Core2 Duo P9600 2.6ghz vs Intel i7 640UM

Hi all,

Which processor is faster? Core2 Duo 2.6ghz or the Intel i7 640UM? Is it safe to assume that c2d is faster because of higher clock speed?

Thanks.

 

Well the OCed i7 on turbo boost "one core" should be on par with the stock P9600. Other than that the P9600 will be faster.

 

I see. Thanks for the quick reply.

 

I'm just curious about how fast the i7-640UM is compared to a C2D via two cores. The whole turbo thing is whatever to me since it's only one core for that number. It's 1.2 stock dual cores right? OC'd to maybe 1.6 or 1.7? I know clock to clock i-series is faster than c2d though.. but yeah th 2.6Ghz C2D should have it beat all around, but if it's comparable, then I would be really interested in upgrading.

 

Well, I can't find i7-640UM benchmark, but here is what I'm able to find at PassMark.
i5-520UM scores 1611 (scratch out the MHz part, as it's not appropriate since Arrandale have TB)
[email protected] scores 1638
[email protected] scores 1968
[email protected] scores 2004 (this one doesn't have TB)
Since i7-640UM in TB+OC clocked higher than 2.13, I'm guessing that i7-640UM is faster.

 

thank you for that freeman. I've seen PassMark benchmarks used, is that a good one for comparison? What's the SU7300 at? I'll google in the meantime.

SU7300 is 980
SU4100 is 990

both at 1.3Ghz

 

It's not exactly good per se, but the sheer numbers of database make it quite good for comparison. The number you get isn't base on any specific machine, but rather an average from large numbers of sample. Of course, newer CPU will have less sample pool. This is quite good for a sheer comparison of CPU, because it's base on average score. I mean, you can see it more clearly if you ever build your own desktop. The same CPU on difference MB & RAM can make a difference. So, the same CPU on two difference implementation of 2 difference could make the score differ slightly even if the CPU & memory are the same. And even the two CPU of the same model of the same batch on the same system could get you difference result also. So, I find that PassMark is quite useful for thing like this. But it's not a testament for stuff that we use daily like office application or any specific use like gaming.

eg: SU7300 got 189 samples while SU4100 got 196 samples.

On the side note: even if i7-640UM end up scoring a bit less than [email protected], I would still pick i7-640UM because of all the new technology that put into it. I mean, i7-640UM does have GMA HD built into it, meaning that's one more thing that I do not need discrete GPU to do. 32nm and 18W max TDP should lead to better heat dissipation and probably better overclockability(but more likely just less fan noise, I don't care about OC that much). So, those overall do add up even if there is no numbers attach to it.

 

agreed freeman. I just d/l'd the free version of passmark and ran it on my OC'd SU7300 and got a 1243 overall score. So OC from avg of 980 to 1243 not bad. I wouldn't be surprised if the i7-640UM could hit 1800-2000+ eh? I'm starting to become a believer in these new UM chips and what they can do.

 

Even i5-520UM w/o OC already better than SU7300, I would expect i7-640UM to do even better, especially after OCed.

 

how much better, would you assume, the processors are in real-life applications though?

i doubt people have the m11x for photoshop / 3dstudio max. would these processors help in gaming and every day use? the atom is nearly quite powerful enough for plain web browsing, and i know my SU4100 works very well for web browsing and basic office work.

is the difference between the i5 and i7 cpu's a small gap, or wide gap? surely the su7300 wasn't worth the upgrade over the su4100 since it bears little to no difference in CPU power across the board.

 

I think if you're just using the M11x for usual productivity, web browsing, office use and then gaming is secondary, the upgrade may not be worth it since the SU4100/7300 perform all those tasks very well. Now if you want to push your machine to the limit via games, cpu intensive work like encoding then sure you WILL notice a difference on the new i5/i7 processors.

 

From the same chart,

i7 720QM 3228
i5 540M 2416
i5 520M 2377
i5 430M 2384
i3 350M 2014
i3 330M 2001
i5 520UM 1611

So i5 ULV gives you roughly 70% of performance while using ~50% power compared to regular i5 M. I wouldn't be surprised if i7 640UM ended up being somewhere in high 1600 to 1700's though. At least for passmark, raw MHz doesn't seem to make too much of difference between those i5's.

But indeed this is a good boost in performance for more CPU oriented applications. For my own comparison, my desktop which has E6750 scored high 1600's on stock clock, and I wouldn't have many issues using this small laptop with similar CPU power.