Picking your processor: advice sought - 3920xm worth paying $900? or at least make it worth paying?

Exactly.

I wouldnt care to stab at what proportion of the cpu cost you would get back at the end of the day but getting one upfront allows you the benefit of it whilst you own the machine and then also pays you back for it when you sell it on! - "XM cpu - the gift that keeps on giving !" LOL

 

If you are sure that you're going to want to get an XM, then yes, getting it upfront is a good idea, especially as it means that it'll be covered by your warranty. But the majority of people don't need it, and as such should save their money for longer warranties, better GPUs, and the like. I think we can all agree on THAT.

 

Yeah, I agree that if you are 100% sure you will never "need one" or regret "not buying one" at the outset, then that money would be better spent on something else such as warranty or maybe a SSD to improve your overall "experience" etc etc.

The advice that I have given to people who have asked about "what is the best configuration for me" or "is this worth it" type questions has always been based on a few simple criteria - applicable for any machine really.... Some might think its not right but it was the advice I was given here at the outset and I am glad I heeded it.....that advice was:

1. Configure with stock HDD and Ram - upgrade after and save alot of cash by upgrading yourself - Dell drives & memory are overpriced and easily upgradeable later on.

2. Get the VERY best gpu/cpu/display that you can afford at the time - these things are often more expensive to replace or upgrade later on. (note that ES or QS cpu's arent quite as cheap as they once were compared to buying an OEM cpu, and as mentioned before, can have impact on your warranty (as Dell tend to "blame" the component you upgraded as the root cause of all your possible future issues, regardless of wether its at fault or not....they certainly wont be gracious in honouring warranty if you install an engineering sample cpu)

3. Get the longest warranty your pocket will allow - god knows that this was invaluable advice as it has served me well in the past.

4. Keep the stock parts you upgrade as you may well need them to validate your warranty - I have kept all of my stock Dell stuff incase I needed to revert to its original configuration for warranty purposes - as outlined above.

I say the same to anyone who asks me...from then on, its up to them as all we can do here is give advice, right?

 

Well Said!! I couldn't agree more.
There is good reason, why you were chosen to help uphold the integrity of the forums at NBR.

 

A disclaimer: This thread is completely pointless. I'll tell you why below, if you really want to know... but now, on with my pointless question!

I've been speccing out my next dream machine computer... I'd previously gone with the 3840 as being my 'sweet spot' - a nice upgrade, fast, but not stupidly expensive (for me; I realize my level of stupidity may be higher than the national average! )

Recently, however, I was reading up a little on our forum here and came across a discussion about the dual-680 SLI package actually making an M-18x system more processor limited than graphics limited (not because the processor is a slouch, but because the dual 680 sli is that strong...) So, I'm revisiting my processor choice.

In short, these two processors:

3rd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-3840QM (8MB Cache, Overclocked up to 3.8 GHz
3rd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-3940QM (8MB Cache, Overclocked up to 3.9 GHz) (an $800 upgrade)

...what I see looking there, is $800 for an extra 100mHz of speed. This, to me, seems negligible. I'm wondering though if there is more than just the mathematics of clock speed when selecting a processor - I've always just purchased the fastest I could afford in the past, but I note for example that there is a little difference in power draw between these two (45W vs 55W) and, I'm guessing with more power probably comes more heat... but generally I just ignore all that as irrelevant, and just buy the fastest I can.

So, is there more? Do I need to be educated in the subtleties of selecting processors, or can I just pick the fastest available?



The disclaimer: in all probability, I'm not actually going to buy either of these. See, I'm planning on getting a system - but not for about 4 months, at the end of the year, and I don't really know what the choices will be then - however, I'll probably have the same type of question with whatever IS available, so I figured I'd ask anyway!

 

The 3940 comes with a triple pipe heatsink and can be overclocked upwards of over 4.5 GHz. Stock, it not much more powerful than the 3840, overclocked is when it shines.

