|
On August 24 2010 20:40 ranndyyy wrote:
You sure i cant run it at max settings? even though it has a i7, 6gb ram, and the best part ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 (which is apparently one of the top graphics card on the laptop?)
i can. got pretty much these specs. but i wouldnt recommend using max physics and reflections and shadows and stuff, as this only takes away cpu power which u will need in large battles//2v2 or higher. the difference in optical appearance between high and ultra settings is really not that big.
|
Is an i5 sufficient enuf?
|
On August 24 2010 21:58 yrag89 wrote:
Is an i5 sufficient enuf?
it should be enough, but depends on the specs. 
but any i5 should easily be enough to run sc2 smoothly on medium or maybe even high. a fast i5 should also be able to handle ultra aswell.
|
You shouldnt judge too hardly on the CPU when it comes to graphic heavy applications (like SC2). Tests show that the graphics card is much more important here.
Lets first look at the total system specifications:
System A:
Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53Ghz
Graphics card: nVidia GTX 260M 1GB
RAM: 6GB DDR2 RAM
Harddisk: 500GB HDD
System B:
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit Edition
CPU: Intel Core i7 I7-720QM / 1.6 GHz ( Quad-Core )
Graphics card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870
RAM: 6 GB DDR3 SDRAM - 1333 MHz
Harddisk: 500 GB - Serial ATA-150 - 7200 rpm
First we compare the processors:
Intel® Core™2 Duo P8700 / 2.53 GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel Core2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53GHz
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.60GHz 6MB 45W
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel Core i7 720QM @ 1.60GHz
So the Core2 scored 1798 and i7 scored 3243.
Then we compare the RAM (the more the better):
On RAM both systems have 6GB so they are about equal. System B however has DDR3 RAM which gives it a slight advantage, but in the end its nothing that will really tip the balance as the advances in memory is not as significant as in processing power.
Now for graphics card comparison:
System A scores 703:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?cpu=GeForce GTX 260M
System B scores 1229:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?cpu=Mobility Radeon HD 5870
So in conclusion the computer with the i7 CPU is superior to the Core 2 system. But note however that had the graphics cards been swapped around the Core2 computer would probably have been better suited for SC2.
Happy computer buying.
Anders
|
On August 24 2010 22:46 Achiraaz wrote:
You shouldnt judge too hardly on the CPU when it comes to graphic heavy applications (like SC2). Tests show that the graphics card is much more important here.
the problem with this point of view is that u can easily reduce the burden on ur gpu by reducing the graphics quality without taking away significantly from the functionality and experience of sc2 as a whole. there are situations though in which the cpu becomes the limiting factor, in particular when many cloaked units (mothership) or many units in general are around. now, if ur cpu is too weak to handle the load of huge fights in the lategame or in 2v2 or higher, this cant be remedied by reducing the graphic quality and it seriously affects the playing experience.
therefore yes, in most cases the gpu will be the limiting factor in sc2, but the cases where the cpu is the bottleneck are the cases which seriously affect the playability.
|
Here you can view some cpu benchmarks to get an idea how Core 2 Duo compares to i7 and others.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/55?vs=47
If your going to use the laptop for things like music producion and/or video editing too, the I7 is superior. For gaming it just isn't. And the I7 clock speed (1,60ghz) seems a bit low.
I got a Core 2 Duo E8500 (3,16ghz) and I'm very happy with it. SC2 runs very smooth.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 24 2010 17:50 TheBlueMeaner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 13:50 ohN wrote:
..lol
There are very few games that use more than 2-cores. So if we're talking strictly for gaming, you're comparing the p8700 to the two cores on the i7. In that case, the c2d is at least comparable, if not better than the i7 if the i7 is at 1.6ghz and the c2d at 2.53ghz. Not to mention I bet the c2d will be a LOT cheaper. There is a reason why core2duo is cheaper.. I'm getting the impression you guys don't know what a benchmark is. I challenge you guys to go to a technology forum and post that core2duo is faster than corei7. It doesn't even matter if it is a multithreaded app or a single threaded app, corei7 is faster, thats the way things are. The wolfdale architecture (core2duo) is dated, there is absolutely no way op will be better off buying dated hardware. "few games use quadcore processors" is an opinion either from 2 years ago, or from someone who only knows starcraft. Here is a small list of relatively new (2008-2010) mainstream games that make use of 4 processors Dragon age origins and its sequels (up to 60% faster on a quad core) Alien vs Predator Grand theft auto 4 (unplayable on a dual core) Battlefield bad company 2 Prototype Metro 2033 Crysis Warhead The last remnant Supreme Commander and its sequels Spore Lost planet and its sequels World in conflict and its sequels Alan Wake and the list goes on and on... Again, there is absolutely no way OP will be better off buying a dated dual core than a new quad core... Even if Sc2 was poorly optimized the corei7 would have the advantage. Please understand that you cannot use clock speeds as a reference when comparing diferent architectures... Here is a benchmark chart comparing a core2duo processor e8400 (3.0ghz) and the corei7 920 (2.66ghz), core2duo loses everytime eventhough it has a higher clockspeed... BenchmarksHere is another chart comparing the weaker corei5 650 vs core2duo e8400, both dual core processors, core2duo loses again... benchmarks 2Ceteris paribus the mobile versions of these processors should behave similarly. Op will be better off buying the corei7.
Well, OBVIOUSLY, the i7 is faster than the c2d, but is it worth it for him? The way his thread is titled seems to suggest he will only be using the laptop for SC2, so that closes the gap between the two quite a bit in terms of gaming performance. Price is always something to consider, and the c2d will be a much better buy with similar performance if there is a significant price difference between the two.
And did you even see anything in those benchmarks besides bars? The tests where the i7 won by a significant margin were all benchmarks or cpu-intensive apps, so it's obviously going to win there. If you look at the performance in games near the bottom, they are very similar.
|
On August 25 2010 19:24 Ongweldt wrote:Here you can view some cpu benchmarks to get an idea how Core 2 Duo compares to i7 and others. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/55?vs=47If your going to use the laptop for things like music producion and/or video editing too, the I7 is superior. For gaming it just isn't. And the I7 clock speed (1,60ghz) seems a bit low. I got a Core 2 Duo E8500 (3,16ghz) and I'm very happy with it. SC2 runs very smooth.
So you're comparing a low end i7 and high end core2 where the i7 loses in 1 game test by 4fps and 2 benchmarks.
That makes the core2duo better for gaming?
For the clock speed it's 2.4ghz for 2cores/4threads it's not low.
Edit: It's also pretty easy to oc the i7 920 to 4.2Ghz and then your core2 is nowhere close in performance.
|
On August 25 2010 19:24 Ongweldt wrote:
If your going to use the laptop for things like music producion and/or video editing too, the I7 is superior. For gaming it just isn't. And the I7 clock speed (1,60ghz) seems a bit low.
why dont ppl get it? on only 2 threads, like in sc2, the i7 720qm will run at 2x2.4ghz, which is easily enough for most purposes in sc2. there is no laptop cpu which could run a huge 4v4 fight smoothly, but with the i7 u got better chances for an improvement in the future, if blizz improves the support for more than 2 cores, for example in the expansions. with the c2d u are stuck at the current speed. also dont underestimate the usefulness of additional cores in everyday use. for example if u want to stream ur sc2 gaming. or if any windows shit that u havent turned off yet starts working in the background while gaming.
if the price difference isnt too big, i´d recommend the i7 in any case.
|
For the OP, i7 is the best choice. You can do better with it since it translates and helps other tasks beyond playing SC2, i.e. multitasking performance. The only thing that I don't like is the choice of clock speed for the i7 you chose.
|
On August 24 2010 17:50 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
I'm not sure why you are spamming the thread with no real contribution but your ignorant opinion.
You probably have an old ass pc and are trying to feel self-assured you don't own dated crap.
Ey, something wrong with us people who use dated crap?
Sure, SC2 may lag and all, but it runs fine enough...
|
On August 25 2010 19:45 Jiiks wrote:
That makes the core2duo better for gaming?
For the clock speed it's 2.4ghz for 2cores/4threads it's not low.
Edit: It's also pretty easy to oc the i7 920 to 4.2Ghz and then your core2 is nowhere close in performance.
