Core i7-620M dual core (2.66Ghz) vs. Core i7-720QM (1.60 GHz) for Pro/E?

For any given cpu core architecture, raw clock speed translates directly to ProE performance for cpu-bound processes (e.g. part regeneration). Core i5 and i7 are both Nehalem cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_%28microarchitecture%29

For any given cpu core architecture, and the same clock speed, quad core tends to be a little slower in ProE performance.

PTC claims that ProE has become more and more multi-threaded in every release since 2000i, but I have never seen test data that supports much success in real-world performance.

Furthermore, the fastest available clock speed is often available in dual core v.s quad core. Right now the fastest released Core i5 is 3.6ghz (3.86 in turbo mode), while the fastest Xeon and core i7 quad core is 3.33ghz (3.6 in turbo mode). As if to add insult to injury, the dual-core is substantially less expensive too!

Unfortunately, I don't have much to report, except I'm still a little confused. In reviewing the 64-bit OCUS benchmark page (http://www.proesite.com/), all I saw were i7's...and they happen to be in the top 7 systems. I didn't see any i5's.

I've spoken to PTC regarding multi-threading and have been told they are very aware of the multi-threading problem and have been working on it, visible in that they added it wherever possible in places like Mechanica.

Still, I agree that you're going to get the most bang for your buck with the highest clocking core on any given processor (since Pro/E most of the time only uses 1).

This is where the waters get muddied for me regarding clock speed of a single core.
"Intel® Turbo Boost Technology reroutes that unused performance to the cores that are active, boosting their performance without wasting power" (http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/corei7-specs.htm)

Price comparisons on the Dell Site as of 5/19/2010 for the M4500:

i7-820QM 1.73 GHz up to 3.06 with turbo boost $438

i7-720QM 1.60 GHz up to 2.80 with turbo boost $238

i7-620M 2.66 GHz up to 3.33 with turbo boost $270

i5-540M 2.53 GHz up to 3.06 with turbo boost $100

In Reply to Joshua Houser:

Salutations,

My guess is that the one with the greatest base clock speed (the 620M) will perform best, but that's just a guess based on past experience with clock speed.

Does anybody have any test data regarding the differences?

Thanks!

Joshua Houser| Pelco by Schneider Electric |Buildings & Business| United States| MCAD Tools Administrator
Phone: +559-292-1981 ext. 3490| Toll Free: +800-289-9100 ext. 3490&nbs

My partner and I held 12 of the top 15 spots on OCUS version 4 when it was retired... so please trust me when I say I know what I'm talking about. 64-bit OCUS version 5 has never correlated with our home-grown benchmarks (which were written by me), and 64-bit OCUS version 5 takes over 30 minutes to run on the fastest workstations. Also, there are about 4x more data points published for the "normal" OCUS. Therefore, we only run and consider results from "normal" OCUS. I have two HP demo workstations in my office right now, and I hope to be publishing results soon:

z200 - Core i5 670 - dual core 3.46ghz (3.77 in turbo mode) - 4x2 gig memory - Quadro 580

z400 - Xeon x5680 - quad core 3.33ghz (3.6 in turbo mode) - 4x2 gig memory - Quadro 580

I also ordered a Core i5 680 cpu - dual core 3.6ghz (3.82 in turbo mode). I expect the z400 to get B**** slapped by the z200. By the way, all other components being equal, the z400 is about 40% more expensive than the z200.

Sorry about typos on the turbo frequencies. Also, it remains to be seen how well ProE will take advantage of turbo mode. HP demo workstations to be tested.

z400 - Xeon x5680 - quad core 3.33ghz (3.6 in turbo mode) - 4x2 gig memory - Quadro 580

I also ordered a Core i5 680 cpu - dual core 3.6ghz (3.87 in turbo mode).

I will also be running OCUS on our most common legacy workstations, slower z400's and xw8600's