Processor Speed Advice - Comparisons

I have an ASUS N53JQ Laptop, 4G RAM, i7 Q740 @ 1.73GHz.

I like the laptop a lot. I think I assumed that an i7 was faster than an i5, but think my logic was faulty. I am somewhat of a newbie.

I assume an i5 processor with, for example, 2.2GHz is faster than my i7 with 1.73GHz.

I assume that the GHz number is most important for speed and the number of cores is for multitasking, running more programs at once?

Why is more cores @ say 1.73 GHz faster than a single core @ 4.2 GHz???

I mostly surf the internet, watch youtube videos and am most concerned with the speediest surfing possible.

I guess I am asking what is the sweet spot for processor to GHz ratio?

 

A 1.73GHz i7? Ummm, I don't think so. Unless I am wrong, the i7-860S is the slowest i7 and it runs at 2.53GHz. If you have an i7 running at 1.73, I suspect you have a bus speed/timing issue.

Note while processor speed is a major factor in CPU performance, other variables factor in significantly. For example, the size of the on board cache is important, as well as the number of threads the CPU can handle simultaneously. i7s support hyper-threading while i5s do not. Hyper-threading allows the OS to "virtually" double the number of cores allowing the CPU to support 8 threads at once while the i5s can only do 4. And note most i5s CPUs have a smaller on-die cache.

 

Here's another interesting chart: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

 

List of i7 CPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o....com/products/49024 Bottom 2 are 1.73GHz i7.

 

Ah, yes - those are mobile CPUs. I forgot about them being listed separately. I forgot Google was my friend. :-o

At least the rest of my comment is sound - I hope. rolleyes

 

"A 1.73GHz i7? Ummm, I don't think so. Unless I am wrong, the i7-860S is the slowest i7 and it runs at 2.53GHz. If you have an i7 running at 1.73, I suspect you have a bus speed/timing issue."

Not sure what you mean, but that is the GHz in my Computer>Properties info.

"i7s support hyper-threading while i5s do not."

Good to know. However, how is it that I have read that some i5 equipped computers are actually faster than some i7's???

 

"Have you looked at the Intel comparisons? Would that help?"

I have, to some degree, but will check out your links. I'm still confused when I read that an i5 set up can be faster than an i7 set up.

Digerati states that an i7 supports hyperthreading, whereas i5's do not (so I can assume i3's certainly do not).

If an i5 does not support hyperthreading how can it be faster than an i7 set up?

 

You are picking out exceptions and trying to make them the rule. You cannot do that. By and large, it is safe to say as a general statement i7s are faster than i5s and i5s are faster than i3s. Are there exceptions? Yes, the fastest i5 may be faster than the slowest i7 - but at what? Some obscure benchmark testing program? Or real-world applications? Big difference.

Note that speed is less important than the amount of work done. My F150 is much faster than one of those big earthmoving dump trucks. I can move dirt from A to B much faster than the dump truck. But the dump truck can move MUCH bigger piles of dirt much faster than me because the dump truck can do much more work than me - even if a bit slower doing it. Same applies to these CPUs. Overall, across the whole gambit of computing tasks (and not with specific, hand picked exception tasks) an i7 will perform better than an i5.

Also note that many of those reports that say an i5 is faster (with some benchmarks) than an i7 are also "cheating", if you will, by overclocking the i5. While that may be fine, it is important to note that overclocking voids the warranties and greatly increases heat extraction requirements. Nothing is really free.

There really is no issue here. If you want an Intel CPU and want the best performance from a CPU your money can buy, get an i7. If you are looking for a bargain and still want good performance, get an i5 (or even an i3).

Also note the CPU is but one factor in overall computer performance. Even an i3 can be bottlenecked by a wimpy graphics solution, low amount of RAM, or a lack of free disk space.