Never said it was better, just pointing out that the difference between i7 and C2D when it comes to gaming isn't that huge at all. The problem with i7 is HT (hyperthreading). It gimps the performance with gaming but seems to be great for just about everything else.
One also have to think about the power consumption; C2D ~ 25W, i7 ~ 45W and the actually price difference, almost $500. Is it worth it?
But if the extra $500 isn't an issue, you might even wanna take a look at the I7 820QM.
And there's no such thing as "future-proof" in the hardware business. Just a term to fool people into thinking they just made a good investment
|
Hyrule19063 Posts
"Future proof" generally means "if you upgrade anything within 3 months, it'll probably work."
|
The 720QM is the absolute lowest of the clarksfield (quad core) i7s.
I've seen a few threads and blue posts stating that SC2 is actually rather processor heavy, as well as graphically demanding and suggesting that the cpu can throttle your graphics. I'm also looking for a laptop and I'm extremely leery of the i7's that seem to be commonly sold with many laptops that manufacturers consider 'sort of high end-ish'. I know it's an i7 but the individual core speed is still low, and they won't turbo to full if there is load on the other cores in any case, I believe. SC2 recommends a minimum 2.4Ghz for dual-core processors so I've really been shying away from the lower speed quads. That said I think it'll be OK but I don't know how well it will hold up against one of the same generation dual cores with faster individual cores.
If you have the option to pick a different processor I'd recommend either having enough cash and getting a better clarksfield i7, or getting one of the top end arrandale i5/7s. All the notebook i5s are dual-core, the laptop I plan on getting will have an i5 540m in it (2.53Ghz - 3.066 turbo) and I feel more confident that it will do what I need it to do. Mileage does of course vary and a lot of people here have come out in support of the i7 but the desktop and notebook i7s are rather weaker, at least that is the (possibly incorrect) impression that I've gotten. On the other hand the core2duo is pretty old nowadays and relatively weak compared to the better dual core (arrandale) ones.
This is mostly hearsay from me I admit but over the last few days I've been cramming in as much research into laptops as I can because I too need one to run sc2 on.
Bottom line: Either get a top end dual core or a mid-range quad, but reading/searching around the sc2 tech forums suggests (there are a few threads you can find accross the eu/us sc2 tech forums by searching for 720qm) that the lowest of the quads might give you some problems. P8700 is pretty old in computer-land time, if you want a dual core and have the option get one of the newer i5/7s, but it's actually pretty not bad and was very solid a couple of years ago when it was released so it should be totally fine to run sc2. My desktop uses a core2duo 3ghz and plays sc2 fine on high with most settings up to ultra.
|
The i7 has four cores where the Core 2 Duo has two. The equivalent GHz of each:
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.60GHz 6MB 45W
4 cores @ 1.60GHz = about 6.00GHz after loss (6.4GHz on paper, that is, 100% efficiency)
Intel® Core™2 Duo P8700 / 2.53 GHz
2 cores @ 2.53GHz = about 4.43GHz after loss. (5.06GHz on paper)
The i7 is better by a long shot though because more cores means more dedicated threads for processing different things at the same time. Also, the 6MB cache is really high from what I've heard. Didn't bother looking at the laptops.
|
On August 26 2010 06:20 hp.Shell wrote:
The i7 has four cores where the Core 2 Duo has two. The equivalent GHz of each:
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.60GHz 6MB 45W
4 cores @ 1.60GHz = about 6.00GHz after loss (6.4GHz on paper, that is, 100% efficiency)
Intel® Core™2 Duo P8700 / 2.53 GHz
2 cores @ 2.53GHz = about 4.43GHz after loss. (5.06GHz on paper)
Cores x Clock Speed is a terrible way of comparing two processors. It doesn't tell you anything about performance.
|
On August 23 2010 23:50 ranndyyy wrote:
so activating the turbo core will have no effects on the laptop's heat or any other functions?
It basically increases the clock speed on one core while cutting the power to the rest. So it shouldn't have any noticeable effect on heat or power consumption.
|
People the 2.4ghz requirement applies to core2duo, corei7 can beat core2duo at lower clocks easily...
|
i7.
Even if C2D gives similar performance in SC2 (which it might), there are still everyday tasks that will significantly be faster with the i7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
