EPTor
Intel® Core™2 Duo P8700 / 2.53 GHz
If you want to compare the 2 different laptops they are
G72GX-RBBX05 and G73JH-RBBX05
My main concern is the speed of the i7. will it be able to handle SC2 even though it has 1.60GHz?
Which CPU is better for SC2?
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Cryptics
42 Posts
or Intel® Core™2 Duo P8700 / 2.53 GHz If you want to compare the 2 different laptops they are G72GX-RBBX05 and G73JH-RBBX05 My main concern is the speed of the i7. will it be able to handle SC2 even though it has 1.60GHz? | ||
|
Dugrok
Canada377 Posts
| ||
|
disco
Netherlands1667 Posts
| ||
|
Cryptics
42 Posts
On August 23 2010 23:34 disco wrote: Doesn't the i7 have like a turbo frequency of 2.8 Ghz? yes but i want to know if its still fine to run it without overclocking | ||
|
Jiiks
Finland487 Posts
| ||
|
NukeTheBunnys
United States1004 Posts
Also SC2 only uses 2 cores, so you won't see much performance boost by adding more cores on | ||
|
Jiiks
Finland487 Posts
On August 23 2010 23:42 NukeTheBunnys wrote: I don't know a lot about those processors in particular so I cant say much about them, but in general its a bad idea to overclock laptop processors. Heat management is already an issue, pushing your luck with over clocking is asking for a big expensive paper weight Also SC2 only uses 2 cores, so you won't see much performance boost by adding more cores on Turbo core is not the same as overclocking he'll get 1core2thread 2.8ghz performance with that i7. No heating up really since it's 45wtdp Who told you sc2 only uses 2 cores? My version uses all my 6 cores evenly. | ||
|
Cryptics
42 Posts
| ||
|
Corvi
Germany1406 Posts
source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,766089/Technik-Test-Starcraft-2-mit-14-CPUs-Intel-in-Front-vier-Kerne-nutzlos-einige-Ueberraschungen/Strategiespiel/Test/ its in german, but you can see in the benchmark that the e8400 (slightly worse than e8700) comes right behind the ultra expensive high end cpus. | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5509 Posts
On August 23 2010 23:47 Jiiks wrote: Turbo core is not the same as overclocking he'll get 1core1thread 2.8ghz performance with that 17. No heating up really since it's 45wtdp Who told you sc2 only uses 2 cores? My version uses all my 6 cores evenly. I thought it was common knowledge that SC2 uses only 2 cores? Or at least that's what I've seen a couple different people say. Curious as to why sc2 uses all 6 cores evenly if this is the case though. | ||
|
gerundium
Netherlands786 Posts
i Have an HP Elitebook 8540w with the i7 720QM, FX 880m GPU (1GB dedicated RAM.), and 4 Gb DDR3 memory (soon to be 8Gb though because i get in the situation where the processor runs at 30-40% of max and my memory runs out.) It runs the game Fine on High settings but starts to drop FPS on ultra at high food counts (this is 1v1 btw and when i still played zerg). | ||
|
Jiiks
Finland487 Posts
On August 24 2010 00:03 jimminy_kriket wrote: I thought it was common knowledge that SC2 uses only 2 cores? Or at least that's what I've seen a couple different people say. Curious as to why sc2 uses all 6 cores evenly if this is the case though. Well for me atleast my cpu usage before starting sc2 is around 8% on core #2 others are 0-2% when i start sc2 core #0 is 25% while others are around 15% This is with no other software running. | ||
|
xmShake
United States1100 Posts
New people tend to just look at how many cores and the speed, but there's more to a processor then GHz. You have to factor things in like processor architecture, cache, etc. In this case it doesn't really matter so just get the cheaper one. | ||
|
Jiiks
Finland487 Posts
On August 24 2010 00:43 xmShake wrote: Take the cheaper of the two, unless you use the computer for heavy encoding or some similar activity which takes a lot of cpu power, then you should go for the i7. New people tend to just look at how many cores and the speed, but there's more to a processor then GHz. You have to factor things in like processor architecture, cache, etc. In this case it doesn't really matter so just get the cheaper one. Well he's buying a i7 laptop so i don't think money is an issue? i7 has double the cache, almost double transistors, 6 more threads, higher clock speed for 2 threads and most likely a lot better chipset. In this case the i7 is superior to that dual core in any application. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
| ||
|
Corvi
Germany1406 Posts
On August 24 2010 01:34 FragKrag wrote: When the i7 recognizes it is handling a dual core load, it shuts off two cores and automatically increases the speed of the two other cores to 2.8GHz. This, combined with the fact that i7 already have a instructions/clock advantage makes it the logical choice. source? i cant speak for the i7 mobile, but for the desktop i7 this is not true, at least not that extreme. edit: well, googlet it up myself and this is partly true. 1 core can be overclocked to 2,8. two cores to 2,4 ghz. this should do just fine with sc2 with a mediocre (or better) graphics card, still a bit worse than the e8700 though. however, when you have the money and also regarding you probably want to do more than just sc2 with that thing, you should go with the i7. | ||
|
Klapdout
United States282 Posts
