Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Mobile Computing

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old September 29, 2009, 12:22 AM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 559
Default Clarksfield vs. Arrandale

Alright, here is the conundrum. I honestly have no idea which processor would be a better match for my mobile needs.

I'm a programmer, which means that I run IDEs and compilers all day. which also means that i need my compiling to work fast as i'll be pushing the compile button dozens of times a day(more or less).

anyhow, my usage of the laptop is as follows:
-compiling(visual studio, netbeans, eclipse)
-youtubing
-bluray playback
-miscellaneous light 'office' procedures

what i value(in order of most important):
-compiling speed
-battery life
-low heat output

so, at the end of the day, which processor would you recommend for my needs? would having a quadcore significantly benefit me more than a dualcore(both HTed of course). or are they so similiar as to not matter.

also, i would most likely be getting a vertex to put into the lappy.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old September 29, 2009, 04:41 AM
bojangles's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 2,683

My System Specs

Default

Obviously if you want the best compiling speed you want the most amount of cache as possible, so a clarksfield would suit you better. However, as these are "enthusiast" chips compared to arrandale, you'll be paying a hefty premium for them. I believe that, depending on your version of Visual Studio (and other software) you use, a quad core may not make a difference in compiling speed as a lot of them are just single threaded compilers. Maybe Microsoft got smarter with their newer versions (I haven't used anything higher than 2005).

Both processors will be way more than enough to handle 1080p playback. Heck a lot of people are resurrecting their older Pentium 4's to do it. So really it's up to you what you want to spend on a laptop. If it's your main computer, you may want to go quad core to give you that extra power when needed, but if it's just a secondary rig, just go for the dual core. I know waiting sucks, but more cores doesn't mean more performance if the programs don't make use of it.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old September 29, 2009, 06:12 AM
Arinoth's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richmond Hill
Posts: 8,539

My System Specs

Default

I've found speed increase in compiling my code in Visual Studio 2007 (or it was 2008 can't remember) against 3 different systems.
The slowest: P4 with 1 GB of RAM, would take me up to several minutes to compile my final year project
Faster: Core2Duo E6400 with 4 GB of RAM, would be faster then the P4 POS i was stuck at using at school, typically would reduce compile times to 30 secs tops
Fastest: i7 920 with 6 GB of RAM, i found this to rather fly while compiling due to its multiple cores and faster FSB.

The quad would definitely compile faster then the duo however you may end up getting less of a battery life compared to the duo.

If all else fails, i've found this to be a good way to spend my time while waiting for my compiler

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old September 29, 2009, 08:35 AM
bojangles's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 2,683

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arinoth View Post
I've found speed increase in compiling my code in Visual Studio 2007 (or it was 2008 can't remember) against 3 different systems.
The slowest: P4 with 1 GB of RAM, would take me up to several minutes to compile my final year project
Faster: Core2Duo E6400 with 4 GB of RAM, would be faster then the P4 POS i was stuck at using at school, typically would reduce compile times to 30 secs tops
Fastest: i7 920 with 6 GB of RAM, i found this to rather fly while compiling due to its multiple cores and faster FSB.

The quad would definitely compile faster then the duo however you may end up getting less of a battery life compared to the duo.

If all else fails, i've found this to be a good way to spend my time while waiting for my compiler
Haha then I would get an 8083 CPU and compile for years! That picture looks like fun!

Obviously having all the cores on at the same time would consume more battery life, but if it can actually compile faster then you would spend less CPU resources in a given amount of time.

And thanks for letting me know about the multithreading/core optimization in Studio 2007. I think I'll start programming some random stuff because I'll be out of work in a few days!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old November 23, 2009, 06:09 PM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge, ON
Posts: 105
Default

I've got a new Dell XPS 1645 with the i7 720 chip. Runs pretty cool and I can get about 3 hours of battery life. The speed of the hyper threaded quad makes my old C2D feel totally out of date.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes