Jump to content


CPU Opinions


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
19 replies to this topic

HZero #1 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 20:48

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 7909 battles
  • 31
  • [11PZD] 11PZD
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010
Hey all,

I'm not a new player, but I figured this would probably be the best place for the thread.  I am looking into buying a new laptop.  I have a choice between two processors:

Intel Core i5-3210M 2 x 2.5ghz / 3mb L3 cache
Intel Core i7-3610QM  4 x 2.4ghz / 6mb L3 cache

As I understand it, the engine that WoT runs on only utilizes a single core, so at first blush the i5 would be a better bet, but...there's probably a lot more to it than that.  And beyond that, the .1ghz may be a negligible difference.

Anyway, just wanted to see if anyone had 2 cents to drop in the bucket on which one I should go for.   Obviously the i7 is better overall, but I'm not going to be doing my *serious* gaming on the laptop, so the i5 isn't really going to hurt me in other areas, and if it will run WoT better, I'm all for it.

Thoughts?

tefftorbes #2 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 20:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13540 battles
  • 1,621
  • [FOXEY] FOXEY
  • Member since:
    12-15-2012
The video chip matters a lot more than the CPU.

A LOT more.

ysoignorant #3 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 20:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 19348 battles
  • 5,976
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    04-11-2012
What IGPU/GPU is it running?

Tigerskunk #4 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 20:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4864 battles
  • 84
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
For playing WoT either cpu would work. But graphics chip makes the biggest difference.

Both could work if the laptop has a seperate gpu from Nvidia or ATI/AMD. Nvidia and ATI/AMD gpu will allow faster frame rate and better detail then what Intel has in thier chips.

For gpu's the last 2 or 3 numbers in the model tells the performance. A Nvidia 650 is faster than a 630. ATI/AMD a 7550 is better then a 7470. * models are just used as examples they ma not be actulle models*

And as I tell people "Get the best CPU you can afford". The cpu is one part that most people don't or can't change after purchase. And the Graphics for a Laptop can't be added later.

zGarmin #5 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 21:05

    Major

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 14301 battles
  • 3,223
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012
I don't think CPU's have opinions :P jk jk

Seriously though, both "should" function just as well as the other when it comes to WoT. However past that, it depends on a number of factors: Pricepoint, work PC or recreational PC. But as you said, no "serious" gaming so I'd go with that I5 but as long as your certain you won't be doing anything too crazy intensive.

My highly simplified order of priority: CPU > gfx Card > RAM

Top three items to look at it for a gaming PC, not saying the other stuff doesn't matter but you can generally tell how well a PC will do with games ahead of time by looking at those three.

Edited by Garmin_leFabre, Feb 05 2013 - 21:05.


BattlecryGWJ #6 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 21:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 25928 battles
  • 5,068
  • [RSRDD] RSRDD
  • Member since:
    12-20-2011
The i5 is generally the mid-range of the intel processor line and will generally provide you with a better price to performance ratio than the i7 series.  With dual cores you'll probably get a better battery life out of the system (2 cores should draw less power than 4).  As others have said, the video card is really more important than the i5/i7 CPU argument at this point (given the specs you provided).

If one had a dedicated video card that doesn't share system memory, you'll get better performance out of that system.  If the system is indicated as having an nVidia or ATI video card your performance will be better than an Intel integrated video card, but even the nVidia/ATI cards can share memory with the system.

Look to see if it says anything about dedicated video memory in the system specs.  If it doesn't indicated dedicated video memory I'd stay away from it (especially as a gaming rig).

HZero #7 Posted Feb 06 2013 - 17:02

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 7909 battles
  • 31
  • [11PZD] 11PZD
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010
Ah, sorry, should have noted.  The GPU is an nVidia GT 630M in either case.

Which I'm a tad nervous about as well - my desktop I've stopped playing on because it crashes almost every match - as best I can tell as a result of WoT's compatability problems with nVidia cards (I have a GTX 560 there).

I didn't think about the battery life angle.  Good point.

