back to AMD.
And if Intel doesn’t understand that, then maybe they are dumb after
all.
I didn’t say that this complex model is good. I said basically it is easier to exploit people with it as it brings too much information in the form of too many different CPUs but with very similar product names, thus increasing confusion and uncertainty. Eg, model 540 and 541, for example, are identical HW-wise, only the latter has this or that feature turned on or off and because of this, they are sold as if they are entirely different CPUs while in reality, from HW POV, they are exactly the same but the public isn’t aware of that, geeks/nerds excluded. So if you only produce 5 HW-wise different CPUs but in one you disable this but in another you don’t, you can go to the market and create the illusion as if you’re producing HW-wise 10 different CPUs since the one with the disabled feature is sold/marketed as an entirely different CPU than the one with the enabled feature, even though both from HW POV are exactly the same, only Intel has “flipped a switch” and disabled or enabled something. This brings a lot of confusion and also a lot of people just blindly buy things without reading up (too much). I agree that a simplified model could work better and guess what? Intel not too long ago (few months) has publicly stated that they’ll review their model and try to simplify it. I bet even Intel itself could get lost in its own current model
I also agree that AMDs model is better, but tbh, it’s a bit of misleading too, especially with performance numbers like 4000+ or 5000+. AMD has never really been clear to what they are comparing their CPUs and thus confusion sneaked in and some say that this number indicates how fast a specific Intel CPU needs to be running to match or outperform an AMD CPU tagged with a 4000+ number. Others say it’s a comparison to previous AMD CPUs and indicates at what speed the previous AMD CPU architecture needs to be running to match or outperform the current CPU tagged with 4000+.
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 19:36 +0000, microchip8 wrote:…
> I also agree that AMDs model is better, but tbh, it’s a bit of
> misleading too, especially with performance numbers like 4000+ or 5000+.
> AMD has never really been clear to what they are comparing their CPUs
> and thus confusion sneaked in and some say that this number indicates
> how fast a specific Intel CPU needs to be running to match or outperform
> an AMD CPU tagged with a 4000+ number. Others say it’s a comparison to
> previous AMD CPUs and indicates at what speed the previous AMD CPU
> architecture needs to be running to match or outperform the current CPU
> tagged with 4000+.
>
>
AMD does appear to be stuck in “clock competition land” still. Maybe
they didn’t get the memo that they won that issue? That naming was not
for AMD comparison but for equivalent Intel clock speed comparison from
the P4 days.
Of course, AMD+ATI could result in names like:
Mega-Ultra-Gamer-Frag+30
or something like that. So I guess it could be worse.
Ramkatral wrote:
> Mmmmmm, all thus hubbub. I am happy I use AMD.
If you like conspiracy theories… it’s possible that Intel has to leave some room for AMD so that a competitor continues to exist. Right now AMD has
<10% of the market, down from their high of 17% when they were the one with dual core CPUs. I imagine that <10% is perfectly acceptable to Intel as
long as that serves to prove competition exists. So maybe Intel could do more, but doesn’t because what they are doing is enough and it allows AMD to
have a very small percentage of the total market. Question is how long will AMD last running in the red…??
This is all very interesting and academic. But it really is rather off topic.
The thing is that for the specifications I need, I haven’t found a suitable unit that runs an AMD chip.
I’ve always stood by AMD, and run one at the moment.
The problem with laptops is that one always has to compromise on at least one aspect/feature to get close to what one actually wants.
In my case I want top end graphics performance, and I’m not too fussed which CPU I end up with, as long as it is as fast as possible for the least cost.
Plus most laptops with AMD chips are aimed at the lower cost market, and nearly always carry a rotten ATI video card.
@tom_enos - Why do you suggest that the core2 duo is better? Any particular reason? Not knocking your advice, just curious to know why ;).
for a laptop heat and power consumption are also important so a CPU with a lower power rating is something to consider.
More power = less battery life and more heat
for games, web-surfing, e-mail, and general use in a laptop. dual core with a higher clock
if the video editing is the most important then a quad is the way to go.
balance it between what you will use it for most often and you should be happy with it.
It’s not me being a fan of the dual core processors, to be honest I prefer a quad. but I have a desktop not a laptop.
But in the end just buy the one that makes you happy, owning a quad core does give you that felling that you can run anything that you want and have CPU to spare.
While the GPU is important, you can not run a game without a CPU
and growbag wants a computer not a graphics card
and if the GPU is the most important thing then you must have two gtx 295’s and an athlon for you gaming rig right;)
I was under the impression that the OS was responsible for the allocation and running of the CPU cores, is that wrong?
Thanks for the links, the 2nd one is quite interesting, and shows that there is not too much difference between the duo and quad, except when playing ETQW.
And guess which game I need the power for? You guessed it - ETQW :!
Like I said earlier, it’s always a tradeoff when buying a laptop, sadly.
So it looks like the quad will be the better choice because for most modern games it makes little difference between the 2, ETQW (under Windows!) uses the quad core better, and I get faster video encoding performance.
I’m prepared to sacrifice battery time as I only need that when moving the laptop between rooms and happen to be playing a game at the time. So no biggie. Plus when I go on the road I can rip the 2nd video card out and one memory stick if it’s that important to save a little battery time.
I’ve tried for many years to use a laptop to play games on flights (which for me are always long-haul of 8 to 14 hours per stretch) and never had much success with battery power.
Thankfully I can relax the battery time constraint as today more and more airlines provide AC power outlets in economy class (Singapore Airlines being the best to date), and I always manage to find an outlet in the stopover airport which I can use to recharge :D.
But the heat output and fan-noise are also a big concern.