 

Heaven forbids the OP didn't overclock the old X9100

 

:blush:

Sadly, I've always used stock clocks - I've always been terrified of messing something up, especially in my laptops. I take it if I were to go the extra mile on the processors above, I should change that?

edited to add: you know what I'm sort of excited about - I've loved my old alienware, and I've always thought of it as a powerhouse computer. I just can't imagine how the new one is going to compare - I get an idea when I see charts like this, comparing the old processor (the X9100) with some of the rest; but I think I'm due to be amazed!

link for x9100 processor comparison: PassMark - Intel Core2 Extreme X9100 @ 3.06GHz - Price performance comparison

 

Really??? Can my i73720 processor be holding my dual 680m's on SLI back?

Someone answer please?

 

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. I'm pretty keen on the 680m sli setup (unless AMD improves their drivers substantially in the next few months) and I am now stuck choosing between the 3840 and the 3940. 4.5ghz on a laptop would be pretty sweet (my current i7-920 struggles to hit 4ghz). When it comes to purchasing time I might see how much I can haggle with Alienware, if I can nab one for under 4k that would be nice.

 

The review that discusses this is here:

AnandTech - Alienware M18x R2 Notebook Review: NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 680M in SLI

They talk a little about the potential for the CPU to perhaps bottleneck the GPU's near the end (though be warned, parts of the review may come off as a little snarky if you're a big m18x fan! )

I'm not honestly sure 'holding them back' is completely accurate - more that he feels that dual 680's in sli is completely overpoweringly hugely overkill... which is, of course, why we like it!

 

I would say as long as you have above the stock i7, your only being bottle necked out of a few frame rates. The only game I could imagine truly benefiting from the best processors is the total war series. Lots of CPU based AI.

 

Arma II also seems to be quite CPU dependent, and if you ever want to emulate console games then a fast CPU is nice.

 

I believe the "3940qm" should actually say 3940xm. There is no 3940qm.

 

Really? I copy/pasted the processors straight from dell's website...

 

The QM suffix next to the 3940 is just a typo. If you check the clocks, they are the same as Intel's spec for the XM: ARK | Intel® Core

As for the question of 3840qm vs 3940xm, I would say if you DON'T plan on overclocking the XM, there is little point in spending the extra $$$ for the base clock differences between the two, which is 100mhz. I'd also say that there would be little point in going for the 3840qm if that's the case....thats another $200 over the 3740qm and both should be user overclockable by +400mhz.....meaning you could run a 3740qm at XM stock clocks or better. Saying that thoug, the XM is the only chip with unlocked multipliers and can be overclocked a LOT more than any of the other chips.

I guess the question boils down to how much you might want to OC the cpu - if it's a total no-no for you, I'd probably just go with the 3740qm out of all of them as you can OC that up to a nice clock should you find you need to.

 

Absolutely, the 3720/3820QM will hold back your GPUs! This applies to AMD and NVIDIA graphics cards. Most games are not demanding enough to max out your CPU or even one 680M GPU. However, it can make a significant difference in benchmark scores and other tasks that are CPU-bound. In many benchmarks your GPU score will increase simultaneously as your CPU performance and physics score goes up. It will also make a noticeable difference on any games that can leverage CPU power. Fortunately, for many gamers that do not own an Extreme CPU there are not too many modern games that are CPU intensive. Many games will perform well enough with nothing more powerful than a 2.0 to 2.5GHz Core2 Duo processor.

 

OP, if you don't know what to buy why wouldn't you start OC your present x9100 to find out if you still will have fair of overclocking in 4 monthes and therefore buy XM or not XM

 

heh, dell tends to mess up.

 

I don't understand how if the CPU isn't maxed used it would bottleneck the gpu....

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

I understand that the xm is mega powerful and can clock Up to 5ghz or more.... But my thing is... What's the point? What are you running that needs 5 ghz? Unless your deciphering an alien code from outer space what would you use the xms potential for? To me it's like strapping a jet engine on a car to drive around when the speed limit is 15 mph, or am I wrong about all that?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

2 cores may be maxed out while other 2 will not. Overall usage level will not be maxed out while bottleneck is present.

