Mobile Core i7 920XM, Clarksfield: Nehalem on-the-go
by Jarred Walton on September 23, 2009 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Test Setup
For this initial look, we're only going to include a subset of our performance benchmarks. Normally we would include results from PCMark, but the Clarksfield system shipped with an SSD and the other test systems have their own take on storage, making PCMark results meaningless. We all know SSDs are faster at certain tasks, but without using the same SSD in all three systems we can't really compare performance. That's part of the reason why this is only an abbreviated preview; we have a lot more benchmark results, but we're not just comparing CPU performance. We will have a complete review of all three notebooks in the near future, where we will go into further details about configuration options. For now, here's the skinny on what we are testing.
| Clevo W87CU Test System | |
| Processor | Intel Core i7-920XM (2.0GHz 55W TDP) (Quad-core + Hyper-Threading, 45nm, 4x256K L2, 8MB L3) |
| Memory | 2x2048MB PC3-10700 @ DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 |
| Graphics | 1 x NVIDIA GTX 280M (Driver Version 186.81) |
| Display | 17.3" Glossy WXSGA+ (1600x900) |
| Hard Drive | OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD |
| Optical Drive | 8x SATA DVDR |
| Battery | 6-cell, 11.1V, 3800mAh, 42.18Wh |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit |
| Eurocom M980NU XCaliber Test System | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 QX9300 (2.53GHz, 45W TDP) (Quad-core, 45nm, 2x6MB Shared L2) |
| Memory | 2x2048MB PC3-10700 @ DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 |
| Graphics | 2 x NVIDIA GTX 280M (Driver Version 186.03 SLI/186.81 No SLI) |
| Display | 18.4" Glossy 1080p (1920x1080) |
| Hard Drive | Seagate 500GB 16MB 7200RPM (Momentus 7200.4 ST9500420ASG) |
| Optical Drive | 8x SATA DVDR/BD-ROM |
| Battery | 9-cell, 14.8V, 4650mAh, 68.82Wh |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit |
| AVADirect Clevo D900F Test System | |
| Processor | Intel Core i7-975 (3.33GHz, 130W TDP) (Quad-core + Hyper-Threading, 45nm, 4x256K L2, 8MB L3) |
| Memory | 3x2048MB PC3-8500 @ DDR3-1066 7-7-7-20 |
| Graphics | 1 x NVIDIA GTX 280M (Driver Version 186.81) |
| Display | 17.0" Glossy WUXGA (1920x1200) |
| Hard Drive | 2 x OCZ Vertex 30GB SSDs in RAID 0 Seagate 500GB 16MB 7200RPM (Momentus 7200.4 ST9500420AS) |
| Optical Drive | 8x SATA DVDR |
| Battery | 12-cell, 14.4V, 6600mAh, 95.04Wh |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit |
Clevo's W87CU is our Clarksfield test platform. Unfortunately (fortunately), Intel shipped it to us with their 80GB SSD and Windows 7. That creates a couple problems. First, all of our previous laptop results come from Windows Vista, and as we recently showed, your choice of OS makes a difference. Since we wanted to try to compare apples-to-apples, we replaced the OS with Vista on our own OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD (our disk cloning software wouldn't work with the W87CU hardware, so we left the original Windows 7 installation alone - we will go back to it in a later review). The system ships with a single GTX 280M.
Representing the old guard, Eurocom's M980NU XCaliber uses a Core 2 Extreme QX9300 - the pinnacle of laptop performance prior to the launch of Clarksfield. The CPU is paired up with two GTX 280M graphics cards in SLI, all stuffed into a gigantic 18.4" chassis. This is essentially the NVIDIA equivalent of the 4870X2 ASUS W90Vp, with a slightly faster CPU. (Remember that the W90Vp allows an easy overclock to 2.27GHz.) We will also test performance with SLI disabled in order to compare results with the other two notebooks.
The final entrant in our benchmarks today really muddies the waters. The Clarksfield i7-920XM is the fastest mobile CPU currently available, which makes the Clevo W87CU the fastest notebook available, right? Well, no, since Clevo already went and stuffed a desktop i7 Bloomfield CPU into their D900F - and not just any Bloomfield CPU; the D900F supports everything up to the top-end i7-975. AVADirect was kind enough to send us just such a system for review, and it also ships with a single GTX 280M. It also has dual 30GB SSDs for the primary drive, providing a ton of bandwidth for data transfers.
