QX9100 outruns 920XM

I benchmarked my overclocked QX9100 @3.04 GHZ to compare to a 920XM using CPU Mark

I got 4545.9 Marks! The 920XM gets 4054!

chart:


My CPUZ and CPUMark shots are attached.

LONG LIVE QX9100!

 

So? You can OC a 920XM too.

 

Yea that is pretty good, but the passmark appears to be at stock settings.

 

from what I'm reading, overclocking the 920XM is tricky, and raises TDP to around 70-80. this is unacceptable in a notebook form factor.

 

By that logic we shouldn't have powerhouse laptops at all.

 

the goal of new technology is to increase efficiency. raising TDP for marginal performance is not efficient. I wish they would have introduced the 920XM @ 45TDP instead of 55 >.<

 

While I could play around with Passmark ratings and overclocking my 920XM (which I have in the past) I assure you the 4545 could easily be beat with some work, however I really don't have a lot of interest in doing it myself.

Maybe someone else with more enthusiasm will come along and do the deed.

For my uses the 920XM turned out to be overkill, and based on how much it cost me, I just can't see cranking up my clocks and TDP at the risk of frying my CPU.

 

whats interesting is this is just scratching the surface. I've had this processor go all the way up to 3.8 ghz, but I am working on stabilizing it first. we will play the number game again when that happens

 

It's known that the i7's aren't the best at efficiency, but I'm pretty sure they're more efficient per clock and per watt than the C2D. Also, I'm fairly certain you can raise the multiplier once or twice before having to raise the TDP.

 

i ran that test @ 1.2V, but since then, I lowered the voltage to max original, which is 1.165 @ 10.5x multi + fsb increase to get the same performance, and its working great @ 45w TDP

 

Doesn't suprise me. Core 2 Quads are still very good, even more when they are OC'ed

 

If your looking for effiency than looking at the 920XM is the wrong thing to be doing. You should be looking at an i5. i7 920XM is for somone that wants power, and not efficiency. There are variouys CPUs because not everyone has the same needs or desires, and to assume that everyone wants efficiency in a laptop is rather narrow minded.

Also the test can be scewed. Is pass mark designed to utilize hyper threading? If not than clock speed will win. But if hyper threading is utilized, core-i will walk all over C2D.

 

I don't want an i5 because of its lack of 4 physical cores. I'm not sure if the test takes advantage of hyperthreading, but I assume it does, since the top processor is @ 3.33 ghz, but I'm sure its hyperthreading doubled its score and maxed it out.

 

Run wPrime and see how it compares to the 920XM stock score of 12 or 11 seconds @ 8 threads. Btw, you will only be able to run wPrime with 4 threads.

 

Other than benchmarking and a few programs that actually are CPU bound, most users don't require or care about speed since it sacrifices battery life and heat. Plus CPUs have a lot of variation, some C2Q's overclock terribly, while some Ci7's overclock really well. You can't really base conclusions off a single sample.

 

I got 13.2 Seconds to calculate in 32M, which isn't too bad considering hyperthreading the i7 920xm has an additional 4 virtual threads.

 

Yeah but how many real applications use 8 threads?

 

I would hope handbrake would make use of every resource possible to speed up encoding.

 

stock vs overclocked um g wonder why your score was higher.

 

not wondering, just happy that i can match the performance.

 

Pretty much anything that compresses, renders or encodes.

 

encoding my music to different formats is a beach and it takes up all 8 thread. it took like a full damn day to do it on my regular (Q6600) quad core desktop while encodng like 3-4 at a time. While on my M15x it took like 3 hours to encode like 7-8 at a time.

 

I suppose if were looking at benchmarks, I've scored over 22K on the 3DMark Vantage CPU test with the 920XM. Just because in one test an OCed QX9100 surpasses a 920XM I wouldn't say it can out run or is better. Just that the test appears to favor clock speed over hyper threading

 

only very few. video encoding/decoding, video rendering/compositing, audio editing, complex worksheets in excel, some scientific applications

if your not using any of these, a powerful multithreaded cpu like the 920/940 would be overkill indeed.

 

I'll take a quad any day.

What applications use all 4 cores and all 8 threads?

The kind that needs cpu power.

Chances are any program that is only use dual core is not demanding enough to max out even 2 cores on a quad core cpu because people who make these programs know what they are doing.

I have never found a single program/game/application that maxed out 2 cores on my Quad and left me in a situation where the dual core would be better.

But daily I find situations in the reverse.

Plus dont forget the comparison here is to a 920XM the i7 quads have the turbo boost feature so even if you were running a dual core task that could max out 2 cores, it will just overclock those 2 cores.

G73 owners that put a 920XM in can run 3ghz on all 4 cores with no additional cooling that would already be over twice as fast as your cpu because its double the core count with the same clock speed and the i7 is clock for clock better than the C2D.

With added cooling we have broke 4ghz.

It would eat the QX9100 for breakfast, and still be hungry for more.

Sorry man the age of dual cores is over for any serious about performance, and comparing your OCed cpu to a stock one has absolutely no purpose.

 

HTT is a way of using idle execution units which can make the CPU more efficient. It does not have twice the amount of physical cores. Please post an example showing the 920XM running a multi-threaded application twice as fast with "HTT on" against "HTT off" to backup your claim. Running math intensive programs such as Linpack can actually be detrimental with HT enabled.

Seems to show that good performance can still be had from the older Core2's so I wouldn't go as far as to say there is no merit in what the op has done.

IMHO it should stand to reason that any new technology should be better than the last otherwise it would be a flop and it's not always about pure clock speed.

 

The average performance increase is about 35% from the numbers I've seen. That includes folding@home, handbrake, cakewalk sonar and ultraISO.