Eschaton #8 Posted Feb 06 2013 - 17:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2332 battles
  • 1,283
  • Member since:
    05-13-2012
I use nVidia cards; I don't crash. Bad drivers?

MstlyHarmless #9 Posted Feb 06 2013 - 17:54

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12021 battles
  • 202
  • [WOONA] WOONA
  • Member since:
    09-02-2012

View PostEschaton, on Feb 06 2013 - 17:38, said:

I use nVidia cards; I don't crash. Bad drivers?

I'm kinda curious now, what driver version do you have? My system updated to 310.90 a while back (GTX 550Ti here), and I've been crashing on the research/tech tree a little more than it did on the past driver version (which I sadly do not recall the number). Of course, a little more is about once an hour if I'm working on upgrading a tank.

One thing to note on the topic of mobile CPU's is that they typically have half the number of physical cores advertised, and just uses hyperthreading to make it look like multicores.

HZero #10 Posted Feb 06 2013 - 18:05

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 7909 battles
  • 31
  • [11PZD] 11PZD
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View PostEschaton, on Feb 06 2013 - 17:38, said:

I use nVidia cards; I don't crash. Bad drivers?

Quote

I'm kinda curious now, what driver version do you have?

Updated twice to keep them current.  Also went back to the originals.  Same problem with all three sets.  If you scan the support forum you'll find a half dozen threads griping about it with the general conclusion that its a problem related to nVidia cards, but I haven't seen a thorough testing of which cards are affected.  And its clearly not all, or there would be more people griping.

Patonb #11 Posted Feb 06 2013 - 18:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 19948 battles
  • 2,529
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012
I play this game on a 9600m gt in my laptop, and average 30+ fps on low, which still loks great, so a 630 should be just fine.

I've reasd 310 drivers have had issues, so I haven't upgraded to them.

As this is a laptop, think to yourself if you'll actusally have it around long enough to see an i5 struggle with your uses... I highly doubt it. Plus if the system has the i7 option, in 5 yrs when you may nee the i7, you can just buy one on ebay and pop it in.
I did this with my laptop.. going from a t5800 to an x9100 for $120 bucks, where as if  had bought it maxed out it'd have been 5 or 600 more.

rustyshackelford3000 #12 Posted Feb 06 2013 - 21:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18812 battles
  • 655
  • [NET] NET
  • Member since:
    02-02-2012
You need to look for a 1g video card.

Haggis_of_Doom #13 Posted Feb 07 2013 - 00:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16901 battles
  • 1,790
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    12-31-2011
For future reference, don't compare CPU's by the GHz it has. That information is mostly irrelevant when choosing 2 different CPUs. Instead look up their benchmark performance, such as on this site. You can see there that the i7-3610QM @ 2.3GHz is almost twice as fast as the i5-3210M @ 2.5GHz.

This is how you compare GPUs, too. Note that all these benchmarks are specific to the stuff tested, as one hardware may be better at one task yet worse at another; however these shall give you a very good idea of how they compare.

View Postrustyshackelford3000, on Feb 06 2013 - 21:24, said:

You need to look for a 1g video card.

Not really. GPU memory is mostly needed for high resolutions. WoT isn't GTA IV, it doesn't need all that much memory even on high resolutions.

Walter_Mitty #14 Posted Feb 07 2013 - 00:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 522 battles
  • 280
  • [HANS] HANS
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013
instead of buying an expensive laptop for gaming, get a regular laptop and a mediocre desktop machine for gaming.  same money, better performance.

Jmo79 #15 Posted Feb 07 2013 - 00:20

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9077 battles
  • 584
  • [GUILE] GUILE
  • Member since:
    02-25-2012

View PostHZero, on Feb 06 2013 - 17:02, said:

Ah, sorry, should have noted.  The GPU is an nVidia GT 630M in either case.

Which I'm a tad nervous about as well - my desktop I've stopped playing on because it crashes almost every match - as best I can tell as a result of WoT's compatability problems with nVidia cards (I have a GTX 560 there).

