Discussion in 'What Notebook Should I Buy?' started by KayC, Dec 1, 2011.
Is i7 really that much better than the i5? If it is what are the important differences
Core i7 has more cache than the Core i5. It performs faster due to that. It turbos to a higher frequency. But these are visible when you do something CPU intensive. Otherwise, it is not noticeable by the normal user.
So like a normal user like me, who doesnt know crap about computers, wont know the difference between the two, even when i play games?
Games played at lower settings do not push the processor the same way as when done at higher settings. Plus, I would recommend you go in for a faster processor if you are playing games like Civ 5, WoW, LoL, Crysis 2, etc as they like fast processors.
A gamer is not a normal user. IMO, you are far from one since you are asking the relevant questions that affect you directly.
P.S Please correct me if I have named the wrong games.
hahah oh! Okay i guess i am going with the i7. thanks idiot... dude!
I'm not 100% certain if this remains true in the Sandy Bridge generation, but in the former generation of i-series processors, a higher-end i5 CPU would outperform a lower-end i7 on many tasks that couldn't take advantage of the multiple threads/cores of an i7. The argument might be made that by now most programs/games that really need the CPU power will be able to take advantage of the quad-core versus the dual-core, but it's something to consider. If you're looking at the i7-2620m (dual-core) versus an i5 though, the i7 will always win, since it works in the same way (i.e. fewer, higher-clocked cores/threads) but better.
As far as games, if you're a Rockstar fan or an RTS person, definitely go for a quad-core processor - Rockstar's PC ports have recently been infamous for poor, CPU-intensive porting, and RTS games are heavy on CPU-dependent calculations such as AI.
In the end, though, a Sandy Bridge i5 is still a pretty bad-a chip compared to what most people are running in their own machines, so if that makes the most economical sense for you now, it could certainly be worse.
If you think you will ever need rendering speed (such as video editing) go with an i7 if your budget allows.
Just buy the i7 2600k lol. Most gaming machines use that as their brain. If you can't afford it then I would go with a lower i7 or an i5-something. I thought the i5 was quad-core as well though. What is that i5 that has the K in its name? That's the one I would buy. As for games, Starcraft 2 is probably a great example of a processor intensive game. Crysis 2 or Metro 2033 are more graphics intensive. Depending on which you are, I would decide from there.
The i5-2500k. But those are desktop CPUs.
Your theory is a bit flawed when it comes to games using the i7 better than the i5 here. There were benchmarks with two identical laptops, same GPU different CPU, to see if the i5 was actually slower than the i7. The GPU used was the GTX 560M. It turns out that the i5s were just as fast as the i7s. The addition of more cores/threads didn't help much for games that only used four cores, I.E. hyperthreaded dual cores.
A gamer is considered a normal user here. A workstation or engineer is not a normal user and will require more power in his/her laptop. If you have something like a GTX 560M, the i5 2430M will be plenty powerful for you, if you have anything above that, I.E. GTX 570M or faster, then the i7 2670QM would be your best bet.
Separate names with a comma.