 

Not wrong, just a totally different opinion framed by different values or limited understanding. If you don't want the best CPU you can get, don't buy it. There are a lot of folks that are satisfied with ordinary, and that's OK for them. If it makes them happy, that's great. For the true performance enthusiasts the "what's the point" question applies equally in reverse. Why bother buying a beast machine if you're going to cut corners on components? You'll be starting out on a dead-end road, stuck with whatever level of limited performance the non-XM CPU is capable of delivering. You can tweak it a little bit, but it will never achieve phenomenal results. And, it is sad to see people come to the realization that they need to spend addition money in the long run to purchase a better CPU that is not covered under their warranty.

It's kind of like the decision to buy a fancy new Camaro or Mustang that looks really awesome, but choosing to order one gimped by a wimpy V6 instead of a high-output V8. For those interested in having show with less go, there nothing wrong with that option. The V6 will move the car fast enough to earn a traffic citation for speeding, but that doesn't make it an attractive option to a performance enthusiast. Those that choose the high-output V8 often don't stop there. They do even more to it to make it faster and more powerful, but they start with a foundation that has greater initial performance, and unmatched potential for those that want to push it to the outer limits.

So, at the end of the day the only question that matters is what the buyer wants, or is willing to settle for. We can apply the same rationale to GPU options. Either step up to the plate for the best, or settle for something less. When it's all said and done, you get the caliber of performance that you choose to pay for. But, it should come as no surprise to the bargain shopper that their system does not perform as well as the shopper that paid for the better and more powerful components.

 

Ok I understand that benchmarking can have lower scores, but I have yet to run into a program that this is happening. I am talking about every day programs, having a high benchmark score is cool but that is all it is. What programs are you using that you NEED an extreme processor? I am running 3 vm's right now and wow and I can't notice it. I can run autocad 2011,12,13, 3d studio, and a couple more and not even notice a thing.

 

If all you need is a vehicle to take you from point A to point B, there's nothing wrong with settling for a Prius. If your QM does those things for you well enough and you don't care about doing things that you NEED an Extreme Processor to do, then save your money and buy the QM. There are a lot of people that are content with ordinary, but there are some that are not.

 

ok that is all good and everything with what you just said, but you didn't answer the question. You are giving people advice why they need to spend a lot more money on a xm processor. Why should they spend the money? What is the real world reason for it. Benchmarking isn't a real world reason, that is a my number is this big. I want to know is it worth my money for things I do in the real world to spend the money. So yes I am asking for an example of what programs or games runs better with an extreme processor over the qm.

It isn't the difference between ordinary and extreme if the only difference is your benchmarking is higher. That doesn't translate into better performance in programs and games. That is just an e-peni thing going.

 

Protein folding, transcoding videos, hash cracking (if you are a pentester). For gaming IMO the QMs that Alienware provide are sufficient, but there is an exception to everything I suppose.

I remember in the M15x there was a throttling issue between high end graphics cards and low end CPUs. Maybe there is something to be said about this in the M18x?

 

Because we have freedom of speech. He says smth, that isn't out of clue. XMs are better because have unlimited (in theory) OCing potential. It depends from other to either follow his advice or ignore. It is what everyone should do... choose.

 

To each his own, bud. I know that concept seems difficult to grasp for some folks. If you aren't interested it in, don't buy it... pretty simple. Neither I nor anyone else need to feel obligated to justify anything. I don't expect you to thoroughly document why you opted not to buy an XM, and I don't think less of you for being satisfied with your personal preference for a lesser processor. It doesn't matter. You gave a completely satisfactory explanation as to your buying preference, and I did the same. Nothing more needs to be said. Readers will ultimately see both views and decide what they want, so that is where the value of such discussion is derived.

If you read carefully, the advice given is to buy what you want and expect the end result to be performance equal to what you paid for. If you're content with ordinary, don't pay extra for better performance. If there was no demand for XM CPUs, Intel would not be selling them. They are used in the business world, too.

