That awkward moment when a Core i5-1135G7 can outperform the more expensive Core i7-1165G7

[Redaktion]

If you plan on buying a new 11th gen Intel Tiger Lake laptop, then you might want to keep in mind that the cheaper Core i5-1135G7 can actually match or outperform a handful of Core i7-1165G7 laptops in raw CPU performance.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/That-awkward-moment-when-a-Core-i5-1135G7-can-outperform-the-more-expensive-Core-i7-1165G7.512848.0.html

[Mate]

Nothing new, i7 were always marginally (in best case scenario) better than i5 in 'U' segment. Intel tries to squeeze every bit of performance from hot CPUs aimed at ultrabooks so i7 will boost to higher clocks than i5, generate a lot more heat and then  throttle below i5. Same thing with i7-9750h that was for example louder, hotter and slower than i7-8750h in Thinkpad X1E chassis.

[ND]

Makes me feel a little bad since I bought a Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Carbon 13" with the i5 and it scored lower than its Yoga 9i and Yoga 7i siblings on Cinebench R20 multicore, gaining around 1840 points compared to the 2000+ points the other Yogas attained. It matched the other two's single core performance though.

[Warspite]

I like how you compare laptops in uncommon scenarios. Nobody or very few people do renders in C4D. Especially nowadays, when we have cloud farm for cheap. But it is you main test tool. And you make misleading confirmations, ignoring typical scenarious.

[Bro...]

One of your lowest quality "articles" in recent memory. Starting out the year strong, eh?

[Richard Green]

So if the GPU were the same with both processors, would the stated i5 be an even better deal and better performer in the same tested scenarios than the stated  i7?

[Russell]

Curious, you've done this testing and reached a conclusion based on systems with differing specs, specifically the gpu. Is the gpu sharing the same cooling system as the CPU in that system (wouldn't be the first time dell did that to save space/money)? Even if not, are the internal temps affected by the presence of that gpu?

Asking these questions because it seems incredibly poor form to declare one part faster than another without even seemingly attempting to rule out those external factors.

[Astra]

Not going to rehash what everyone else is saying..but this is a terrible article. Just another Intel hater who doesn't understand technology at all

[Tov]

So dual channel i7 gpu is 30% faster than  single channel i5 GPU? What is your point here?

[Veyron]

Something tells me we'll see a similar scenario with the new LG Grams and the i5 version will perform better than the i7.

Thank you for the insight, it's a great article despite what the Intel fanbois like to say.

[vertigo]

I think people are missing the point here. It's not bashing or "hating" on Intel, simply making people aware of a common issue: mid-tier CPUs often outperform their bigger siblings in similar configurations, so potential buyers, i.e. many of the people reading articles here, should be aware of that and think twice before spending the extra money on an "upgrade" that may actually result in lesser performance. It doesn't matter if it's really because of the dGPU's extra heat, this particular laptop performs worse with the more expensive part, and many others have the same problem, which is one of the reasons I personally prefer i5/R5 vs i7/R7 in a laptop. Because yes, this can and does happen with AMD as well. It's the "fault" of both the CPU manufacturer and the OEM, and Dell especially is known for crappy cooling.

Another frustrating thing this article hints at but falls short of calling out is the ridiculous insistence on OEMs to limit configurations like this, only allowing the dGPU in the system that both needs it less and will be negatively impacted by it more. You pay more for a faster CPU with a better iGPU only to not use the iGPU due to having a dGPU and having that extra part create more heat which slows down that "faster" CPU, making it actually slower. Or maybe that is an option with the i5 in this case, but this is a common issue regardless.

I like how you compare laptops in uncommon scenarios. Nobody or very few people do renders in C4D. Especially nowadays, when we have cloud farm for cheap. But it is you main test tool. And you make misleading confirmations, ignoring typical scenarious.

Not sure why you're mentioning C4D, as I don't even see it mentioned anywhere in the benchmarks, not to mention there are plenty of others to look at. And it doesn't matter if they ran Prime95 as a benchmark, even though almost nobody is going to be doing that, as long as it allows for comparisons in performance and reveals issues like a more expensive configuration doing worse than a cheaper one. If I were interested in this model, even if I had no intention of using any of their benchmarks (and most people aren't going to be running benchmarks, so are you going to complain about all of them?), if I were considering the i7, it would be because I intended to make use of the extra power, so I would like to know that when stressed, it doesn't do well.

[Make it Stop]

I think people are missing the point here. It's not bashing or "hating" on Intel, simply making people aware of a common issue: mid-tier CPUs often outperform their bigger siblings in similar configurations, so potential buyers, i.e. many of the people reading articles here, should be aware of that and think twice before spending the extra money on an "upgrade" that may actually result in lesser performance. It doesn't matter if it's really because of the dGPU's extra heat, this particular laptop performs worse with the more expensive part, and many others have the same problem, which is one of the reasons I personally prefer i5/R5 vs i7/R7 in a laptop. Because yes, this can and does happen with AMD as well. It's the "fault" of both the CPU manufacturer and the OEM, and Dell especially is known for crappy cooling.

People aren't missing the point, they're annoyed that NoteBookCheck has continued to make these articles that contain poor conclusions and click-bait titles.

