| Test System Configuration | |
|---|---|
| New Mobile CPU | Intel Core i7-2920XM: Four Cores, Hyper-Threading, 2.5-3.5 GHz 8 MB L3 Cache, FCPGA988 |
| Legacy Mobile CPU | Intel Core i7-940XM: Four Cores, Hyper-Threading, 2.13-3.33 GHz 8 MB L3 Cache, PGA988 |
| Desktop CPU | Intel Core i7-980X: Six Cores, Hyper-Threading, 3.33-3.60 GHz 12 MB L3 Cache, LGA 1366 |
| RAM | DDR3-1333 CAS 9-9-9-24 Multi-Channel 4 GB DIMMs 12 GB Triple Channel (-980X), 8 GB Dual Channel (-940XM, -2920XM) |
| GeForce GTX 480M | Nvidia GeForce GTX 480M 2 GB 425 MHz GPU Core, GDDR5-2400 Mobile Driver Version 257.07 |
| GeForce GTX 470M | Nvidia GeForce GTX 470M 1.5 GB 535 MHz GPU Core, GDDR5-3000 Mobile Driver Version 266.35 |
| Radeon HD 6970M | AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2 GB 680 MHz GPU Core, GDDR5-3600 Mobile Driver Version 8.810.0 |
| Sound | Integrated HD Audio |
| Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking |
| Software | |
| OS | Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit |
| Chipset | Intel INF 9.2.0.1019 |
Going beyond the basic desktop-to-notebook CPU comparison, we wanted to see how much better (if at all) the new mobile part is compared to its predecessor. That’s not easy to do, since we no longer have a Core i7-940XM to compare. Instead, the Core i7-940XM with GeForce GTX 480M graphics gets compared to a Core i7-980X with the same GPU, while a Core i7-980X with Radeon HD 6970M graphics gets compared to a Core i7-2920XM armed with the same GPU. Phew!
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
| 3D Games | |
| Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 | Campaign, Act III, Second Sun (45 sec. FRAPS) Test Set 1: Highest Settings, No AA Test Set 2: Highest Settings, 4x AA |
| Crysis | Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA Test Set 2: Very High Quality, 4x AA |
| DiRT 2 | Run with -benchmark example_benchmark.xml Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 4x AA |
| S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat | Call Of Pripyat Benchmark version Test Set 1: High Preset, DX11 EFDL, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, DX11 EFDL, 4x MSAA |
| Audio/Video Encoding | |
| iTunes | Version:9.0.2.25 x64 Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 min Default format AAC |
| HandBrake 0.9.4 | Version 0.9.4, convert first .vob file from The Last Samurai (1 GB) to .mp4, High Profile |
| TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress | Version: 4.7.3.292 Import File: Terminator 2 SE DVD (5 Minutes) Resolution: 720x576 (PAL) 16:9 |
| DivX Codec 6.9.1 | Encoding mode: Insane Quality Enhanced multithreading enabled using SSE4 Quarter-pixel search |
| Xvid 1.2.2 | Display encoding status = off |
| MainConcept Reference 1.6.1 | MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (H.264), MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 KHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Mode: PAL (25 FPS) |
| Productivity | |
| Adobe Photoshop CS4 | Version: 11.0 x64, Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2010 | Version: 11.0 x64, Rendering Dragon Image at 1920x1080 (HDTV) |
| WinRAR 3.90 | Version x64 3.90, Dictionary = 4,096 KB, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB) |
| 7-Zip | Version 4.65: Format=Zip, Compression=Ultra, Method=Deflate, Dictionary Size=32 KB, Word Size=128, Threads=8 Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB) |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| 3DMark Vantage | Version: 1.0.2, GPU and CPU scores |
| PCMark Vantage | Version: 1.0.1.0 x64, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks |
| SiSoftware Sandra 2011 | Version 2011.1.17.25, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
Previous
Next
Summary
- So, You Thought Notebooks Were Weak?
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra CPU
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark Vantage
- Benchmark Results: Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
- Benchmark Results: Crysis
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 2
- Benchmark Results: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat
- Power And Efficiency
- Conclusion
Ask a Category Expert
Since the 6970M is slower than a desktop 6850, what's the point in even mentioning desktops? Who would pair a $1000 i7-980X with $160 desktop graphics card for gaming?
SB mobile CPUs perform quite good and sometimes as fast as their desktop counterparts which is good because the first gen core "i" laptop CPUs(such as i7 720QM etc) didn't perform anywhere close as the desktop ones.
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.
Edited for bad language ...
/washes mouth out with soap !!
Since the title of your article is Mobile Gaming, and we know the bottleneck for gaming isn't the CPU...
There's not a single comment from anyone that mentions not knowing the i7-980X is available in notebooks. It's the inference from the title that mobile gaming performance is comparable to desktop gaming performance based on CPU comparison alone that doesn't sit well.
Hi TA,
Just in the interest of preventing misinformation, I wanted to jump in here and let you know this isn't the case. Sandy Bridge's processing cores are very much evolutionary versions of Nehalem (altered primarily with AVX and the ring bus in mind). Wiggle past Intel's marketing though, and I don't think you'll find anyone over there who would argue that.
Beyond that, it's all a matter of opinion. I only wanted to step in with regard to the technical aspect there.
Best,
Chris
...and then reality bites -- whoops.
I agree with this guy. The article mentions a slowly-shrinking enthusiast market as well. I think the reason for this is because the PC producers have convinced most of the broader market to buy into the disposable model a laptop offers.
What better way to boost sales year after year but to get people to buy into things you can't really make full-scale upgrades to? It's marketing genius. I think the enthusiast market is shrinking because people are buying in and accepting the mediocre performance in a similarly priced laptop and because there are fewer and fewer do-it yourselfers due to an increase in consumer laziness. Again, the PC producers like you to increase your reliance on them, because it just means more money in their pockets.
Sure I can upgrade my RAM or my disk on a laptop, but if I want to jump into the latest processor and architecture, I need to buy a new laptop altogether at $1000s (not just lay down the $3-500 for a motherboard and processor upgrade). In most cases, even if you just want to upgrade your video capability, you need to buy a new laptop.
Laptops are convenient and everyone needs at least one for various reasons, but if you need serious performance, comparatively, you won't find it in a laptop.
My 14 year old kills laptops like they are opponents on a rugby field.
He has 4 scalps so far ...
By comparison I have only had to replace his PSU and Graphics card on the desktop in his room over the same period of time (2 years).
I think apple and toshiba might offer him a job ... as a crash test dummy !!
Or you could build an i7 2600K/GTX 580 PC for under $1500 and then laugh really hard.
That being said, I'm amazed at how much gaming power these notebooks pack. The 2920XM/6970m only used 136W on full load. That's NUTS, considering it performs on par with desktops that would use 2-3 times as much power. Granted the CPU alone costs as much as a similar performing desktop($1,100), but it's still pretty amazing. I think the mobile market is where the real changes happen, at least when it comes to performance/watt.