Mobile Gaming: Can Core i7-2920XM Beat Desktop Core i7-980X?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I felt this was a great article that illustrated the advancements Intel made with SB over Nehalem.

I was amazed by the fact that a laptop i7 can now put some hurt on a $1000 part, at least on equal terms.
 
This article only tells me to hate Laptop/Notebook vendors for not offering "upgrade over time" options; just like Intel on the desktop with their platforms.

If you pay USD$5K now, u'd have to pay another 5 grand to stay top notch with mobile tech; stupid as hell.

Just stop being lazy f***ers and change a little the business model for notebooks.

Cheers!
 
G

Guest

Guest
While I applaud you for showing that the new processor is about 20% or so faster than the older brand, I wish you'd done it with equivalent GPUs.
Showing a machine with an identical GPU but different CPU's would have been much more informative, rather than you having to try and extrapolate based on card performance.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]Alexrose1uk[/nom]While I applaud you for showing that the new processor is about 20% or so faster than the older brand, I wish you'd done it with equivalent GPUs.Showing a machine with an identical GPU but different CPU's would have been much more informative, rather than you having to try and extrapolate based on card performance.[/citation]Not able to get another Clevo 940XM chassis, nor another 480M, for a straight-across comparison. The article ended up comparing the 940XM to 980X and the 980X to the 2920XM.
 

kooltime

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
45
0
18,530
What Notebooks are these ?? How to find a notebook with a 6970 and an 2920xm ??

If the new Asus G73SW-A1 came with the 2920xm and 6970m would be sweet system. So far they only list it with a 2620qm and 460m video.
 

porksmuggler

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2008
146
0
18,680
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]The i7-940XM data was included to show how the former mobile-CPU-bottlenecking has been dramatically reduced in this new mobile CPU.[/citation][citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]realize how bad the mobile CPU bottleneck has been up to this point.[/citation]

Hyperbole. Your Crysis benchmarks alone prove the mobile gaming bottleneck is still the GPU. It should be obvious these flagship CPUs are overkill for mobile gaming until adequate (better than a desktop 6850) mobile GPUs are available to balance the configurations.

 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
204
0
18,680
Also Laptops can fail premature,get stolen. Only way I see laptops taking over desktops, if the performance can match a desktop price ratio. Staying on top with laptops is just too expensive. You would have to replace your whole laptop. Unless your one of those that stays with a certain games for years and go.

"Don't need to play newer games If this game keeps me happy and shrugs"
 
G

Guest

Guest
@TA152H:
Also, any student of computer history would tell you that the past was littered with laptops that were FASTER than desktops. How about the original Compaq compared to the PC? "

Um... the original Compaq was PORTABLE (so was a Kaypro)--but was NOT remotely a laptop. Well, maybe for Andre the Giant's lap...
Those things were bigger--weight and volume--than my mid-size tower (in Antex 200 case) is. Possibly heavier than the GF's machine in its Antec 900.

Is the rest of your post as accurate as your implication that the original Compaq was a laptop?
 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
204
0
18,680
Seriously CPU performance can be easily obtain without a hassle on a notebook. Its the GPU what turns me off from owning a gaming laptop. Who cares if the cpu is clocked at 3.4ghz on a notebook.

The Macbook Pro has been doing this for years. Their Laptops were always clocked around 2.4ghz to 3ghz and higher. Cpu's by themselves have become very efficient.

And like i said, Laptops are more fragile. From having hardware issues, to having a dead pixel. Notebooks have come long ways but this article is far fetched when everything else inside the laptop is a bottleneck except the CPU lol.
 

PudgyChicken

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
532
0
19,010
[Rant]The point of putting a 980X in a notebook completely escapes me... I have one in my desktop paired with 2x GTX 480, and my rig blows away any of the configurations specified in this review. I remember the days when a desktop was where you did all your real work and a laptop was more of a way to move files and do a little word processing on the go. Gaming on laptops is in no way power friendly or even fun, as to actually play games you need a mouse, and in situations where the average consumer uses a laptop- airplanes and airports for example- there is nowhere to put said mouse. Also, pretty much on average any gaming laptop you get will only hold a charge for, oh, 3 hours tops. Completely useless? Yes indeed.[/Rant]
 
G

Guest

Guest
Rubbish article, rubbish premise, rubbish tests...

Take some of Clevo's monstrosities that nobody will actually buy, benchmark them with various different GPU's that nobody actually owns, all running ridiculous "limited edition" $1000 CPUs that nobody in their right mind would buy, and declare that Intel rocks. I especially liked the first line:

"We've already seen Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture offer compelling performance gains on the desktop."

Really? I thought there was little to no increase, unless you mean either video encoding, or pitting a 3.4 ghz stock CPU against a 2.6ghz, even though the 2.6 could easily OC to 3.4. Then declare that all SB CPUs can OC to 5ghz, even though most won't, and none would last long at 5ghz.

You notice that AMD has never been the beneficiary of a ridiculous article like this? Maybe next week you can do a puff piece about how AMD can cram a quad-core 1.6 to 2.1ghz mobile CPU in a 25-35w TDP, whereas inefficient Intel needs a lap-scorching 45-55w despite being on 32nm, and only acheives marginally better performance in the real-world.
 

squanto

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2010
46
0
18,530
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]After reading only the first page, there was enough there that stopped me from even reading the rest. First of all, Sandy Bridge is not evolutionary. The pipelines were remade from the ground up, and it's (outside of the P4 family) the first real departure from the Pentium Pro. It borrows a lot from the Pentium Pro family, and the Pentium 4 family. It's not just an evolution of the Pentium Pro based Nehalem. It's probably closer to the Pentium 4 in more ways than not, at least at a low level (PRF, new version of trace cache, etc...).Second, the desktop is not going anywhere, and sensationalizing won't change it. That's like saying I can get a small car with more horsepower than a big one, so all big ones will be obsolete, especially since the small use uses less power to do the same thing.Desktops will remain not because of performance, which at any rate will always be superior (compare an i7 2600K overclocked to a mobile processor, which can not be overclocked as extensively), but because the form factor is superior situationally. Both will remain, because both are situationally superior. There have always, or almost always, been notebooks with superior performance to what the average desktop is using, but people buy desktops anyway. There are inherent advantages that are inalienable in desktops. You can't have a huge screen with a notebook. The keyboard has less flexibility as well. They have less flexibility with upgrades. On top of this, the idea of a larger, better cooled, more reliable unit that is not easily removed, and is less expensive is pretty popular with businesses in a lot of situations. It's also cheaper to work on desktops, and they are more reliable to boot. Performance is just one advantage desktops have, and if there's a blip where they don't because of some bizarre marketing by a company (it could happen, it just hasn't yet), that wouldn't make desktops extinct. Notebooks become a lot slower than desktops wouldn't make them extinct either. Most businesses and people can be quite happy with the performance of virtually any computer made (with the possible situational exception of the Atom), but that's not why most people buy desktops. Also, any student of computer history would tell you that the past was littered with laptops that were FASTER than desktops. How about the original Compaq compared to the PC? The PS/2 Model P70 used the same 20 MHz processor as the desktop models (granted, it came with an amber screen, but could just as easily be attached to a monitor). So, I wouldn't worry too much about desktops going away. You're dead wrong on that issue, as has everyone else who's been predicting it for the past 20 years. And dead we will both be before there are no more desktop computers. Notebooks, on the other hand, might become extinct, or nearly so, but not anytime soon. Tablets could destroy them, and render them obsolete, if speech recognition software ever makes the keyboard a lot less useful. But, even then, there are situations where you can't talk to your computer (too much noise, or you'd be creating too much noise), so even then I think, at worst, notebooks will become less popular, but not completely extinct. Each form factor has pluses and minuses, and with so many people in the world, there will be plenty for each one.[/citation]

After seeing the size of your article, there was enough there that stopped me from even reading the rest.
 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
204
0
18,680
And you wonder why notebook users get defensive when talking about "gaming performance" haha. I see 2 things happening. 1. This article shows not everyone understands hardware and only thinks "my CPU is fast ,therefore could run everything you throw at it, ignoring the bottlenecks.

Just because a laptop supports DDR3 memory does not mean it's better than a desktop. Ram size sure why not, does not dictate the best performing notebook. After all we all heard it again and again from gaming review sites that ram does not effect performance when it comes to ddr 2/3 speeds. In fact I think it's just bragging rights.

and 2 the mobile processor they are comparing it to, is a extreme edition desktop processor that has not been fully utilized therefore making these results flawed. The "extreme" is not based on what you see on the specs. Its what you don't see. Its also why it costs $1000 for a reason. This processor has the potential to OC above 4ghz!. And its probably unlocked too!.
 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
204
0
18,680
and like the guy above said. No one in their right mind buy's a $1k CPU. This cpu is for bragging rights. A $279 cpu will blow away this notebook processor once you Overclock. Something that you won't risk doing on a notebook. Not talking about turbo boost either. Turbo boost is like having auto aim for FPS console gaming lol.
 