If benching is not a real world reason for it, it's only because you don't understand the real world is made up of people that have different values. If you were a bencher, you would understand. Because you're not, you're not seeing the big picture and apparently do not recognize that some people are different than you, and some people want more from their system than you want from yours.

 

ok, I guess I see his advice as a little more weighted because he is a moderator. The concept isn't hard for me to grasp, I understand overclocking it for better performance. But is yours always overclocked for everything that you work on? Sorry I asked for some real reasons oh why I should get it in my next machine. My money means a lot to me, and parting with it I need to know I am getting my money worth for it. I have to see I am getting value for the money I am spending. I research everything to make sure I am getting my moneys worth. Benchmarks dont mean anything to me. I game 10% of the time, and it is for work the other 90% of the time. I need to know the differences outside of gaming, I got this much increase in performance compared to bah bah bah. I am trying to decide when I buy my r2 if I want to get an xm, I never said why I got an qm in any of my posts.

And I didn't get an xm because they didn't offer it in the m17r2.

 

@ jlyons264. Moderators are same people. Apart on some other forums on the NBR they really remember this so you should feel free to use their advices and talk with them the same as with others... just don't forget to be polite

For gaming most important is GPU. If you want to buy OEM I7-X840QM then you better buy ES i7-X940XM. People suggest to buy XM version because when you pay twice for getting couple multipliers over stock 2630QM or 3610QM you could add 50% more to get much-much more multipliers with XM. It is price/performance value.
Also once you buy it you can forget about CPU bottleneck like for 5 years. Only GPU may become a bottleneck but either you swap it later or forget as you don't play.

If you don't need that much or some amount of money is much more important/hard to get than the same amount for other I understand. But it doesn't mean that we all know your expectations. Therefore everyone is writing his exact IMO based on his experience and preference.

At this point I guess we can lower post-adding to a half-year old thread

 

CPU could be as important as GPU when it comes to online gaming. Not sure how but in online environment the CPU is heavily loaded as there are more players/interactive objects such as mobs are around you...upgrading/OCing GPU may increase your maximum fps but the minimum fps increase is generally only achieved by increasing CPU clocks

 

If I did not game or bench, or do other things that can benefit from greater CPU power, then I would not spend the extra money for an XM CPU. Doing so would be a waste of money. A fair number of Alienware buyers are looking for top performance, and there is no substitute for an XM CPU if that is the goal. If the only need or desire is a machine that can do a little bit of gaming and otherwise average computing tasks, spending money on an Alienware is questionable except as a matter of personal preference. There are less expensive options available that will provide average performance. The allure of owning an Alienware probably does not attract many people that want an average experience, but this is only logical speculation on my part and may not be accurate.

And yes, I'm a enthusiastic PC performance nut... and I will be the first to admit it. My CPU is, in fact, overclocked all the time. I am idling at 4.2GHz and 62°C, but that is only because I am using a ThrottleStop profile for everyday use to hold it back from idling at 4.8GHz. The exception is when I am having to work in an environment that is too warm, in which case I temporarily opt for a milder Dell "Level 3 Overclock" profile in the BIOS. High performance computers replaced my need for speed with cars and motorcycles. As a young single man, I used to drag race, pull wheelies, do massive burn-outs and cut donuts on public roadways. I ran with open headers all the time and did not care what anyone else thought about it. I had a blast. Did I need to do it? Of course not. But, I wanted to do it, and did it because I could do it. There was nothing stopping me from enjoying life in the fast lane, and nobody got hurt in the process. Things have changed and big brother swings a much bigger stick in today's world. This overclocking/benching thing is a whole lot cheaper and a lot less likely to land daddy/grandpa in jail, LOL.

I am a moderator, but just an ordinary enthusiast. It is a volunteer position for which I receive nothing in return except for the satisfaction of helping others. Being a moderator should not make my opinions carry more or less weight than anyone else's, nor does being a moderator have a direct correlation to my level of technical expertise.

 

That's a pretty accurate assumption. The CPU handles operations and what actually goes on in the game, while the GPU's deal with texture, motion blur, etc. to make the operations smooth and life-like. (I'm not 100% certain that this is accurate, but about 90%.) For those of us with dual GPU's, if you want to be able to use them to their full potential, an XM CPU will be beneficial, but definitely NOT necessary by any means.