On August 23 2010 23:47 Jiiks wrote: Turbo core is not the same as overclocking he'll get 1core2thread 2.8ghz performance with that i7. No heating up really since it's 45wtdp Who told you sc2 only uses 2 cores? My version uses all my 6 cores evenly. I'm assuming you are using an AMD since intel hexacores are very expensive. AMD's turbo core works by increasing clock speed on one to three cores if the remaining cores are at/near idle. It then decreases the clock speed on the remaining cores to the Cool 'n' Quiet minimum of 800 MHz. Basically this means SC2 only uses two cores, and the remaining 4 cores are running so slow that even a slight load shows quite a bit of utilization in task manager. I could be wrong and your game is using all 6 cores, but that would be pretty amazing since everyone else seems to be using 2 (slightly uses the third) http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/2 | ||
|
Klapdout
United States282 Posts
For the OP, the i7 would be the better choice no doubt. | ||
|
skindzer
Chile5114 Posts
| ||
|
Jiiks
Finland487 Posts
On August 24 2010 02:01 Klapdout wrote: I'm assuming you are using an AMD since intel hexacores are very expensive. AMD's turbo core works by increasing clock speed on one to three cores if the remaining cores are at/near idle. It then decreases the clock speed on the remaining cores to the Cool 'n' Quiet minimum of 800 MHz. Basically this means SC2 only uses two cores, and the remaining 4 cores are running so slow that even a slight load shows quite a bit of utilization in task manager. I could be wrong and your game is using all 6 cores, but that would be pretty amazing since everyone else seems to be using 2 (slightly uses the third) http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/2 I have turbo core disabled and it is using all cores. On August 24 2010 02:04 skindzer wrote: No game will take advantage of the i7. The 2nd option. Explain how it doesn't take advantage and how the 2nd option is better? If the i7 can run 2 threads @ 2.8 and 4 threads @ 2.4 while the P8700 runs 2 threads @ 2.53. Ofcourse 2 physical cores is better than 2 threads. You could probably oc that P8700 to 2.8ghz with fsb and luck, since it's 25w it wouldn't heat too bad. | ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
 the i7 is the more modern, future-proof and effective cpu though, so if the price isnt an issue, id go for the i7. in particular as the chance is high that blizz will improve the sc2 support for more than 2 cores in the future, and if this happens the i7 will destroy the p8700. | ||
|
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
There is absolutely no way, that a core2duo is faster than a core i processor. No way. The cores is not the only thing to take into account. The core i3/5/7 processors have a HIGHER bandwidth, are of a newer architecture and therefore are faster. Comparing clock speeds is not an intelligent way of making a comparison. a 2.0ghz corei7 will rape a 3.0ghz core2duo hands down in every game and task. Remember when core2duo came out? people with pentium 4 and pentium D processors clocked at 3.0ghz couldnt believe a 1.8ghz processor was a lot faster. Its the same thing all over again. Op, buy corei7 and future proof your pc. | ||
|
ammeL
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On August 24 2010 01:34 FragKrag wrote: When the i7 recognizes it is handling a dual core load, it shuts off two cores and automatically increases the speed of the two other cores to 2.8GHz. This, combined with the fact that i7 already have a instructions/clock advantage makes it the logical choice. Can people PLEASE start listening to the guy who knows what he is talking about? | ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
On August 24 2010 04:25 Fontong wrote: Can people PLEASE start listening to the guy who knows what he is talking about? except that the i7-720QM in dualcore mode runs at 2.4ghz and not at 2.8. 2.8 is the speed for singlecore. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
1600x900 vs G73JH-RBBX05 1920x1080, that being said the G73JH-RBBX05 is a much better laptop overall But the G72GX runs a 260m which is like a 8800GT the G73JH runs a 5870m which is like a 5770, which will run about the same in SC2 just due to the game bias that likes nvidia drivers quite a bit more (ati isn't showing the optimized love) I'd go with the G73JH frankly larger resolution on screen better gpu and cpu it's a better laptop, if you need to run sc2 just have turbo mode enabled, which should auto change up the cpu and self correct. | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
On August 24 2010 03:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: I have never seen some many people spewing ignorance all over a thread. There is absolutely no way, that a core2duo is faster than a core i processor. No way. The cores is not the only thing to take into account. The core i3/5/7 processors have a HIGHER bandwidth, are of a newer architecture and therefore are faster. Comparing clock speeds is not an intelligent way of making a comparison. a 2.0ghz corei7 will rape a 3.0ghz core2duo hands down in every game and task. Remember when core2duo came out? people with pentium 4 and pentium D processors clocked at 3.0ghz couldnt believe a 1.8ghz processor was a lot faster. Its the same thing all over again. Op, buy corei7 and future proof your pc. I'm not sure to be sad or amused. | ||
|
drlame
Sweden574 Posts
I would say amused. i7 will probably be rendered obsolete in weeks. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
On August 24 2010 04:36 Black Gun wrote: except that the i7-720QM in dualcore mode runs at 2.4ghz and not at 2.8. 2.8 is the speed for singlecore. oops my bad~ | ||
|
EsbenPM
Denmark364 Posts
