Which Processor is better?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

  1. Posts : 16
    Windows 7 x64
       #1

    Which Processor is better?


    I want to know which Processor is better and why?

    1.) (Dual Core) Intel® Core™ i7-620M 2.66GHz (3.33Ghz Turbo Mode, 4M cache)

    OR

    2.) (Quad Core) Intel Core i7 820QM 1.73GHz (3.06GHz Turbo Mode, 8MB Cache)

    And im mostly using this computer for gaming, So which one do you Recommend?
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 750
    Windows 8.1 Pro
       #2

    I'm not very saavy when it comes to mobile hardware, but...

    Just looking at the specs, I'd go for option #1.

    Fast dual core > slow quad core.... Every time.

    EDIT: Although the 8MBs of cache on the 820QM = very tempting.

    EDIT#2: http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=43560,43124
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 1,849
    Windows 7 x86/x64, Server 2008r2, Web Server 2008
       #3

    The larger cache for the quad.
    dual core is 2.66 with 2 cores is 5.32
    Or a quad at 6.92 :)
    You also have to remember the i7 is HT

    I would jump for the quad core.
    The dual core can only run 4 steams at once.
    The quad can run 8 threads.
    This is because the HT.

    I would go for the quad core any day. But it will also kill power and batter life....
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 89
    Windows 7 Home Premium x64(desktop), Windows 7 Professional x86(laptop)
       #4

    mckillwashere said:
    The larger cache for the quad.
    dual core is 2.66 with 2 cores is 5.32
    Or a quad at 6.92 :)
    Each core is not 2.66 or 1.73GHz, the GHz is spread over 2 or 4 cores.

    Anyway, I would probably go for the quad core, it has a lower clock speed, but that isn't everything, and it's cache is twice the size.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 6,879
    Win 7 Ultimate x64
       #5

    mckillwashere said:
    The larger cache for the quad.
    dual core is 2.66 with 2 cores is 5.32
    Or a quad at 6.92 :)
    You also have to remember the i7 is HT
    Tommyd said:

    Each core is not 2.66 or 1.73GHz, the GHz is spread over 2 or 4 cores.

    Anyway, I would probably go for the quad core, it has a lower clock speed, but that isn't everything, and it's cache is twice the size.
    You're both wrong, and you both went in opposite directions to get there. A quad or dual core is exactly what it says, 2 or 4 cores in a single package. And no the MHz is not spread over all the cores, and the speed is not the sum of all the cores. The speed is exactly what it says it is; 2 or 4 cores running at 2.66 GHz.

    Im a Noob are you looking to run one of these in a desktop, or swapping one for what you currently have in your notebook? If it is going to go into a desktop you will need a motherboard that will support mobile CPU's. If it is for you laptop, make good and sure that the laptop is up to cooling a new CPU.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 906
    Win 7 pro 64-bit, Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit
       #6

    Tommyd said:
    mckillwashere said:
    The larger cache for the quad.
    dual core is 2.66 with 2 cores is 5.32
    Or a quad at 6.92 :)
    Each core is not 2.66 or 1.73GHz, the GHz is spread over 2 or 4 cores.

    Anyway, I would probably go for the quad core, it has a lower clock speed, but that isn't everything, and it's cache is twice the size.
    Wrong, big time...
    Anyway, i'd go with the fast dual-core, its cheaper and really enough for gaming. most of the work there is done by the GPU and thus quads dont matter very much... Save your money, get the dual core! It also heats less, and takes less power...
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 16
    Windows 7 x64
    Thread Starter
       #7

    Thanks for the answers guys, I guess im going with the dual core!
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 1,849
    Windows 7 x86/x64, Server 2008r2, Web Server 2008
       #8

    Wrong, big time...
    Anyway, i'd go with the fast dual-core, its cheaper and really enough for gaming. most of the work there is done by the GPU and thus quads dont matter very much... Save your money, get the dual core! It also heats less, and takes less power...

    I was referring to Each core adding up.
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 6,879
    Win 7 Ultimate x64
       #9

    mckillwashere said:
    Wrong, big time...
    Anyway, i'd go with the fast dual-core, its cheaper and really enough for gaming. most of the work there is done by the GPU and thus quads dont matter very much... Save your money, get the dual core! It also heats less, and takes less power...
    I was referring to Each core adding up.
    They still don't add up. A quad core running with 4 cores at 3.0 GHz each, is till only running at 3.0 GHz, not running at 12 GHz.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 1,849
    Windows 7 x86/x64, Server 2008r2, Web Server 2008
       #10

    One physical processor,
    With four cores,
    Each core running at 1.73 ghz x4 = 1 physical processor running at 5.32 not counting HT
      My Computer


 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:51.
Find Us