 

On paper, XM chips can overclock high enough to justify the extra cost. From my experience however, there's a big catch - heat. If you need to run your machine for extended periods of time @100% CPU load (coding, computation simulations, etc) and yet, you don't have adequate cooling conditions - the system will overheat. The overclock is good for brief moments of benching but will not hold long term. I've had 3 XM chips in the past year and a half and was unable to find a way to keep the temps under 90C under continuous 100% load in normal conditions. Not with a 3-piped CPU heatsink, not with the best thermal paste, not with fans on full blast. Even at a measly 4ghz I had to lower the room temp below 70F and have the back of the machine elevated for the CPU temps to stabilize just under 90C in Prime95. Not to mention that I used a lapped modded heatsink with a 10% more surface area on the radiator with pyrolytic graphite cladding and retention mod to improve the temps. That's why, I think, most users with XM chips would never be able to benefit from that potential. For comparison, under the same conditions a 3840QM runs @4ghz across the board @ 63C @ 100%load. After all is said and done, I'm going for a 38x0QM. The idea of having XM CPU is fascinating but in reality I need a workhorse that can hold highest stable clocks in my environment. And it appears that the x9x0XM is not the winner in this case.

 

What are you doing that requires a continuous 100% CPU load all the time, or for extended periods? That sounds like a pretty brutal environment, and I could see where a compromised (lower) core clock speed would definitely be required under such harsh circumstances... that, or more extreme cooling than what possible on normal ambient room temps using ordinary heat sinks. Doesn't your comment assume that "most users with XM chips" would be doing something that requires a continuous 100% GPU load for extended periods of time? I don't know of many gamers or benchers that would fit that scenario. But, that is still a compromise to fit the way you need to use your machine. It's the right thing to do under those circumstances, but it won't win benchmarks if that holds your interest.

The only part that has me puzzled is why you would not or could not simply readjust your XM core clock, BCLK, flex and pri plane settings to suit the need at the moment, then change them to more aggressive settings whenever you wish to do so. My XM can run as cool or as hot as I let it based on how I have the settings configured. You can adjust the XM to behave like a QM when the need arises. To me that would make more sense than downgrading to a less powerful and less flexible processor, unless you simply never plan to play and the benching does not hold your interest. In that case the XM probably is more CPU than you need and it probably makes no sense to spend extra for performance potential that you don't care about. To me, one of the ways an XM offers unbeatable value is having a great deal of control and flexibility to adjust it, on the fly, based on how I want or need it to behave under a specific set of circumstance. That's not possible, or severely limited with a QM CPU. You more or less have to live with what you have, whether it is enough or not.

 

A simple example would be en-de/coding BR movies in batches (I'm moving my entire BR collection to a couple of different formats - about 4TB of data to transcode).

Also, certain virtualization projects.

But the thing is, even at stock clocks with the Extreme section disabled the XM chip runs way hotter than the [email protected]. If I could achieve similar temps on the 2960XM@4ghz I'd do that, but as of right now, it doesn't seem to be the case. I tried doing all that you mentioned and more, following in your footsteps and best suggestions from various benchers from NBR and T|I, but it didn't work. I had to actually disable turbo completely and lock the CPU @2.7ghz (zero flex) to have comparable temps to a [email protected]. That's not good in my book but maybe I haven't tried hard enough to find a way...

 

I actually wouldnt mind shelling the cash for an XM if i got a significantly faster experience in games. But the problem is that the cpu no where near bottle necks the GPUs at this point, even the 3610. So, yes the benching is really high and stuff but where are the plus 20 percent FPS in these games or those games? I want to justify it to myself you know? I can see some video encoding it would be useful, but what else? Like..specifically for everyday gamer use? On a side note, any of you planning on upgrading to the R3 or keeping the R2?