Now if the game runs better with the other cpu, i guess it'll depend on the build but with the i7-720QM the CPU atleast wont give any problems. | ||
|
Cryptics
42 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
the i7 is def not the better choice. P.S. If when you read HP you thought "hitpoints", yes, I'm afraid you're a nerd. P.P.S. I did, lol. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
Jiiks
Finland487 Posts
Be sad, he's talking about laptops not desktop where i7 is definitely not future proof. For a laptop it is. On August 24 2010 13:05 Subversion wrote: the core speed is really not everything. think of a car with 1000HP, its still gotta put that power on the road. the i7 is def not the better choice. P.S. If when you read HP you thought "hitpoints", yes, I'm afraid you're a nerd. P.P.S. I did, lol. The i7 is def the better choice. There's not a single feature other than 25wtpd that is better on that dual core. | ||
|
ohN
United States1075 Posts
On August 24 2010 03:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: I have never seen some many people spewing ignorance all over a thread. There is absolutely no way, that a core2duo is faster than a core i processor. No way. The cores is not the only thing to take into account. The core i3/5/7 processors have a HIGHER bandwidth, are of a newer architecture and therefore are faster. Comparing clock speeds is not an intelligent way of making a comparison. a 2.0ghz corei7 will rape a 3.0ghz core2duo hands down in every game and task. Remember when core2duo came out? people with pentium 4 and pentium D processors clocked at 3.0ghz couldnt believe a 1.8ghz processor was a lot faster. Its the same thing all over again. Op, buy corei7 and future proof your pc. ..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. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
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. Did you see any of the posts that mentioned that when using 2 cores, the i7-720QM can go up to 2.4 GHz, or that the i7 has 4X256 KB L2 + 6 MB L3 cache compared to 3 MB L2 cache on the P8700, or that the i7 has a more advanced architecture that's faster clock-for-clock? Granted, the difference isn't going to be huge in games that aren't threaded well, but it's crazy to think the P8700 could be better in performance. | ||
|
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
On August 24 2010 04:56 sob3k wrote: I'm not sure to be sad or amused. 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. On August 24 2010 05:16 drlame wrote: I would say amused. i7 will probably be rendered obsolete in weeks. Yeah, because a core2duo is more future proof than core i7. Your comment says that you don't know much about hardware, and have absolutely no idea what intel's roadmap is. I'm pretty sure corei7 will remain a competitive processor at least a couple of years from now. Core2duo is already obsolote. 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... Benchmarks Here is another chart comparing the weaker corei5 650 vs core2duo e8400, both dual core processors, core2duo loses again... benchmarks 2 Ceteris paribus the mobile versions of these processors should behave similarly. Op will be better off buying the corei7. | ||
|
TriniMasta
United States1323 Posts
| ||
|
Cryptics
42 Posts
| ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
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. | ||
|
yrag89
Malaysia315 Posts
| ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
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. | ||
|
Achiraaz
Denmark25 Posts
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 | ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ongweldt
Sweden54 Posts
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. | ||
|
ohN
United States1075 Posts
On August 24 2010 17:50 TheBlueMeaner wrote: 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... Benchmarks Here is another chart comparing the weaker corei5 650 vs core2duo e8400, both dual core processors, core2duo loses again... benchmarks 2 Ceteris 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. | ||
|
Jiiks
Finland487 Posts
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=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. 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. | ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
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. | ||
|
Acechi
United States50 Posts
| ||
|
Daxunyrr
United States190 Posts
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... | ||
|
Ongweldt
Sweden54 Posts
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 | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19063 Posts
| ||
|
Poobah
England91 Posts
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. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
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. | ||
|
zoombini
United States67 Posts
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. | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
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. | ||
|
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
Even if C2D gives similar performance in SC2 (which it might), there are still everyday tasks that will significantly be faster with the i7. | ||
|
Stone
United Kingdom155 Posts
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=47 Personally i thought the i5 760 was a solid performer for roughly 25% less then i7 920. | ||
|
R04R
United States1631 Posts
| ||
|
Kelsin
United States253 Posts
| ||
|
sqwert
United States781 Posts
| ||
| ||
