core i7 and my Dolphin game speed

[Ocean]

(07-25-2010, 12:41 PM)obscured Wrote: Of course cpu architectures design is a factor but if the clock is still low the through put will be low no matter how effecient of a design. I essence his cpu is weaker then a 3ghz c2d easily. So you point doesn't matter. Especially on cisc type of cpu.

No, you are wrong. Core frequency is much less important on nehalem processors. i7 720qm ranks about the same as a core 2 quad q8200 and higher than a phenom II x4 810. It has more processing power than any core 2 quad desktop processor.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+720QM+%40+1.60GHz


The higher end laptop i7's are as powerful as the highest end desktop i7's despite being clocked only at 2.0 ghz maximum
and even without turbo boost compete with desktop i7's clocked 1.3ghz higher when comparing productivity

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2845/7




to be honest I'm just tired of explaining this to people: with amd phenom II x6 and core i7 & later processors cpu frequency will not mean anything.
There are many more factors which make these processors faster at 1.5ghz even than an older core 2 duo clocked at 5.0 ghz.

---

(07-26-2010, 05:16 AM)obscured Wrote: Faster then a 5ghz c2d laff.

I meant to edit, post your synthetic benchmarks as proof it's not.

[NaturalViolence]

Quote:No, you are wrong. Core frequency is much less important on nehalem processors. i7 720qm ranks about the same as a core 2 quad q8200 and higher than a phenom II x4 810. It has more processing power than any core 2 quad desktop processor.

Oh jesus here we go again. Regardless of the fact that an i7 can produce a higher performance per clock an i7 at a higher clock rate is obviously going to be more powerful than a lower clocked i7. As long as it's the same architecture that's just common sense! What happens is at high clock rates they are so powerful that they get bottlenecked by nearly every other part of the pc. The part of the benchmark that you posted is a comparison between a low clocked quad core i7 and high clocked dual cores and low cache cpus in a multithreaded synthetic benchmark, wtf do you expect! Also if you look at the entire benchmark from the link you provided you can clearly see an i7 965 performing 2-2.5 times as fast at double the clock rate, which proves you wrong. Clock rate does still matter just as much as it always has. The higher ipc does not change that. Come on man you should know better than to say that.

My q6600 clocked at 3.6GHz still beats my friends i5 750 clocked at 3.33 GHz in nearly every benchmark we have been able to throw at them.

Quote:to be honest I'm just tired of explaining this to people: with amd phenom II x6 and core i7 & later processors cpu frequency will not mean anything.
There are many more factors which make these processors faster at 1.5ghz even than an older core 2 duo clocked at 5.0 ghz.

So then I dare you to take an i7 or phenom II x6, clock it at 200 MHz and see how you system is still lightning fast. Although many applications (particularly synthetics) have a much higher performance per clock with these newer architectures most applications gain little to no benefit in performance per clock.

[Ocean]

Of course clock frequency affects benchmark results, some people even OC for the sole reason of breaking benchmark records

I was debunking obscured who said this guy's mobile processor isn't fast enough for dolphin because of it's low clock frequency.
Because that's just plain wrong and is not based on any fact. Not to mention turbo boost will inherently increase freq either way when under stress

And yes you're right, i5's are about on par with q6600 and above in performance
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/265757-10-core-lynnfield-lga1156-benchmarks

obscured Wrote:I essence his cpu is weaker then a 3ghz c2d easily.

This is the part I was responding to which is brutally incorrect and will give false message to the thread starter

[Link_to_the_past]

To the op:
What settings and especially graphic settings do you use and what graphics card does your laptop have? It might be the reason of the bottleneck you experience and not your cpu.

[Nabs]

hyper threading could be a problem

[fagoatse]

(07-26-2010, 06:42 AM)Ocean Wrote: Of course clock frequency affects benchmark results, some people even OC for the sole reason of breaking benchmark records

I was debunking obscured who said this guy's mobile processor isn't fast enough for dolphin because of it's low clock frequency.
Because that's just plain wrong and is not based on any fact. Not to mention turbo boost will inherently increase freq either way when under stress

And yes you're right, i5's are about on par with q6600 and above in performance
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/265757-10-core-lynnfield-lga1156-benchmarks

obscured Wrote:I essence his cpu is weaker then a 3ghz c2d easily.

