Ok so the i7 came out for some laptops, i literally found this out as i was ordering my computer.
So i am wondering with this coming out is it worth waiting for it to be an option for the common processor or just buy it.
i7 > core 2 quad?
Also my computer is going to survive the ages so i was wondering if i should do the 8 gigs of ram or wait 2 more months to see if the next jump is available.
And last question, what is better a Dell studio XPS or a HP HDX18t series (performance wise). Cause i was about to buy a Dell but when i found out about i7 i went to check out if HP had it and i read some review for there laptops and they are amazing.

P.S. for the love of god please dont mention anything about Macs.

Quads on a laptop... Can anyone correct me but wouldn't that heat like hell?

I HEAR DAT TEH MACS B3 R3AL GUD!


The i7 simply blows the Core 2 Quad away, it's an extremely good processor, especially if you're using a newer OS(Vista/Win7), and of course it will be amazing at multitasking, even with an older OS. Here's a page with the benchmarking tests of the two processors, you can clearly see a pattern there Only problem with i7 is it requires DDR3 RAM.

EDIT: Kinda response to Corbo(silly ninja..), the i7 is actually cooler than the Core 2 Quad, so it would also be a better choice in that aspect as well.

I believe the Studio XPS16 is better because the graphics card is nicer.

So i checked to see if HP has a DDR3 memory... and they only go to 2. So thank you Falknor, also i checked it out the comparison of processors and holy crap does the i7 blow cpu and gaming out of the water in performance. How much ram can Windows 7 64 bit manage, i have heard 8 gigs some people have told me "its theorized to be unlimited" and some sites are saying 1-128+.
And oh yes will the laptop will most likely run hot enough to sterilize me but i plan on having a cooler. and when i am without i will set it so it cant get that hot.
When it comes to graphics i am not horribly worried. For performance will always top graphics... in my books. and the review for some of the HP performance laptops were noted for good graphics.

On the RAM limits, it actually is basically unlimited, at least more RAM than you would ever put in it, however, it actually changes based on which version you're using:
Starter, Home Basic: 8GB
Home Premium: 16GB
Professional, Enterprise, Ultimate: 192GB

Microsoft is just limiting you

Well thats just rude! shame on you microsoft. But then again 8 gigs... i mean for a college student playing certain games here n there is good eh?

Yeah, I honestly can't think of a way you could easily use more than 8 gigs.

rendering super duper huge 3d models that were made bad?

So for what i am looking for should i go for the HP and wait for the i7 to be on them or should i just go dell? and toshiba isnt an option becasue i dont like them.... at all.

lol, I always laugh at this mindset from people, because I've heard it so often. "I don't see how you could fill up a whole gig of HD space!" "What would you ever need more than 64MB of RAM for?"

Microsoft arbitrarily limiting the amount of physical RAM you're "allowed" to use, based on how much money you give them, seems very nasty. I wonder if RAM manufacturers could make a legal case for this.

i7's socket 1366 will support 6 cores. In the near future, there's no reason to have that many. Most games barely use 2. True multithreaded apps will run fine on 4. i5's socket 1156 will support 4 cores. Considering it's much cheaper, and there are some i7s you can get on 1156, it's the better buy for gaming, and only really high end still.

As for i7 laptops: no, it won't be hot. TDP on i7 arrandale is tiny (under 50W). That's the power of 32 nm.

@ Hercanic:
It's very difficult to use more than 2 GB currently on a single program. Newer games are starting to approach this limit, as are most advanced applications, however, computers have always been able to handle this through the use of a swap file. With the onset of 64 bit, we've expanded our theoretical limit to practically infinity (I really can't see how we can hit 16 exabytes in even a millennium) and our real current limit to 8/16 GB. Anyone who wants to use more isn't going to be a basic home user, and is going to be a professional of some sort (acad, ps, etc). They need to have business or up, period.

Rockz, I surprised you didn't go into your usual nag of "buy 2 comps: desktop for power, and a cheap 15' that can run notepad"

You underestimate the power of idiocy, and the accidents it makes.
Or better put, creativity and the marvels that it creates.

It's a desktop for power and a cheap 9" that can run firefox. 15' or 15" isn't very portable.

I suppose if that law remains in effect, we'll be using 16 exabytes in 225 years. However, I don't think we can continue that rate of increase. Of course, once graphene becomes a viable transistor, and memristors become standard for memory, everything falls out the window.

Are you talking about W7 or Vista?

That was for Vista.