What we have are three top-of-the-line desktop replacement notebooks, using the three fastest CPUs you can find in a notebook (even if one of them is a desktop CPU). All of the systems use NVIDIA's GTX 280M, so when we look at graphics performance we can remove the GPU as a factor and see how the CPUs impact frame rates - if at all.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
63 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Regarding the "max brightness", that was actually incorrect. I used new values for the laptops with the LCDs always at 100 nits. It's still not a perfect comparison, since one LCD at 100 nits might use 3W and another could use 8W depending on size and backlight technology, but it's closer than using the max brightness (as your comments indicate).FWIW, Core 2 Quad QX9300 and the i7-920XM appear similar in max power draw but with the i7 part having far better idle power. A C2Q with two 10W CPUs would end up running at 1.6GHz tops and use ~20W TDP, but idle power still won't be as good as the 920XM because of Power Gate. What would be really interesting would be Power Gate tech moved into Core 2 CPUs, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon I suspect. :)
gstrickler - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link
Can the QX9300 on the Eurocom system be clocked down to 2.0GHz? Can you disable Turbo and HT on the Core i7-920XM on the Clevo W87CU system? If so, you could compare a C2Q @ 2.0GHz vs a 920XM @ 2.0GHz (with and without HT). Run CPU (not GPU) intensive tasks and see how they perform and how much load power they each use. That should give a good indication of the relative instructions per clock of the two architectures as well as the performance/watt.There is no need to repeat any of the gaming tests, just a couple single threaded and multithreaded CPU intensive tests and idle and full CPU load power usage. It might let us put to rest the lingering questions of whether C2D or Core i7 is a better core architecture for mobile systems.
Granted, there are still other system differences that we can't eliminate, but as long as SLI is not enabled on the Eurocom system, we can get them to be fairly close.
gstrickler - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Agreed. Aside from better power management (power gating and turbo mode), I'm not yet convinced that the Core i7 is more power efficient than C2. I don't expect to ever see it, but a C2Q with the power management of the i7 might make an excellent laptop CPU.As for the "Max brightness" comment, I was addressing the other poster's reply about tests of the Dell Studio 16, don't know the 100nit level was used there, but as noted, power can still vary significantly.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Arrandale is what we want, really: dual-core with HyperThreading. That should cut maximum CPU power use down substantially, and there will be 25W and 35W parts (and likely 17W as well). Restricting Turbo modes to lower clocks will also help. Right now, Clarksfield is max performance within a much greater thermal envelope than most laptops allow.Wolfpup - Thursday, October 15, 2009 - link
*I* want a quad core laptop! No question dual core is kind of anemic anymore. I mean it's been silly to go dual core on the desktop for YEARS, yet we're still stuck mostly with dual core on notebooks :-/I'm really more interested in how those 1.6 and 1.73Ghz parts do versus faster clocked Core 2 duos and quads. The clock speed obviously is kind of frighteningly low, so I sort of need to see benchmarks that 1.6 or 1.73 actually gives you a competent system (I'm sure it does, but...)
And yeah, I game on my 2.4Ghz Penryn dual core with mobile Geforce 9650GT. I'd like better, but a desktop isn't an option for me anymore, so I'll just upgrade my notebook as needed :)
gstrickler - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
While Arrandale is promising, I would be similarly interested in a 25W C2Q. Since they can make 10W and 17W C2D, they should certainly be able to make 25W and 35W C2Q. Arrandale should be faster when running 1 or 2 threads, but a 1.6GHz C2Q @ 20W TDP (2 x SU9600) should perform as well or better when running all 4 cores. As a bonus, the C2Q could work with the Nvidia 9400M chipset, for very good IGP performance, add an optional discreet GPU for those who want something faster. Until Intel demonstrates that they can actually deliver a good IGP, Arrandale doesn't sound all that wonderful. Just a thought.gstrickler - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Let me clarify a bit. I would be far more interested in the Core i# CPUs if it didn't have an Intel GPU built in and if I had an option of a good non Intel chipset. Since Intel and Nvidia seem to be in a pissing contest over the licensing that would allow Nvidia to build an i# compatible chipset, the future of a low power CPU, chipset, and GPU (that doesn't suck) looks questionable on Arrandale.For those of us who don't need a discreet GPU, but want decent graphics performance AND excellent battery life, an all Intel solution does not look promising. At best, it looks like a 25W Arrandale with an Intel chipset and a discreet low power ATI or Nvidia GPU.
While HT on the Core i# CPUs is better than HT on P4, it's still nowhere near the benefit of doubling the real cores. I would rather have a non HT (e.g. Core i5) based quad core than Arrandale.
yacoub - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
55% market share is laptops but they don't mention if those people also own a desktop - or more importantly, build their own desktop.When you consider that more and more of the people who want a desktop are enthusiasts who build their own, and those numbers aren't going to be counted in desktop sales which only considers the pre-built big-box manufacturers like Dell, etc, you realize that chart means little.
So in reality the chart is a great marketing tool: It's "true" in one sense, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
jordanclock - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link
Pre-built machines from Dell, HP, Apple, etc. account for the vast majority of systems sold. Custom built computers are a niche. I suspect custom build computers would be lost in the margin of error.pervisanathema - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
What means little is your phantom statistic "when you consider that more and more of the people who want a blah blah blah."That' your opinion. You have no evidence to back that up. My opinion is that you are very wrong and that most people just buy the cheapest prebuilt rig they can find.