3.1 GHz Kaby Lake Processor Upgrade Worth it?

[mashinhead]

Anybody thinks this will make a significant difference?

 

[vipergts2207]

I generally don't think they are worth the cost and opted not to get the upgrade last year. An extra $200 on a ~$3k laptop isn't too crazy, but for me it was and still would be a no. GPU's typically depreciate faster than the CPU's.

 

[BuCkDoG]

Definetely not worth it.

 

[esaelias]

if you are going to keep it for a while then maybe it is

 

[2IS]

Anybody thinks this will make a significant difference?

Compared to what?

 

[maerz001]

Usually u gain 5-10% processing power. So depending on ur use case this will help for rendering or video decoding.
But not for surfing or office

 

[JPizzers]

Do you mean the 2.9 GHz one Vs the 3.1 or just in general?

If the former and its 2.9 vs 3.1 you mean then no...probably not.

 

[unlogic]

guys, how about 2.8 vs 2.9?

 

[Patcell]

guys, how about 2.8 vs 2.9?

I am not super educated on this, but there may be a bigger difference going from 2.8 to 2.9 because there is a jump from 6MB L3 cache to an 8MB L3 cache with that upgrade. 2.8 (7700HQ) to 2.9 (7820HQ) is not simply a clock-speed upgrade. Going to the 3.1 (7920HQ) is a clock-speed only boost I believe, so probably not as valuable.

 

[maerz001]

guys, how about 2.8 vs 2.9?

The 2.9 will be faster by 0.1GHz

 

[Patcell]

The 2.9 will be faster by 0.1GHz

Plus an upgrade from 6MB to 8MB L3 cache, which can be beneficial in some workloads.

 

[unlogic]

I am not super educated on this, but there may be a bigger difference going from 2.8 to 2.9 because there is a jump from 6MB L3 cache to an 8MB L3 cache with that upgrade. 2.8 (7700HQ) to 2.9 (7820HQ) is not simply a clock-speed upgrade. Going to the 3.1 (7920HQ) is a clock-speed only boost I believe, so probably not as valuable.

I am also thinking about the bigger cache benefit. I wonder if 2.9 (7820HQ) will sap more energy and release more heat than 2.8 (7700HQ)?