How much better is a 1.6ghz i7 processor than a 2.0 ghz dual-core?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Dr McKay, Dec 22, 2010.

  1. Dr McKay macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #1
    Wasn't sure where to put this thread.


    My current laptop has a 2.0 Dual-Core Intel Celeron processor, and the laptop I'm looking into getting has an i7 1.6ghz processor.

    Which would be better and how much by? These icore processors confuse me.
     
  2. nightwolf macrumors member

    nightwolf

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Location:
    Ontario, CANADA
    #2
    duo core vs i3, 5, and 7

    I study film and rendering Final Cut in a duo core takes a very long time in a laptop with 2.4 ghs with 4 mb of ram. The same work just takes a few minutes with an i3 imac with 4 mb.

    All I know is, I aint buying a duo core just to save money. One job took me three hours to render. It's not even funny.

     
  3. Dr McKay thread starter macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
  4. Dalton63841 macrumors 65816

    Dalton63841

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Location:
    SEMO, USA
    #4
    Remember that Ghz is only a very small peice of the overall puzzle. Fact of the matter is that Celeron is a very old technology that is much slower. The Core iX's have newer faster tech, that allows them to perform far more much faster, even at a lower clock speed.
     
  5. Dr McKay thread starter macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #5
    Thanks for the tips, I'm looking at the HP Envy 17 to replace my ageing Packard Bell Easynote LJ65. I know its "Mac" Rumors, but this is by far my favourite tech site. Good info for my iPhone and iPad too.
     
  6. Dalton63841 macrumors 65816

    Dalton63841

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Location:
    SEMO, USA
    #6
    LOL I know what you mean...I recently joined this site and find myself on here more than any other site these days...

    btw Holy Crap! I didn't even know Packard Bell still existed! Also, I love your signature.
     
  7. Dr McKay thread starter macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #7
    Yea had it nearly 2 years now, was really faithful through Vista, upgraded it to Windows 7 and a few problems started. Namely I don't think there are any Windows 7 display drivers for my video card, so occasionally it can BSOD because it encounters a hiccup with the Vista drivers.

    I figure if I get a laptop built from the ground up for Windows 7, it'll work better.

    And wow, you got that forum rank quickly, you must be posting like crazy.
     
  8. MacSignal macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    #8
    Another vote for the i7. It should be a worthy upgrade.
     
  9. BBC B 32k macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #9
    It has to be the i7. It is about half a decade ahead of the Celeron. Way faster.
     
  10. Dalton63841 macrumors 65816

    Dalton63841

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Location:
    SEMO, USA
    #10
    LOL my stats say about 12 posts a day, which I don't think is much, since I'm probably on here about 8 hours a day. I lead a very boring life. I hadn't even noticed the forum ranks, or even knew what they mean, till you mentioned it here.
     
  11. Dr McKay thread starter macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #11
    I've recently started posting much more since I've gone back to work from my training course.

    Definitely going with the i7 now, it just confused me before by saying it was a lower Ghz. But I see now.
     
  12. cherry su macrumors 65816

    cherry su

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #12
    is the i7 a quad core? 1.6GHz i7 sounds suspiciously like a i7-720QM
     
  13. Jayomat macrumors 6502a

    Jayomat

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    #13
    I had to use a Pentium4 3,0 Ghz at work today because all the "new workstations" (all Core i3 and above) were in use.. It's awful, I honestly don't know how we could ever have used those. Startup takes ages, compiling takes ages, archiving takes ages..

    Although a C2D is not comparable to a P4... go with the new tech ;) I just wanted to point out that clock speed is not all that matters
     
  14. brucem91 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    #14
    I have two laptops, a MBP with a 2.8 GHz C2D processor, and a Dell Precision m6500 with a 1.6 GHz i7 processor. I was running rendering tests in maya on both laptops yesterday(which only uses the processor), and the i7 was ahead, but only by about a second (granted, the render was about 20-25 seconds anyway). You should notice a difference in apps coded for multi-processors.
     
  15. Dr McKay thread starter macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #15
    Intel Core i7-720QM Quad Core processor (1.6GHz, 6MB L3 Cache)
     

Share This Page