i5 vs i7 (P Series): The Difference Will SHOCK You!

👇 All Our Favorite Laptops & Deals

► Follow Me:

► Timestamps

00:00 Intro
04:48 Performance
06:25 Temperature & Fan Noise
07:47 Battery Life
08:43 Conclusion

As an Amazon, Lenovo, Best Buy, B&H, and HP Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

#laptop #review #intel #dell #xps

[JustJoshTech]

👇 All Our Favorite Laptops & Deals


► Follow Me:

[ucanthavemyname]

I think the more important distinction is what power limit the CPU is. For example, an i5-12600H series (45 watt) will crush a i7-1260p (28 watt) and the core amounts are different. Even stepping higher, the i7-12800HX (55 watt+ and 16 cores) will beat an i9-12900H (45 watt and 14 cores) while technically costing less. So be aware of the power series of the CPU as typically it is more important when comparing different kinds of laptops. If you are looking at strictly i5 vs. i7 in the same laptop, Josh’s advice is the best. Great video!

[vmafarah]

Battery life shouldn't be that different, either Intel or dell is playing with their driver software to make i7 look good than i5. 🤢

[Manuel-rlum]

You were right Josh, I am shocked haha. Now, it would be interesting to see the difference between the i7-1260P and the i7-1280P which has more cores and probably even better binning :D

[Abd]

ok, that was actually shocking!

usally the "twist" is that the i5 is better because i7 throttles itself out of the picture!

[adriennejones]

I love how you back up your review with hard core data. You ran the numbers, compared the specs and judged the performance in real time. Comparing the exact same computers with only different processors makes the evidence hard to dispute. Thank you so much for this video

[Lijah]

👍🏽Thanks a lot...I can now save my coins! No point in spending $216 for a 3%-7% difference; besides I'm not an gamer.

[HappyHubris]

Some of these results defy sense and suggest testing issues (e.g., battery life differences between the i5/i7). I'd hesitate to make recommendations without more research or evaluating replacement devices.

[markw]

As a retired test engineer I applaud your methodology. For most laptop manufacturers thermal generation and dissipation are nagging problems which results in power throttling, which results in performance reduction. The gamer laptops and some others have larger heatsinks, heatpipes, fans and better airflow.

[cldpt]

There is definitely something else at play here: either Intel finally segmented the market with even more segmentation on their chips, or (more likely) Dell's power management IC is the one doing the segmentation. The weird thing is indeed the battery. I wonder if and when unlocks are found (such as from Throttlestop supporting these), if we will find that the i5 is effectively as good under the same thermal constraints these laptops allow.

[IosifViorelMila]

Glad to see your results. This was not the case in your previous tests from last year, when the i7 was actually worse than the i5. It seems Intel improved a lot with its new performance cores+power efficient cores. AMD still beats the integrated Intel Xe graphics. Can't wait some laptop reviews with the new AMD Ryzen 6600U and 6800U + the new RDNA2 integrated graphics.

[ZiggyMercury]

Fantastic video. You're my favorite laptop reviewer, in part because I find you to focus on the most important things.

[jonasfermefors]

I have tried to go a different way - I try to opt for models with an i5 and a Nvidia or AMD graphics card instead of Intel graphics. I find that if makes the PC feel more responsive and I suspect it would offset the gains with the i7. I don't think it matters which AMD/Nvidia card it is but preferably with it's own memory.

[altayab]

As a clinical researcher, the standard for what constitutes "evidence" to the everyman is downright frightening. This comparison is laughably unscientific. Throwing around descriptors like “epic” and “walloping” just makes it even more incredulous.
Performance benchmarks: Average of X runs? Would be important to see performance stability with consecutive runs.
Temperature and fan noise: “I recorded a CPU max of 100C on both performance modes for both chips, so no difference there.” Missing: clock speed, fan speed, ambient temp, ambient noise, noise measurement distance, equipment, description of the load parameters.
Battery life: “Best battery settings, screen 3 notches down for brightness”. Perhaps the most flawed of all the comparisons. Screen brightness should be calibrated using an objective measurement like lumens, not “notches”. Battery life is reported as a percentage when the devices all use different size batteries. At the very least you should discuss power consumption in terms of Wh or, more practically, total battery runtime under a specified load. What other background tasks/processes could have been running?
Also, it goes without saying that performance benchmarks are meaningless to most users who just want a responsive device that can stream video and browse the web with good power efficiency. Who cares what the Cinebench score is?
There is a distinct lack of truly objective and scientific technology reviews. Someone needs to do better.

[dustm]

That's truly astonishing results. If 12th gen i5 is not 50% cheaper, I don't see the point of buying i5. My laptop runs i7 and it is lightning fast.

[sorrowaboutalice]

Regarding battery life — may be it's something with nature of the test itself. I reckon video playback is hardware accelerated and i7 has more iGPU compute units. Can it be that i7 runs more efficient somehow because of this?
May be some other test, not the video playback, would give other results.

[IAmADog]

I would love to see if this comparison holds up with the processors in the 9315 version of the xps 13 (i5-1230U and i7-1250U)

[XMehun]

Great video, said what needed to be said and no bullsh*t, Subbed👍

[lenzielenski]

You are all missing the biggest point. Most operations take fractions of a second, so, for arguments sake, let's take an application that takes 1 second to open. A "massive 19% faster" means it takes .8 seconds instead. Is that even perceptible? For most people the answer is NO. Now take more common functions that take tenths or hundredths of a second and knock off 19%. See where this is going? There are very, VERY few tasks that will get perceptibly faster with a geewhizbang new faster processor. Exceptions are for those tasks that can be measured in minutes. CAD rendering, large program compiling, multitrack audio processing, video rendering and the like. Then, if a task drops from an hour to 49 minutes you're more likely to notice. The rest is just industry hype to get you to watch videos (because that's how the creators make money) and buy new hardware you don't need because that's how manufacturers make THEIR money. As a general consumer, unless a given "upgrade" is 100% faster than your existing hardware, you'll barely notice a difference if at all (other than the initial, oh its new isn't this wonderful placebo effect). Ask anyone who got a new computer between a week and a month ago if its as "blazing fast" as when it was brand new. The answer is most likely NO. The shine has worn off and you're back to the same old same old. Save your money, take a vacation instead.

[vaneliot]

I wonder if the differences in thermals and battery life would still be in the favor of the i7 if there's a dedicated GPU involved (e.g. RTX3050).