 

To OP:

I asked myself the same question before I bought my m18x. Do I really want/need a XM processor? My answer after thinking about it for a while was no. I ordered the 3820qm and put the money/savings towards the 680M SLI.
I work on the laptop (no encoding though) and play some intense games like Skyrim for instance. So far I had enough horse power for everything. No slow downs, no stutters... it's just working fine.

So IMHO unless you have the money to burn on a XM and/or you need it for serious encoding work and/or benchmarking bragging rights, just get the 3820/40qm. That's plenty...

 

This is very strange. If I can think of a new suggestion, I'll offer one, but it sounds like you have tried a number of things that should have worked and did not. I don't experience any heat issues like those you are describing. Were all of these heat problems you experienced using the same CPU? If so, maybe there is something not right about the processor you were having bad luck with.

I have done a fair amount of video encoding for posting to YouTube, and I usually run that task at 4GHz on all 4 cores without overheating. But, wow... 4TB of BR ripping... that's a lot of movies, LOL. Sounds like a lot of time and work ahead of you.

 

I wonder how much difference there is between the 3820 and 3740. Same clock speed.. I wonder if the 6md cache vs 8 mb makes a difference

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

I have tried all that with 3 different CPU's , 2xOEM 2960XM, 1xES 2920XM, 5 different 2 and 3 piped HS's, modded HS's. 3 different motherboards, all top thermal pastes: AS5,ICD-24,MX-3.TX-3/4,ShinEtsu,OCZ Freeze, etc.
When I set it @4ghz it doesn't overheat during normal operation but as soon as you fire up Prime it hits 90C in 5sec, that is without maxed out fans, without elevation, without cooler stand underneath. And that's normal given the cooling system. That's my conclusion. Even on a cold boot, running fans at max for a min before firing up Prime, it would still reach 90C during a 1024MB run. I found a summary made by ResidualVoltage on T|I and have compared my results to his, both temps and settings -> almost identical...
So, I stopped kidding myself, unless there's a 100W+ cooling available, I'll be better of with a 45W CPU...

 

Well, I just ordered a new OEM 3920XM to replace my 2920XM. :thumbsup:

 

Haha, right on, Brother Fox!

 

LOL, thanks. This 2920XM has been quite the beast. It has served me well, and I have never been more pleased with a CPU... Now, it's time to see if its successor is truly worthy of the "Extreme" mantle that has been bestowed upon it.

If that goes well, my next "low budget" project will be to source a few more pieces to resurrect another M18x R1 from all of my leftover parts. The 2920XM will still have a home. At this point I only need a LCD and cable, bottom cover, wifi card, palmrest, keyboard, TactX keypad and surround bezel. Not sure what GPU setup I'll slap into it at that point. Maybe something old and very inexpensive, like a pair of 5870M. (I never had a lick of trouble with 5870M CrossFire in the M17x R2. It would be kind of cool to see what level of extreme performance I could milk out of them paired up with this wicked little 2920XM.) It would still be a very potent spare system to tinker around with.

I might do another custom paint job in a different color this time using my spare chassis. Maybe a fluorescent lime green pearl or cobalt blue pearl this go round.

 

Where do you get your spare chassis parts fox?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

I purchased them from Dell Laptop Parts | Dell Parts | Dell Laptop Repair | Dell Repair.

 

I'm fairly certain you will enjoy to 3920XM Mr. Fox. It is an astoundingly powerful CPU in my opinion...even when compared to Desktop CPU's.

 

Any reason you didn't opt for a 3940xm, Bro?

 

Thanks! I am looking forward to it.

Mostly price, Brother Steve... remember, I'm the cheapskate that refuses to pay more than $20 for games, LOL. Most of the time I am able to buy at lower than normal prices by waiting and watching, and resisting the urge to be among the first to have it.

The new OEM 3920XM was acquired for a miserly $600 shipped, which represents about $400 in savings compared to the "going rate" for a 3920XM or 3940XM. Looking at the specs, I think I will be able to extract equal or greater performance from the 3920XM compared to what most users are able to achieve with a 3940XM. (This was the case with my budget QS version of the 2920XM versus 2960XM.)