Importance of processor speed (ultrabooks vs. laptops)

[mitya]

Yes, I know, yet another guy asking about processor speed.

Sure, I've read up on this, and yes, I'm aware that processor speed is not the be all and end all. (Though how simple were the days when computer wars came down to "well, mine's a Pentium 3 2.4gHz whereas yours is only a Pentium 3 2.2gHz". I digress...)

Nonetheless, I am interested to know its significance with respect to ultrabooks tending to have lower clock speeds, presumably to keep the heat/consumption down.

So, an i5 1.8gHz, say. Versus what would probably be a 2.2 or 2.5gHz in the corresponding laptop (i.e. non-ultrabook). What does that difference of .04-.07gHz equate to in everyday computing?

Would it mean longer load times? Would it be noticeable only in more intensive tasks - say, zipping large files, or running games?

This is not in respect to any laptops in particular, more a point of interest.

Thanks advance, TPU.

 

[Vario]

I found that after about 4.0ghz on intel its all about the same. Just in terms of how I perceive the speed. Not sure if this is valid.

The extra clock will help with load times and file transfer but only to the point of bottleneck I think. SSD helps a lot more.

 

[DRDNA]

Could I ask what you will using this for? It would help explain what your differences will be.

 

[Solaris17]

To be completely honest yes since most new intel laptops certainly use the same architecture as the CPUS in the ultrabooks. You would infact notice some changes in performance depending on the application but keep in mind that these clock speed changes do not scale well the faster the CPU is. for example a difference in .2 from 2.2 to 2.4ghz in not really noticeable to the end user in almost all cases. HOWEVER a bump from 1.6 to 1.8 is because the slower the normal clock speed the bigger the more of a performance impact you notice from a bump in clock speed. Understand that some ultrabooks also attempt to curb this effect with "boost clocks" bringing the default lets say 1.6 to 2.5 under extreme load. where as sometimes the CPU brother in a laptop will not have the boost clock feature and stay at 2.2 for its life.

 

[Arjai]

As, I have stated in another post, from the same OP. the 3317u and the 3337u are nearly exact copies of each other except, 3337u is .1GHz faster.

3317u, mine, 1.7 boost to 2.4 using all 4 logical cores crunching, to 2.5 and 2.6 on single core performance.

3337u, the one the OP is thinking about... add .1GHz

Both are 17 watt and both are amazing. Everything about my i5 UltraBook is awesome, including that mine actually has a DVD R/W CD R/W, that most don't!

Pull the plug, get the i5!! You don't need to ask anymore silly questions! It will game, get the memory upgrade and you will be rockin'!!

 

[Steevo]

I found my old APU overclocked (2.7Ghz boost speed) was a much better computing experience in a laptop than my current i5, when I stress this thing media starts to skip under heavy load and heavily threaded apps stall the OS. Same 8GB of RAM, same mechanical disk, same battery life with tweaks to the APU, but much better at gaming and media playback.

 

[kn00tcn]

but... computer wars ARE exactly the same, your example of pentium 4 is simply identical to 'my haswell has more ghz than your haswell'

of course a 1.7ghz p4 probably beats a 2ghz celeron from back then, so again, it's exactly the same as now... multiple architectures & brands always existed

what difference does it make? anything that takes its time on the cpu really... obviously 2secs to 1sec loading is hardly useful even though it's twice as fast, but if you're rendering something that takes 4 hours... 2 hours is quite a productivity increase

really just calculate it, get the percentage difference of clockspeeds, maybe pad the number if considering cache size increases on faster cpus, enter that percentage in your usage scenario estimate, done, question answered

most improvements wouldnt change much (35fps to 40fps game for example), but like steevo's case, if you're hitting some stutters or a 55fps game example, reaching 60 would smoothen things out

well it also depends on how different the clockspeeds are on the cpus you're comparing, in my case i'm glad i didnt buy a crappy ultrabook... got i7-2670QM, gtx570m instead (summer 2012)

 

[mitya]

Thanks for the helpful replies, all.

@Arjai, I was always taught that no question is "silly"; if you don't know the answer, you need to ask it. And I would have thought the strength and purpose of TPU was somewhat defeated if posters were to be told their questions were silly. I'm not a hardware expert, and I don't have £600 to blow without first knowing, and understanding, what I'm buying.

 

[Fourstaff]

For zips, there wouldn't be much difference. As for games, graphics will always almost be the limiting factor in Ultrabooks, so not much concerns from there either. However, if you are running heavy simulations or processing investing in a better CPU will yield returns (assuming of course time is of the essence)s.

 

[Kaynar]

Personally I advice all my friends to buy the slowest quad core of the latest generation when buying any laptop. From simple web surfing to mainstream gaming (wow, dota, lol etc) a quad core will make you feel your computer runs smoother and faster *on the long term*; meaning that in 3-4 years its still gona be fast enough for newer (future) content. You can get an i7 4700 in a 15" thin laptop for a bit less than 600GBP from pcspecialist.co.uk, got my latest one from them and I was very satisfied (and surprised) with the quality at their low prices.

When it comes to raw clock speed, I don't think you would notice a difference on a laptop if you are above 3Ghz turbo-boosted clock, either 2-core or 4-core.

 

[RCoon]

I was always taught that no question is "silly";

"There is no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people asking inquisitive questions" - Unknown

Processor speed can mainly be seen in benchmarks or rendering. A faster mhz processor will render faster than an identical lower mhz processor. In many apps or load times, processor speed differences of 100-200 mhz are quite dificult to quantify. But if you make much larger jumps, say 400mhz+ from 2.0 to 2.4, you may notice a difference.
There is also a more obvious difference in processor speeds the lower you are. For example a 1.2ghz processor, clocked up to 1.6ghz would probably show much higher performance increase than for example 4.0ghz to 4.4ghz. That may be a placebo effect on my end, but at the low end of CPU's, clock speed bumps seem to matter. At the high end, with little to bottleneck, mhz bump don't mean a great deal.

 

[Kaynar]

"There is no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people asking inquisitive questions" - Unknown

haha yea well said!

but I think the op's question is justified. There is so much trash available on the market (especially in retail shops) that you need to know what tech is hidden behind each model which might bear nearly similar names with other (different) cpus for extra dose of confusion. Not to mention the obvious - 3Ghz P4 won't be the same as 3Ghz latest i7 , nor 2Ghz quad core from mobile phone is the same as 2Ghz PC; yet I know ppl that can't understand why.