Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Difference between a Intel 2.8GHZ Core i7 & 1.86GHz Core i7-840QM Quad Core?

C

Cristina S

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Is there much difference between a 2.8GHZ Core i7 processor, which features two processor cores on a single chip (featuring a 4MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.46GHz), and a Intel Core i7-840QM Quad Core processor (1.86GHz, 8MB L3 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz?

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC024LL/A?mco=MTc0Njg1NzI

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/series/category/notebooks/ENVY173D_series/3/computer_store


Editing and grading purposes. I mean, real time, as much as possible.
 
Unless Apple has done some serious magic with heat, they are being dishonest with regards to that i7.
2.8 on a laptop i7 is in turboboost mode, not regular operation. 2.2 is the turboboost mode for the 1.63ghz chip (Which I have in my Sony laptop). Kind of crappy that they advertise it that way. 2.8 I believe is for the 1.73ghz chip.

Hp is being much more forthcoming about how the chip actually operates.
The HP is in theory, faster. But I don't want to get into an argument with anyone about real world performance.

The difference between the 2 systems, will be determined by the IO performance of all the other systems. Based on CPU alone, 1.72 to 1.83 really isn't worth the price difference.
 
Apple is using the Core i7-640M processor.

2.8 GHz, 4MB cache, 3.46Ghz turbo-boost.

Edit> Apple is not being deceitful at all here. They are advertising the standard operating frequency of the CPU. I should've initially pointed out that this CPU is a dual-core processor with HT for 4 virtual CPUs; as Subhadip did below. The QM series CPUs that HP is offering are clocked a bit lower, but happen to be quad-core CPUs with HT for 8 virtual CPUs. more below...
 
Last edited:
Do note that the top Turbo bin i.e. 3+ GHz will only be applicable for single-threaded applications. Considering most modern post-production software (a few glaring exceptions, I know) are multi-threaded, it is best to judge performance by the base clock and core count. The Apple has a dual-core CPU, HP has a quad-core (by Apple's marketing lingo, "four processor cores on a single chip"). By my estimation, the HP will edge out the Apple in multi-threaded apps. In single-threaded apps the gap won't be too glaring either (Apple will have an advantage). So, the verdict, as suggested by the branding, the HP has the faster processor overall, especially for post-production.
 
Turbo boost does not sacrifice any of the physical cores. But it does change the in and out timings on the execution pipelines. This can have a detrimental effect on HyperThreading and if you're using the logical processors to load the pipeline. You are not limited to single-thread applications for turbo-boost. That's a bunch of bunk. An instruction passing through the execution pipeline of the CPU is just that. The CPU knows not, nor does it care whether it belongs to any specific branch of execution within your application or OS, etc.. This whole current marketing blits of aligning threads with cores is nothing more than a way for marketing guys to quantify how many things a CPU can do at once.

In this case, the 2.8GHz dual-core CPU is going to be faster on per-core basis vs. the HP options. On applications that can utilize more than 2 CPU cores (Premiere CS5, most 3D rendering apps, etc..) the HP will have the edge. It may be clocked slower, but you have two more processors in there to share the load -- if the software is capable of dividing it up.

To address the OP, it's really a toss-up. You're taking a 940MHz (roughly 33%) penalty in favor of double the cores. So, for apps that don't multithread well or scale well beyond 2 CPUs, the 2.8GHz dual-core would be the better choice. The real question is what software do you run now that would take advantage of the quad-core? Do you have other software that will take better advantage of it in the future, within the reasonable lifespan o that system?

We're also comparing PC vs. Mac, so... that's another consideration / issue / apples vs. oranges thing.

Personally, I'd go the quad-core route because my primary NLE these days is Premiere CS5 and I do use Maya and Modo, often at a client's location and the extra cores are definitely attractive for the rendering and improved interactive feedback.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Apple is using the Core i7-640M processor.

2.8 GHz, 4MB cache, 3.46Ghz turbo-boost.

Edit> Apple is not being deceitful at all here. They are advertising the standard operating frequency of the CPU. I should've initially pointed out that this CPU is a dual-core processor with HT for 4 virtual CPUs; as Subhadip did below. The QM series CPUs that HP is offering are clocked a bit lower, but happen to be quad-core CPUs with HT for 8 virtual CPUs. more below...
Click to expand...

OK that makes sense. Intel calling a dual core an i7 is confusing.
 
Joe Carney said:
OK that makes sense. Intel calling a dual core an i7 is confusing.
Click to expand...

All the mobile i7 CPUs were dual-core until a couple months ago. i7 represents the CPU architecture series. Not the number of cores. Just as there are 4-core and 6-core desktop CPUs that are both in the i7 family.

As of the last time Apple updated the Macbook Pro, the quad-core chips were still more than a month away from shipping. I'm surprised they haven't added a quad-core option to the store though. I think the dual-core options at the faster clock speed are going to be the more practical choice for most customers, but it would be nice to have the option. Especially considering the prices are similar and the CPUs are interchangeable. They obviously need to add an EFI profile to support the chips, but that's really not a big deal.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
All the mobile i7 CPUs were dual-core until a couple months ago. i7 represents the CPU architecture series. Not the number of cores. Just as there are 4-core and 6-core desktop CPUs that are both in the i7 family.

As of the last time Apple updated the Macbook Pro, the quad-core chips were still more than a month away from shipping. I'm surprised they haven't added a quad-core option to the store though. I think the dual-core options at the faster clock speed are going to be the more practical choice for most customers, but it would be nice to have the option. Especially considering the prices are similar and the CPUs are interchangeable. They obviously need to add an EFI profile to support the chips, but that's really not a big deal.
Click to expand...

My Sony Vaio F series laptop has a quad core i7 that I purchased summer of last year. In the device manager it shows 8 cpus (4 cores/4 hyperthreads). I'ts a Q720.
It apparently depends on the cpu model number. Hence, my confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top