Difference between quad core and i7

Hi,

I'd like to know what are the differences between those two processors :

- Intel Core i7-720QM Processor, 1.6 GHz, 6MB L3 Cache
- Intel Core2 Quad Q9000 2.0GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

Thank you for your help!

 

The i7-720QM is architectually different and vastly superior.

Honestly, they will perform about the same, but in situations where the i7s turbo mode can be utilized, it will shine much brighter against the Q9000

 

It will also consume less power than the Q9000 across the board.

 

The i7-720QM dominates the Q9000 in any competition. I randomly searched the 720QM on ebay, and it's $400 O.O.

 

The Core i7 uses the New Quick Path Interconnect while the Quad Core sticks with the dated FSB.
Quick Path Interconnect is a unified bus for greater performance on Virtualization and more.

 

wow, i didnt even know they were available yet. Sweet, one step closer to new shiney toys

 

i7 is the next generation CPUs and quad core are old generation. For more reliability and less power consumption, i7 is superior. If you are budget conscious then get a quad core.

 

How does quad core i5 compare to the Core 2 Quad out of curiosity?

 

Reliability ? You'll have to explain that to me, spradhan.

 

Actually the mobile i7s use DMI, not QPI.

There are no quad core i5s. The i5s are dual cores.

 

Is this true for desktops because I saw this on newegg site, unless they did a typo.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215

 

You are right.

The desktop i-5s (at least those released so far) are quad core but don't have multi-threading enabled.

It's Intel's brand, so they have the right to define stuff as they wish. But this all has a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland feel to it:

 

What is and what will muti-treading do for me, the consumer.

 

It depends upon what applications you run, but it will help with running many programs at once and intensive programs.

 

Core2 Quad is not really a real Quad Core. Its two core2duo dyes packed separately into one cpu casing. Its not a true quad core like i7 or AMD quad cores which is one reason I would never buy one.

 

price is also another big difference... lol

 

What exactly do you want to understand?

i7 are surely reliable than c2q. They can handle much stress than c2q. You can google on that and see the stress results between these two.

 

the difference between c2q and i5/i7 is that c2q has a multi-year track record while everything about i5/i7 is theoretical. Lab and bench tests don't count. Once there are a couple million users of the new chips and we start to see reliablity and failure trends, then you can make some kind of statement.

Until then, it's speculation.

 

The difference between traditional quad core an the i7 is evolutionary not revolutionary. In addition, there is no true advantage at this time since even quad cores have few applications that would realize their full potential. Remember, manufactures have a vested interest in keeping their revenue as high as any business organization.

To put it in a more recognizable perspective, is a 2010 automobile really that much different from a 2009? I might say yes, but only if money is no object.

 

To be fair, automobiles have reached a stalepoint a loong time ago. There's not much gain to be had for going for more horsepower or whatever, at least in computers you can use it.

The above is one reason why we won't see quad core mainstream for a while. Even Intel knows this. Not to mention 45nm is still too large for mainstream quad core.

 

Not unless you're a geek. Athough the potential for computers is limitless, the majority don't use the present computers anywhere close to their max. Save gamers, graphic artist, and a few other niches users, those advancements are pretty much academic and have yet to find mass appeal.

Hence my automobile analogy: you may indeed be the talk of the town with your new 500 hp engine, but the speed limit is still 65!

 

That's the thing though. In automobiles, almost everyone can't take advantage of it. They say average automobile only needs 16 horsepower to drive at 55mph. On the other hand, you have the hybrids which cost $10K more for minor fuel reduction which won't be recovered unless you are a taxi company.

In PC, at least the ill-informed users are countering losses in performance with their spyware/virus/malware scanners/bad usage habits with faster CPU even on those that don't stress it a lot. Then there's unaccelerated high definition video, which your CPU handles.

 

Riiiiiiiiiight....and you really think Intel engineers designed the i7 based on speculation? Too funny....

 

Nehalem is a brand new architecture, not a die shrink. Its brand new in Intel's tick tock road map. So I'm not so sure what you meant by evolutionary/revolutionary.

Core i7s have been out for a long while for desktops, check out the benchmarks. There are advantages of Core i7, namely video/3D.

Automobile advancements are on a totally different timeline than CPUs. Very bad analogy.

Core2Quad are two dual cores stuck together as a single package. So its not a native quad core, but Intel has proven that its non native quad core is just as capable.

AMD touted that its Phenom I was the first native quad core. Look what happened, Core2Quad ate it for breakfast.

Multithreading means that each core can do two tasks, essentially making a 4 core doing 8 simultaneous tasks. Now this does not mean it can do the workload of a true 8 core CPU. It just gives you a slight performance boost.

