What are the advantages between these two i7 CPUs?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by ouimetnick, Apr 17, 2010.

  1. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #1
    Hello MacRumors. This question is not Apple related, but it is a general question about 2 different Mobile Core i7 CPUs.

    Intel® Core™ i7-620M (2.66GHz, 4M cache) with Turbo Boost Technology I believe this is what Apple uses in their $2199 MacBook Pro 15". From my understanding it is an arrendale chip, and is DUO core. So it has 2 physical cores on one die. Are each core 2.66GHz, or do both cores add up to be 2.66GHz? this chip also has integrated Intel graphics, but I can still get a desecrate graphics option if i chose. this cpu should be more energy efficient due to its lower TDP of 35 watts?

    Intel® Core™ i7-720QM (1.60GHz, 6M cache) with Turbo Boost Technology This is a quad core i7 mobile CPU. will it run slower because it is 1.6GHz vs the 2.66GHz above? Does this processor has 4 physical cores on one or two dies? I also understand it has no integrated graphics. From wikipedia it says this is a clarksfield CPU.

    It should have shorter battery life because it has a TDP of 45 watts

    I just want the experts to confirm this, and tell me the advantages of the 4 core vs 2 core chips. What kind of apps would I need to use to notice better performance on the quad core? Would there be any difference in speed when browsing the web, word processing, and iTunes?

    The 2.66 Ghz chip is in a Latitude E6410 that I'm looking at, and the 1.6GHz chi is in the Latitude E6510 that I'm looking at. the price difference between these two systems is $110 with the specs the way I want it.

    Thanks
     
  2. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #2
    For browsing the web, word processing and iTunes, the processor speed isn't much of a problem. It is apps like Photoshop, Final Cut, CAD software, that put some pressure on the CPUs.

    Quad-core processors are supposed to be more powerful, but will do so only with apps that are designed for multi-processor support (not much). I have no proof of what I am saying, but I am pretty convinced that the slower clock speed would make some apps run slower.

    So IMHO you should go with the 2.66 GHz. I can play COD4 with my 2.53 GHz C2D at only 50% use, so I guess dual-core is not that outdated...
     
  3. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #3
    The speed ratings quoted are per CPU with all cores active. Each core runs at the stated frequency. Turbo Boost means that if you have single threaded applications running (most of them), then the clock speed will be increased (above the stated frequency) for the working core and the remaining unused cores shut down.
     
  4. ouimetnick thread starter macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #4
    Thanks for the replies guys. But which one would be faster? the quad or duo one. I was guessing Quad, but then it may not be due to its lower clock speed.
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    For applications that can take advantage of the multiple cores, the quad core has a 15-20% advantage according to Passmark. For most other apps, the dual core will have the edge (my guess).
     

Share This Page