I believe to change the hardware more often than every 3-5 years is the indulgence consumer instincts and paying tribute to the transnational corporations. In General, is a bad idea.
Say, on the visual performance much noticeable effect replacing the HDD to SSD, rather than a replacement C2D to i7.
Mobile ci7 features from the c2d in the first place less power consumption. And in the laptop it is much more important than anything else.
And performance any good table stone five years ago will beat any laptop with a large margin.
Any good desktop graphics card from five years ago will beat any mobile in all respects.
Any good monitor all the same it is more pleasant to the eye than any laptop.
And any normal keyboard is anyway more convenient. And for maniacs there is even a small keyboard with tachpadom.
And while it all cooks hands, not humming turbine and not zastavlyaet or to keep your hands above your head or slouch when referring to buttons.
Laptops are not for high performance do and not for games and not to watch a movie and not for convenience.
And to be able to take and carry.
The MC today is not very important. Here 4M cache is good.
In General, as you know "the System works with the speed of the slowest element" so to compare the two systems only on the percent that's rude.
The biggest jump in performance since the first Core Duo, felt when moving from HDD to SSD, not when you change the CPU. Now, working with HDD system occurs about the same weird nostalgic feeling of discomfort, as when using a CRT monitor. PHPStorm, Eclipse, two working new path: Win and CentOS with two DBMS — feel on Core2Duo 1.86 GHz + SSD is absolutely free, so find no reason to change the stone. My opinion: try to start to change the screw.
as the user HP EliteBook 8560w (XU085UT) I can say that the powerful percents without the SSD for compilation of little help. But SSD wonderfully large speeds up build times so 3-4.
the difference will be very strong. But I would advise to take the Quad.
For heavy tasks, the difference will be very noticeable. Will leave it here just for information:
My mobile i3-2310 2.13 zГГц test run 10-15% faster than my desktop Core 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHz.
You know, I had a laptop with a Core 2 Duo T6500 and when starting Windows, yet Skype will not start, it was very difficult to do something, I changed to core i5 and it is heaven and earth. Although it is said that megahertz is not important, but the difference is not in megahertz, and not in the amount of yared. The difference will be the processor architecture, the instruction set and so on. i7 better than core 2 duo because of the novelty and change, even the frequency is not higher and not more cores.
The flea is not, in any case, on the other hand, the first answer is very correct, if the screw is worse then no percent will not help, even one hundred nuclear, it will load very slowly, and to work very fast and the difference is not noticeable.
In i7 have HT is not a useless thing in a battle of the processors.
Well, ssd + lots of RAM solves. I am now 8 sit, all the brakes from over the network.
I have two laptops
1. Asus A6M — taxiing to ESXi server, etc. Pribluda.
2. Motion Computing LE 1600 — network testing and drawing of buns for the bosses (for planning meetings).
They both share one extra battery DasVision BP-600 — if not close the socket.
All this has use since 2008 and never thought about replacing.