Which Processor is better?

[Im a Noob]

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?

 

[SlackerITGuy]

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

 

[mckillwashere]

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....

 

[Tommyd]

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.

 

[stormy13]

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

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.

 

[Coolness]

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...

 

[Im a Noob]

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

 

[mckillwashere]

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.

 

[stormy13]

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.

 

[mckillwashere]

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

 

[mckillwashere]

The cores are not at 5.32 but you are processing about that much information.

 

[Wishmaster]

Each core is exactly what it says it is.

A 3.0 Quad is literally:
Core1=3.0 Core2=3.0 Core3=3.0 Core4=3.0

They do not get added together. it just doesn't work that way.

the cache will be the same BTW.
A dual core with a 4MB cache shares that cache.

So a quad with 8MB, is the same cache wise.
Cores 1&2 = 4 Cores 3&4 = 4 total 8MB

basically a 2 duals on 1 physical die


As far as gaming goes, the slower quad will benefit you IF the game is quad core optimized and makes full use of all 4 cores.

Otherwise, the dual core will perform better.
This is true for most apps that will only use 1 or 2 cores. the quad will help in the sens, the OS will be able to reassign all system process etc to the other cores, leaving 2 completely free for the app in question.

IMHO, given the 2 choices, the faster dual will be better performance wise overall than the slower quad running at less than 2.0 each core.

 

[mckillwashere]

I am aware they do not get added together.
But the Physical processor itself, will be doing more clocks.

I worded everything wrong
Its been a weird day and night for me.

And now I understand from the gaming aspect.
My machine started out as a gaming machine but it was turned into a production, workstation for the most part.
I have to have ALOT of apps open at once. So I love my quad core

But in the way you explained it +1

 

[Frostmourne]

The CPU will mean nothing to games if the GPU is weak - and in a laptop it probably is.

 

[Coolness]

The CPU will mean nothing to games if the GPU is weak - and in a laptop it probably is.

Yeah. Most of the work here is done by the cpu. Thats why its useless to buy a quad for a no-good graphics card. However, since the OP had two choices, and the quad would have cost 550 dollars on intels website, its reasonable to say he has the doe. So my recommendation: buy a better graphics card, and a processor if money is not the issue. If you can only buy one of the two, pick the GPU since, as i said, most of the work in gaming is done by it.

Hope thid helps
Coolness

 

[smarteyeball]

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

Sorry for the glib answer, but I recommend a desktop.


Realistically, what games are you hoping to play?

 

[Coolness]

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

Sorry for the glib answer, but I recommend a desktop.


Realistically, what games are you hoping to play?

a 2000 euro Laptop will be able to play awesome games at high settings. Dont underestimate the power of the lappys... :shock:
(Dramatic music)

 

[smarteyeball]

Considering I see people with high-end desktops struggle with some games, it's easy to underestimate the gaming power of a lappy

 

[Coolness]

Considering I see people with high-end desktops struggle with some games, it's easy to underestimate the gaming power of a lappy

Hehe... If you spend enough money, youll get the power. Only the sky is the limit as far as money goes...
Love your "TERMINATING YOUR PROBLEMS" :roflmao:

 

[smarteyeball]

lol, cheers.