This is the part I was responding to which is brutally incorrect and will give false message to the thread starter

The point is that i7M is afaik clocked at 1.6 ghz w/o that turbo boost things so its no wonder it's very slow. At 2.9 it should play most games just fine, but don't expect miracles just because it's the most expensive mobile cpu.

[obscured]

I won't get into it but a 1.6ghz I7 will not beat out of synthetic benchmarks.

(07-26-2010, 06:42 AM)Ocean Wrote: Of course clock frequency affects benchmark results, some people even OC for the sole reason of breaking benchmark records

I was debunking obscured who said this guy's mobile processor isn't fast enough for dolphin because of it's low clock frequency.
Because that's just plain wrong and is not based on any fact. Not to mention turbo boost will inherently increase freq either way when under stress

And yes you're right, i5's are about on par with q6600 and above in performance
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/265757-10-core-lynnfield-lga1156-benchmarks

obscured Wrote:I essence his cpu is weaker then a 3ghz c2d easily.

This is the part I was responding to which is brutally incorrect and will give false message to the thread starter

[Ocean]

(07-26-2010, 08:49 AM)fagoatse Wrote: The point is that i7M is afaik clocked at 1.6 ghz w/o that turbo boost things so its no wonder it's very slow.

[1]
It performs higher in cpu benchmarks than for example desktop Core i5 680 @ 3.60GHz.
If you do not believe that processor can run games fine with a card equivalent to mobility radeon 5650 I don't know how to convince you.

His questions have been answered, and no it's not too slow for dolphin.

Quote:I won't get into it but a 1.6ghz I7 will not beat out of synthetic benchmarks.

If you however decide to get into it, the link is right above.
At 1.6ghz it's faster than any core 2 duo, even E8600 at 3.33ghz.

I challenge you to read the list, because you will notice it is an exception. There are absolutely no other processors within that low clock frequency listed at high score places.
720 to 920qm are the sole exception on the current market.

[NaturalViolence]

Quote:I was debunking obscured who said this guy's mobile processor isn't fast enough for dolphin because of it's low clock frequency.
Because that's just plain wrong and is not based on any fact. Not to mention turbo boost will inherently increase freq either way when under stress

Your wrong on that. Unfortunately since dolphin is dual threaded and doesn't benefit from a large cache, out of order execution, high memory bandwidth, or any other advantages that the newer chips have it's performance per clock is on par with a core 2 duo IN DOLPHIN. A core 2 duo @ 3 GHz would cream an i7 720m/920m in dolphin. The benchmarks you linked are multithreaded and synthetic, they have no relevance compared to performance in an application like dolphin. The only reason those cpus can even achieve decent speeds in dolphin is because turbo boost allows them to reach insane clock rates when 2 or less cores are being used. Trust me, high clock rate is the most important cpu variable by far for dolphin as long as you have a decent dual core or better, in fact almost nothing else matters in dolphin with the newer chips, which is the exact opposite of what you said.

Even if you don't agree with what I've stated above you have to admit that comparing it to dual core desktop chips in a multithreaded synthetic is not a good basis for an argument about ipc.

Quote:His questions have been answered, and no it's not too slow for dolphin.

It is sufficient for most games thanks to turbo boost. I agree with you on this. I would like to point out that this is not what I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against your idea that clock rate doesn't matter with new chips. If he turned off turbo boost and the chip actually ran at 1.6 GHz it would perform terribly in dolphin regardless of anything else, simple because of the low clock rate.

[Ocean]

Well, it's not even possible to run his processor (720qm) at the minimum frequency (unless he manually disabled TB in bios) while playing dolphin.
Assuming even 2 cores are utilized the frequency will automatically go up by about 0.9ghz. I believe it's taken into consideration in benchmarks but could be wrong.

The point was not to really compare processors (which is off topic). It's just that every day somebody makes a post which states somebody's clock frequency is too slow for dolphin without even considering whether it's a P4 or a thuban 1090T. It's just a dumb analogy.

A Pentium4 will perform horribly on dolphin no matter how high it's overclocked, whereas more recent processors will have "o.k." performance on stock frequencies. There is a world of difference beyond just the amount of clock cycles per second.

Quote:Clock rates should not be used when comparing different CPUs families. Rather, software benchmarks should be used. Clock rates can be very misleading since the amount of work different CPUs can do in one cycle varies.