So whats the difference between C2Q and i7? i7 has HT, Turbo, and faster clock for clock all the while having similar TDP of a C2Q.

What you get is a monster of a CPU for multithreaded applications.

 

Do we know for a fact that i7 is faster clock for clock than C2Q? I mean, with hyperthreading and turbo disabled, would a 920XM running at 2.0 be faster than a Q9000? I know we all think it would be, but has anyone seen an actual comparison in the reviews that confirms this?

 

I'm sure you can find some benchies out there.

People, Core i7 is only new to the laptop world. There are benchies out there for quite sometime for Core i7 Desktops.

I will state this again, Core i7 = Nehalem = New Architecture = Tock = Faster clock for clock.

Look at Intels roadmap it'll give you an idea. Also read some articles about i7 at Anandtech. He has some pretty extensive articles about the new architecture.

 

I'd take a 920QM over my QX9300 any day of the week.

Even the base 720 i7 is better than the Q9000. If all 4 cores are running, the 720 is only clocked at 1.73ghz, but with the better architecture should at least match the speed of the 2.0 ghz quad. And when you aren't using all the cores, the i7 overclocks behind the scenes, thoroughly demolishing the Q9000 in lightly thread apps. And to top it all off, with hyper threading the 720 will often spend it's time using only 1 or 2 cores, saving energy and running at higher clock speeds.

The thing is smart, and it's the best thing to happen to laptops since Conroe. Yeah, Intel conroe'd again.

 

For sure, there's no doubt that the new cpus are superior. I am merely wondering if anyone had actually seen evidence that, clock for clock, an i7 was faster than a C2Q. I don't recall seeing that sort of comparison made in any of the reviews for mobile i7's. Not as familiar with desktop procs as my last desktop cpu was a 1.8ghz willamette.

Many people are using "clock for clock" in a different sense where an i7 rated at X is faster than a C2Q rated at X, but the i7 has hyperthreading and turboboost, so it's apples to oranges.

 

On the contrary, I take my analogies very seriously. As do my understanding of the words I choose. In this case, timeline is irrelevant. By revolutionary I'm referring to a completely new direction and change in our way of thinking. An example would the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the internal combustion engine. This advancement in architecture you refer to, makes only an incremental shift in computer ability, not a dramatic one.

 

*sniff...sniff* stop making me cry, your hurting my self-esteem....

lawl i bought my laptop liek 1.5 months ago. now this shiz comes out...hopefully my C2Q @ 2.4GHz doesnt become to bad compared to the future CPUs. im interested in OCing the i7, when you OC the 720 from 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz (820), does it act just like the 820 would in regards with the 2 core at 3.xx ghz (whatever it is...)? also, how exactly to you OC the thing when its using this DMI (/QPI...idk)? cant be with setFSB, so my only guess is with unlocked BIOS which are REALLY hard to come by?

 

The hyperthreading on the i7 doesn't do a whole lot at the moment. 8 vs 4 threads and "multithreading" sounds great but nets you little. Taking advantage of hyperthreading is a hard thing to do when you already have 4 cores. I think it will be a long time before it makes a difference to more than a tiny fraction of desktop and laptop users. On the desktop a lot of people turn off hyperthreading to net them a considerably higher overclock. The integrated memory controller doesn't make a difference either. If it did, Intel would have implemented it a long time ago. AMD did 5 or 6 years ago when they came out with the Athlon 64. Sure the memory bandwidth is increased by a whole lot, but this doesn't help much. Most people can't tell the difference between single and dual channel memory anyway, so this obviously isn't improving much.

Um, ok. Your position makes ZERO sense.

Can you provide a link or something? I have no clue what you are talking about. Since when has processor reliability ever been an issue?

 

For every question, there is a simple answer and that is google. Processors dont have issues of reliability but it have some qualities to handle serious stress like when you are overclocking a processor. At that time, the term reliability comes to life. The more you overclock, more the stress and more the chances of failing. So, I am not saying that processors are not reliable but just i7 are more stress facing processors than c2q. Thats it.

 

Well C2Q's are still powerful CPU's, so I wouldn't feel too bad. Mobile i7 won't be mainstream till the end of this year or early 2010.

I am a firm believer of not OCing laptops. OCing IMO is reserved for desktops. Laptops are just way too small to be OCing with.

Now the new Mobile i7 has built in auto OCing called Turbo mode. Its pretty ingenious actually. If the CPU has not reached its TDP and doesn't use all 4 cores, it will OC its two cores almost as high as 3ghz until its TDP is reached.

 

Except that I can't find any info about anything like this through google, nor have I heard of anything like in my years as an overclocker. If you would be so kind as to provide a link or any justification for your thoughts, maybe I would believe it. On the other hand, I know you can't.

Just for reference, saying to google it for myself is hardly a weighty argument.

Not exactly. Higher end processors will always clock higher, so saying they clock until they reach their thermal design parameters isn't accurate. But yes, clocking a couple of cores higher to keep down power usage when the others aren't needed is kind of neat.

 

Now I dont understand why are you going behind one thing?? Everyone have their own thinkings and for me, i7 are reliable than c2q. Its not necessary that they should fail but as for lifes of it i7 will live little longer than c2q and thats all I wanted to pin point and as for clarifying its a free country and I can say what I want to say.

 

Excellent! That's what I've been trying to get folk to understand. Computers work as a system. So no matter how efficient one component is, the net result can only be as good as the slowest component. Hence, Windows Experience Index base score.

In the case of the i7, scarcely any programs exist that can take full advantage of it's unique properties. In fact, to date, only a few dozen quad core compatible program exist. Therefore, jumping to the next step CPU design at this juncture would be highly premature, and most likely difference in the performance of most of today's applications.

 

Windows Experience Index? That benchmark is a POS. You've just lost all credibility.

Scarcely any programs exist during the Dual Core days, yet its performance was stellar when it was released many years ago.

Just because programs aren't programmed for multi-core doesn't mean that you wont see benefits. Also there are many programs already that have been using multicore to their advantage, mainly in the design world.

 

But you see, you say they are more reliable when they are not. Overclocked processors failing is pretty much unheard of unless you pretty much deliberately try to kill them. The electronic life of a processor is far greater than its useful life. We actually don't know how long a processor can last. The space shuttle uses ancient intel processors. They even bough a bunch off ebay when Intel stopped making them so that they would have spares if they needed them. Saying that i7 is more reliable and will last longer than a Core 2 processor is just plain wrong and has no scientific basis.

 

I am not sure about that because one of my friend recently had some trouble with his X9000. He was unable to enable multicore in BIOS. Everything was tried and at last DELL changed the processor and it worked fine. This was the first time, I heard about processor change.

 

Come on, one example of a defective processor is hardly definitive.

 

Atleast for me and my friend, its definitive. And maybe there are other who might had those problems and got resolved. Those are rear but just there exist a term"Reliability". No matter what, if its one, two or thousand. There is a saying "If you steal a dollar or a billion of dollars, you are a thief".

 

And when one of the new i7s is defective, that will kill your argument. As I said in another thread, one sample or occurrence is not enough definitive data to justify a claim. Otherwise, damn near anything could be claimed. I could say, Asus and Nvidia are complete garbage in the areas of notebooks and mobile graphics cards due to my G1S, but that doesnt make it true.

 

One defect is not good enough. You need to look at the failure rate of the CPU's.

Quite frankly I never take anecdotal evidence as evidence.

 

Go back and read the passage again. The point of the example was to show that a machine is only a good as it's weakest part.

 

I am not claiming anything but sharing my own experience. I have seen that failure so I was telling about it and thats it. I have not mentioned anything about claiming or so.

 

This thread was answered a long time ago.

Now it's just a crap shoot.

Dollar for dollar, I'm going to take a Core 2 Quad. At least until those cursed motherboards and DDR3 memory come down in price.....

 

Yea they really haven dropped from May when I built my rig, I might have saved $50-100, which isnt a lot for 5 months I think.

 

yes that is what i mean by that 2 cores @ 3.xx but anyways. what im saying, the stock at 4 cores is 1.73GHz. could i OC the 1.73GHz to 2.0GHz so that its equivalent to the 920M? does that mean when i OC it to 2.0GHz, does the turbo mode bump up the 2 core/1 core turbo clocks the same as the 920 does?

 

If it acts like Lynnfield, then yes, although apparently overclocking Lynnfield requires some significant overvolting, which may not be practical for a notebook.

Anandtech ( http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=18) has some notes on overclocking Lynnfield chips, and can probably give you at least an idea of what to expect, although since the chips are obviously not out yet for public consumption, we have no idea.

 

Why is everyone calling the i7 overpriced? The new laptops that have them are mostly high end systems and mainstream systems like XPS16 price is the same if not a few dollars more. If you look at a q9000 on ebay its about $389, a new i7 720qm is only $400 and they just started selling clarksfield cpus on there recently. The other 2 i7s aren't available for sale yet but I'm hoping they will be available for pretty cheap in the coming year.