We don't even know if the more expensive product mentioned here "under performs" the cheaper one, because NoteBookCheck didn't even bother to compare the graphics capabilities between the two. All we know is that by selecting a dedicated graphics card you lose a small amount (~5%) of processing power.

[vertigo]

I think people are missing the point here. It's not bashing or "hating" on Intel, simply making people aware of a common issue: mid-tier CPUs often outperform their bigger siblings in similar configurations, so potential buyers, i.e. many of the people reading articles here, should be aware of that and think twice before spending the extra money on an "upgrade" that may actually result in lesser performance. It doesn't matter if it's really because of the dGPU's extra heat, this particular laptop performs worse with the more expensive part, and many others have the same problem, which is one of the reasons I personally prefer i5/R5 vs i7/R7 in a laptop. Because yes, this can and does happen with AMD as well. It's the "fault" of both the CPU manufacturer and the OEM, and Dell especially is known for crappy cooling.

People aren't missing the point, they're annoyed that NoteBookCheck has continued to make these articles that contain poor conclusions and click-bait titles.

We don't even know if the more expensive product mentioned here "under performs" the cheaper one, because NoteBookCheck didn't even bother to compare the graphics capabilities between the two. All we know is that by selecting a dedicated graphics card you lose a small amount (~5%) of processing power.

We know it performs worse regarding the CPU, because they show that. We can pretty safely assume a dGPU is going to perform better than an i5's iGPU. Where's the confusion? So if you don't need the extra graphics performance, you're better off spending less and having better CPU performance. If you do need it, then obviously you should get the more expensive option, with the dGPU, but you should know that will cost you some CPU performance despite spending more and getting the better chip. Which is exactly what the article said.

[Make it Stop]

I think people are missing the point here. It's not bashing or "hating" on Intel, simply making people aware of a common issue: mid-tier CPUs often outperform their bigger siblings in similar configurations, so potential buyers, i.e. many of the people reading articles here, should be aware of that and think twice before spending the extra money on an "upgrade" that may actually result in lesser performance. It doesn't matter if it's really because of the dGPU's extra heat, this particular laptop performs worse with the more expensive part, and many others have the same problem, which is one of the reasons I personally prefer i5/R5 vs i7/R7 in a laptop. Because yes, this can and does happen with AMD as well. It's the "fault" of both the CPU manufacturer and the OEM, and Dell especially is known for crappy cooling.

People aren't missing the point, they're annoyed that NoteBookCheck has continued to make these articles that contain poor conclusions and click-bait titles.

We don't even know if the more expensive product mentioned here "under performs" the cheaper one, because NoteBookCheck didn't even bother to compare the graphics capabilities between the two. All we know is that by selecting a dedicated graphics card you lose a small amount (~5%) of processing power.

We know it performs worse regarding the CPU, because they show that. We can pretty safely assume a dGPU is going to perform better than an i5's iGPU. Where's the confusion? So if you don't need the extra graphics performance, you're better off spending less and having better CPU performance. If you do need it, then obviously you should get the more expensive option, with the dGPU, but you should know that will cost you some CPU performance despite spending more and getting the better chip. Which is exactly what the article said.

There is no confusion. That's my whole point. No result in the article should be surprising, but NoteBookCheck added the snarky title to get more clicks.

[vertigo]

I think people are missing the point here. It's not bashing or "hating" on Intel, simply making people aware of a common issue: mid-tier CPUs often outperform their bigger siblings in similar configurations, so potential buyers, i.e. many of the people reading articles here, should be aware of that and think twice before spending the extra money on an "upgrade" that may actually result in lesser performance. It doesn't matter if it's really because of the dGPU's extra heat, this particular laptop performs worse with the more expensive part, and many others have the same problem, which is one of the reasons I personally prefer i5/R5 vs i7/R7 in a laptop. Because yes, this can and does happen with AMD as well. It's the "fault" of both the CPU manufacturer and the OEM, and Dell especially is known for crappy cooling.

People aren't missing the point, they're annoyed that NoteBookCheck has continued to make these articles that contain poor conclusions and click-bait titles.

We don't even know if the more expensive product mentioned here "under performs" the cheaper one, because NoteBookCheck didn't even bother to compare the graphics capabilities between the two. All we know is that by selecting a dedicated graphics card you lose a small amount (~5%) of processing power.

We know it performs worse regarding the CPU, because they show that. We can pretty safely assume a dGPU is going to perform better than an i5's iGPU. Where's the confusion? So if you don't need the extra graphics performance, you're better off spending less and having better CPU performance. If you do need it, then obviously you should get the more expensive option, with the dGPU, but you should know that will cost you some CPU performance despite spending more and getting the better chip. Which is exactly what the article said.

There is no confusion. That's my whole point. No result in the article should be surprising, but NoteBookCheck added the snarky title to get more clicks.

It may not be surprising for you or me or even 90% of NBC's readers, but some less well-informed people that don't spend much time here, or on review sites in general, probably don't know this type of stuff, so it's useful for them. Granted, yeah, the title is an attempt to be witty and draw in readers, but sadly everyone's doing that these days, and (again, sadly) it clearly works. If people have a problem with that, they should say so, but instead they're complaining about the content of the article.