Makaveli

Splendid
I found the use of the word dominance in this article hilarious.

The instances where the the mobile SB leads it has a 1 or 1.3 fps difference well within the margin of error. You should be working for Daily tech with the sensational writing.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@Makaveli: The thing is, anywhere on the internet where there's a senseless propaganda article over-hyping Intel's latest product, there's always a writing style that is designed to brainwash the uninformed percentage of readers into thinking Intel's product is much better than it is.

Now, I know that no American company ever engages in dishonest behavior for profit, but is it possible, that Intel either writes the reviews themselves, or else have some kind of 10_easy_steps_to_writing_an_Intel_propaganda_piece.pdf file that they distribute to "journalists" who are in their pocket? Way too many similarities in how these articles are written, considering the writers are allegedly different people all over the world...
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]t1n_f01L_h4t_krew[/nom]@Makaveli: The thing is, anywhere on the internet where there's a senseless propaganda article over-hyping Intel's latest product, there's always a writing style that is designed to brainwash the uninformed percentage of readers into thinking Intel's product is much better than it is.Now, I know that no American company ever engages in dishonest behavior for profit, but is it possible, that Intel either writes the reviews themselves, or else have some kind of 10_easy_steps_to_writing_an_Intel_propaganda_piece.pdf file that they distribute to "journalists" who are in their pocket? Way too many similarities in how these articles are written, considering the writers are allegedly different people all over the world...[/citation]Look at the CPU benchmarks and hang your head in disgrace.
 

someguynamedmatt

Distinguished
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]I don't see the point of comparing high end CPUs, when usually GPUs are the limiting factor.[/citation]
I don't see the point of comparing high end CPUs when a Phenom II x4 gets the job done just fine. God, that's going to get downrated so badly... you'll have to excuse my opinion of ultra-high end CPUs...
 
G

Guest

Guest
what a moron. desktops going away.
desktops future lies within business anyway; why would you utter such nonsense? and comparing two stupid processors that cant fully see their potential is the consumer equivalent of mass genocide. what would we use at home? our laptop on a table? ever heard of burned legs syndrome? how would you get rid of all that heat efficently, not to mention do dual, triple or quad monitors? are you nuts?
to quote mr murray:
this guy has no dick.
 

retrig

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2010
59
0
18,630
@Makaveli: The thing is, anywhere on the internet where there's a senseless propaganda article over-hyping Intel's latest product, there's always a writing style that is designed to brainwash the uninformed percentage of readers into thinking Intel's product is much better than it is.

Now, I know that no American company ever engages in dishonest behavior for profit, but is it possible, that Intel either writes the reviews themselves, or else have some kind of 10_easy_steps_to_writing_an_Intel_propaganda_piece.pdf file that they distribute to "journalists" who are in their pocket? Way too many similarities in how these articles are written, considering the writers are allegedly different people all over the world...

Dude... as anti-capitalism and government (which equals corporation) as I am, you are a loon. Please step away from your AMD based Linux dumpster box and out of your mom's basement and get some fresh air.
 

g00ey

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2009
470
0
18,790

I like your post but this has a factual error. Horsepower is in fact a measurement unit for power (1 hp = 745.699872 watts) so saying that you can get more horsepower for less power is contradictory. Yet for example Diesel engines are more efficient than are gasoline fueled (Otto) engines which means that a Diesel engine at say 150 hp is stronger than a 150 hp gasoline engine. This means that the Diesel engine is capable of delivering more torque at the same power level than the petrol engine.
 

WarraWarra

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2007
252
0
18,790
For a laptop cpu this is decent, a bit shy of congratulating Intel otherwise like a lazy women Intel will just role over and stop doing anything after the first compliment /start snoring as usual.

A bit more is needed then place this in my mobile phone to complete with the other dual / quad core mobile phones cpu's then we can talk. By June this might be so far behind what is needed for a basic PDA cpu.

Not sure what Intel will do with their slow weak i7-980X desktop "Model T Ford-tels" in the 21 century, maybe stick a engine in it and hotrod the i7-980X desktop cpu so you can start using it at least on sundays instead of the i7-980x Desktop cpu rusting in the garage embedded pc that can only open the garage door.

Sad but true this i7-980x embedded cpu's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.