I didn't think about the battery life angle.  Good point.
I use a GT630M in my acer laptop, turn a couple settings down and it will hold 40fps, sometimes 60+.

Edited by Jmo79, Feb 07 2013 - 00:21.


Patonb #16 Posted Feb 07 2013 - 00:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 19948 battles
  • 2,529
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012

View PostHaggis_of_Doom, on Feb 07 2013 - 00:14, said:

For future reference, don't compare CPU's by the GHz it has. That information is mostly irrelevant when choosing 2 different CPUs. Instead look up their benchmark performance, such as on this site. You can see there that the i7-3610QM @ 2.3GHz is almost twice as fast as the i5-3210M @ 2.5GHz.

This is how you compare GPUs, too. Note that all these benchmarks are specific to the stuff tested, as one hardware may be better at one task yet worse at another; however these shall give you a very good idea of how they compare.


Not really. GPU memory is mostly needed for high resolutions. WoT isn't GTA IV, it doesn't need all that much memory even on high resolutions.

this doesn't work for cpus either, as the benchmarking is full fully threaded applications, which wot is not, so who cares if an i7 is twice as fast because it has 7 cores... that wot can use.

HZero #17 Posted Feb 07 2013 - 00:56

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 7909 battles
  • 31
  • [11PZD] 11PZD
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View PostWalter_Mitty, on Feb 07 2013 - 00:18, said:

instead of buying an expensive laptop for gaming, get a regular laptop and a mediocre desktop machine for gaming.  same money, better performance.

Eh, its not really that expensive, nor is my desktop.  But thanks for the tip.  (-:

View PostJmo79, on Feb 07 2013 - 00:20, said:

I use a GT630M in my acer laptop, turn a couple settings down and it will hold 40fps, sometimes 60+.

No crashes?  That makes me feel much better about the purchase actually!

Quote

Haggis_of_Doom, on Feb 06 2013 - 17:14, said:
For future reference, don't compare CPU's by the GHz it has. That information is mostly irrelevant when choosing 2 different CPUs. Instead look up their benchmark performance, such as on this site. You can see there that the i7-3610QM @ 2.3GHz is almost twice as fast as the i5-3210M @ 2.5GHz.
This is how you compare GPUs, too. Note that all these benchmarks are specific to the stuff tested, as one hardware may be better at one task yet worse at another; however these shall give you a very good idea of how they compare.

As Patonb said, this is irrelevant for WoT, and one of the reasons I asked the question in the first place.  I wasn't sure if that extra .1Ghz would be worth the extra $80 or so I'd have to pay for it.  Sounds like it probably isn't worth it.

Not really. GPU memory is mostly needed for high resolutions. WoT isn't GTA IV, it doesn't need all that much memory even on high resolutions.

Patonb #18 Posted Feb 07 2013 - 16:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 19948 battles
  • 2,529
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012
Hzero, you seem to know your answers already.

Single theaded comparision

i5-3210m = 1529
i7-3610m = 1639

x9100 = 1247

As you see, 110pts different and 300pts above mine, and I get no issues,

Hell the i5-3210m beats an i7 990x extreme cpu in single threaded apps...

HZero #19 Posted Feb 09 2013 - 01:13

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 7909 battles
  • 31
  • [11PZD] 11PZD
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View PostPatonb, on Feb 07 2013 - 16:49, said:

Hzero, you seem to know your answers already.

Single theaded comparision

i5-3210m = 1529
i7-3610m = 1639

x9100 = 1247

As you see, 110pts different and 300pts above mine, and I get no issues,

Hell the i5-3210m beats an i7 990x extreme cpu in single threaded apps...

No, that's actually what I was looking for right there!  I didn't know how to go about getting single threaded ratings.  I probably should have been clearer about what I was asking for, but I wasn't sure if anything else played into the equation.  Thank you.

Patonb #20 Posted Feb 09 2013 - 01:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 19948 battles
  • 2,529
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012
I google searched single threaded benchmarks, and it seems passmark has single threaded benchmarks.