 

I actually made a mistake thought he was OCing a Dual Core, thus why I was going on about how I feel quad core is better.

Its so normal for everybody to post these high clock speed dual cores and say they are better than the lower clocked quad cores.

I know the old quads are good, I loved mine I had my Q9000 doing 2.8ghz without a sweat on my Asus W90.

C2Q to i7 Quad was only a step forward, but going from dual core to quad core was a giant leap.


Sorry for the misunderstanding, im doing 15 things at once tonight.

 

Woah, maybe 35% tops in some applications. Intel themselves say it can give up to a 30% boost.

 

Just remember, the 920XM has the entire northbridge, and PCIe lanes, all on the CPU, too. The old Core 2 Duo never had that.

 

There was a thread where I did a series of benchmarks against a 920XM with my QX9300, both at stock levels and when slightly overclocked.

For whatever reason, I can't view the thread:
Comparison between QX9300 and i7 Intel® Core™ i7 920XM 2.0GHz (3.2GHz Turbo Mode, 8MB Cache)

 

Either got merged into another thread [a long time ago] or deleted (or hidden from non-staff view...)

 

what were your findings again?

 

with a 740QM i'm getting 12.382s for 32M superpi.

However my cpu usage doesn't even go above 38%, ?

 

superpi is single threaded.


Try wPrime, instead.

 

Yeah SuperPi is what we used before Wprime.

Also with Wprime there are two main versions and they give different scores so make sure you get and compare to the same version.

If you use the older version you have to manually set the right # of threads.

 

Technos it took you 1.165V to do just over 3ghz? Meh I can do the same at 1.0375V with my desktop Q9650 in a laptop lol. Seems your QX is a bit power hungry. 1.1V nets me 3.3ghz

 

ur laptop is just lol... it just gets better and better with upgrades ... don't burn ur mobo out but OP , 920xm can eat u for breakfast... overclock it and u'll be vapourised... i just think the OP made this thread to troll about 920xm and show off his QX9100

 

Clock for clock the i7's are more powerful than the equivelant C2D or CQD. It is the next generation and just the name of the game. My x9100 rocks at 3.2 GHz and up to 3.7 GHz but it isn't an i7 but enough for what I throw at it.

In the end if you have a CQD, especially OC'd, you have little performance reason to upgrade the system for lack of CPU power. Now if you feel CPU limited by your CQD @ 3 GHz then it may be time to upgrade to a new i7 but do not fool yourself to thinking that the CQD can keep up with the new platform, especially at the high end, or that it is not a worth while upgrade...............

 

whats the highest stable 8-core overclock for a 920xm with and without a nb cooler?

 

4 Core - 8 Thread

I have been told the Asus G73 can do 3ghz without any issues on stock cooling, maybe 3.2ghz but past that you need added cooling.

This has to be taken with a grain of salt it would highly depend on your ambient temp, how hot your cpu runs (one cpu is not the same as the next) and also how good your thermal paste job is.

 

8 thread! my bad

 

The M17x can take 3.3GHz on 8 threads and 4 cores...so its better but it has 3 fans lol...

 

and it looks like your 4.5 is fiction...
your wprime32 is fiction at 13 while we are at 6.5
your voltage is 1.2 .....while ours in the low 1's
efficient? we can drop to dual core mode and run 25 watt tdp's you can't get more efficient than that.

the only thing stopping my particular laptop from running 8 threads maxed (3.7 ghz or higher) is the heat sink. it's only a 50 watt heat sink. my standard every day over clock is 3.733 ghz for every day use. and that is on all four cores.
i multitasking so i have like 20 windows going at a time... of a range of different things. so the more cores active...the far better the computing experience. there is far more than just encoding/transcoding/decoding to use up multiple cores and threads. not to mention vm's.

yet your cpu is a nice cpu and all, but a 920/940/qx9300 it aint.

side note: i was the one that told vicious about the 3.0 to 3.2 ghz
if asus gave us fan control...that number would go up..
but you wouldn't be able to do better than 27x/142 qpi...because then....you would be out of voltage. (101 errors)

 

Actually, you meant 4-core. You can't overclock threads.

 

Yeah, it kind of grinds my gears when people say threads this and threads that. It is a quad core processor dag nabbit!!!

Have you tried overclocking with HT disabled? I know that at least a while ago people were able to overclock on the desktop quite a bit better without it. If you use your laptop for gaming it would probably be a good idea since HT doesn't do much to increase performance in that case.

 

sure. i have went so far as running in single core mode.
but you dont have to do that for games.
a game runs better in dual mode..just hit the task manager and set the game to what ever two cores you want to use.

 

I don't quite remember, this is all I can salvage:




There were overclocked results as well. Perhaps a mod can move the thread from the closed "Alienware > Side Topics" subforum so that normal users can view it.

 

one more the thread

 

Having a QX9300 that can eat your "qx9100" (really a CHEAP es lol) for breakfast, I have to say, your are sorely wrong mister OP. First, I qualify my previous statement...I can bench 3.33 GHz at STOCK voltage, not boosted like your OC. If we ARE boosting voltage.....well, I bench at 4.16 GHz then - good luck keeping up

As for your ignorant TDP statement....what the hell do you think raising the voltage does? It raises the TDP of your special little chip. As John mentioned, with stock volts (since there is not yet a known way to boost cpu voltage for the i7's) you can OC as far as 4.35 GHz on all cores and bench around 4 GHz all cores.

If you need any clarification or benches, holler at me and I will show what a Core 2 Quad can REALLY do in a laptop (as no one on the planet has a faster Core 2 Quad than I do in a laptop). I am afraid your ES Q9100 (I will not give it an X just because it has an unlocked multi......don't make me laugh) is worth exactly what you paid, about $200.