Just as a side note those cores each read as a dual core processor of its own. Looking at the task manager on an i7 machine will show as 8 cores. or 4 cores on an i5.
It supports quad just fine, the pro version is actualy an unneeded extra expense unless you are looking at working in network environments in excess of 5 machines that your pc needs to interact with or need to join an active directory domain. Outside of a business, that is a rare situation.
All production model laptops right now are going to be win7 64 bit.
Yes, listen to this person. If you need pro, than you’ll know you need it.
Back to your original post, As far as the I7 line up is concerned, it is a new technology that has not come close to being fully utilized. Although you may delegate a core to being the dedicated windows processor, code for using multi-core technology is left solely to the developer of software. At this point, not many video games utilize it, but hey it depends on if you want to invest more and keep up latest technology. My opinion, at this point, is that Quad core for an every day gaming rig is not worth it(atleast if you go with intel, AMD’s Phenom II X6 hexacore processor is akin to the price of some intel I5’s.
My opinion on processors: Get the most bang for the buck, If you are dedicated to Intel, I recommend I5 2.8/3.2 or somewhere around there. Depends on how much longevity you want out of this machine.
On to graphics. You can spend 100% more for 10-50% more performance. As far as pipelines, core speeds, and memory, the more the merrier, but don’t spend 100 extra dollars for a couple extra pipelines or 45 mhz increase in clock speed. Get something well rounded, I recommend atleast a gigabyte of video card memory. For a few years I used to buy ATI’s flag ship cards, and enjoyed great performance, but now I run a lowly Radeon 5500 with a gig of memory and it chews up starcraft II. Again, it depends also on how long your want your laptop to be competent. I run a desktop so I have no qualms about changing out parts every year. Stay away from top of the line
On to memory; More more more! More than 8 gigs? Nah, but atleast 4. DDR3 is still expensive, but some DDR2 running at 800mhz is plenty fast. This is where you’ll see your best value of dollar. check out tomshardware.com, read all their reviews on everything you’re curious about. My 2 ¢.
P.S. Alienwares are overpriced and just plain ugly.
The radeon x5xx series is pretty low end and I wouldn’t recommend it. 8GB of ram is overkill for almost everyone. You generally don’t get a choice as to whether or not to run DDR2 or DDR3 (there are some oddball motherboards that support stuff like this, probably no laptops) and DDR3 is as cheap or cheaper now anyway.
Thanks for the advice about Windows everyone.
What kind of performance difference is there and will there be for new games down the road between a newer i5 (like the ones you mention) and an older i7, like the 740, which runs at 1.73?
No difference if you’re GPU bound; massive difference if you’re CPU bound. Don’t listen to the guy who games on a Radeon 5500 (whatever that is). Not getting a quad is crazy these days, even in the laptop. Just don’t get an ultra low voltage one, which is designated by a U in the model number.
If the only reason you’re going with a laptop is because you’re moving in a few years, I’d just assemble a system around a microATX case like the Silvertake SG07. Get a microATX H67 motherboard, an i5 2500, a 1 GB 470 GTX and some assorted parts and enjoy a gaming PC that’ll destroy any laptop and will easily fit in a suitcase.
This thread gives me serious deja vu.
But seriously, i5 is not dual core. The 7xx models (Lynnfield) are quad core. The 6xx and lower (Clarkdale and Arrandale) are dual core. i7 can have 2, 4, or 6 core depending on architecture. As far as I can tell, the main differences are things like hyperthreading in i7, although it looks like some i5s have that now. In general, a given i7 will have more features than it’s equivalent i5.
All mobile i5 are dual core. All mobile i7 except the 6xx are quad. They all have hyper-threading. The advantages of the i7 are two more cores, slightly more memory bandwidth, and double/triple the cache. The advantages of the i5 are less power consumption and cheaper.
Anyone who isn’t differentiating between mobile and desktop CPUs isn’t helping.
So quad core is more important than speed? Like the older quad core i7 with 1.7GHz, but the newer i5 dual core but 2.5ish GHz, you’d still go with the older i7 model?
Most applications are still dependent on the speed of the thread running on one core. Most applications that aren’t pure math like video encoding aren’t perfectly multithreaded and load balanced - you’re usually waiting on the result of the main thread which is running on a single core.
But as time goes by, programs are designed from the ground up to be more distributed and multithreaded, so quads are more future proof. My personal preference, if you have to make it, is to have faster two cores. I’m running a core 2 duo at 4 ghz myself and it will outperform (stock, but fast) I7s for most applications/games just due to the raw speed that the main thread is running at.
For a laptop, another benefit of only using two cores is reduced power consumption and heat generation.
I sell laptops to people at work and I’ll offer the same advice I offer my customers: For what most people are doing, an i5 processor around 2.5(ish)Ghz with 4Gb of RAM, a 1Gb graphics card, and a 500Gb HDD will be fine for pretty much anything you’re likely to want to do and still be decently affordable.
There’s very little you’re likely to be doing on a “home” laptop that needs an i7 processor or 6-8Gb or RAM, IMO.
GHz and MHz have been mostly worthless for comparing two computers for the last several years. You’ll note that say 2.5 GHz computers are coming out now, while 2.5 GHz computers were current several years ago as well. It is more difficult to directly compare. Price is a good measure in the middle ranges of price. This means that a $200 processor is probably better than a $100, but not twice as good. A $200 processor is not three times worse than a $600 processor though, it is more likely that the latter is new and overpriced, or else designed for specific applications such as servers.
ETA: When I was looking a year or so ago, the oldest i7 available was inferior to the newer i7s and also way more expensive. YMMV.
Hence my confusion. I understand that the several-years-ago computers that were 2.5 GHz had worse chips. So the older i7 quad vs the newer i5 dual still confuses me.
Martini Enfield recommended a setup that sounds great, but I hate buying computers and probably won’t do it again until I absolutely have to. I’d like to have this one still viable for 5+ years to come. I have no delusions that I’ll be able to play top of the line games at that time, but I’ve always just bought off the shelf in the past and now I’m finally looking at decent dedicated video cards and such and want to get the best chip to accompany it.
If you want a laptop that’s likely to be still going five years from now, then I reccommend you spend the extra and get something good like a Toshiba or an Asus. Realistically, you should probably expect about three years from a laptop, IMHO.