| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 142271 | 2016-05-31 01:45:00 | Laptop processor for photo editing | Misty (368) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1421229 | 2016-05-31 01:45:00 | We want to buy a replacement laptop, the most challenging application will be photo-editing. It will be used mainly when touring. At home I use a desktop. When on tour I run Lightroom almost wholly (with a occasional dip into Photoshop Elements and plug-ine etc). Have been reading about the relative merits of Intel and AMD processors. Whilst overall Intel has the best all-round reputation, it seems that for photo-editing (and gaming), the best processor is the AMD because of its graphics processing. Am I understanding this correctly please ? |
Misty (368) | ||
| 1421230 | 2016-05-31 03:01:00 | If the laptop uses the integrated GPU sure, many of them add better graphics cards in making it back to intel in that case. Depends how much you are spending, anything with an Nvidia Graphics card listed is not using integrated, at least not by itself. Intel have better IPC (instructions per clock cycle) performance, AMD have better integrated GPU performance. What would be better depends on if those applications use the graphics hardware for acceleration or rely on the CPU. Personally I just have a preference for intel overall. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1421231 | 2016-05-31 03:03:00 | I'm inclined to think that photo editing (as opposed to video) is no big deal for any modern processor. But I haven't any experience with bottom-of-the-price-range laptops Amount of memory makes a difference. If you process panoramas it might say "couldn't do it" and I think that means it has run out of memory. I noticed an improvement going from 4GB to 8GB to 16GB in the number of pics it could handle in a panorama. I use Elements 11 on my desktop. A panorama with 12 x 20 Mpx shots might take 40s I would suggest getting a modern Intel processor because I think it will run cooler for the same processing power. Intel's integrated graphics is quite good. A modern i3 with 4GB RAM? (Probably lesser specs would be fine eg Celeron/Pentium but I don't have any experience with them) |
BBCmicro (15761) | ||
| 1421232 | 2016-05-31 03:24:00 | Thanks BBCmicro (We had a BBC, then Archimedes, back in the day) and dugimodo, that's useful info. In terms of Intel, I was thinking of at least i5 with 16 Gigs of RAM, because I always shoot in RAW. However, we do not want to spend much more than $1000, which is a constraint. I have read contradictory info on the web about speed of hard drives. One said don't get a 5500 rpm HDD, whilst another said 5500 would be fine ? Though I might get a small SSD drive and use an external drive for the images ? |
Misty (368) | ||
| 1421233 | 2016-05-31 05:13:00 | The speed of the hard drive is mostly a quality of life improvement. It doesn't affect the ability to run anything or the system performance, just how long things take to load and save. That bothers some people more than others, however once you've gotten used to a PC with an SSD anything without one feels painfully sluggish to do anything. Highly recommend one. Even buying a Cheap laptop and replacing the hard drive with an SSD can end up a better experience than an expensive one without and you can get an enclosure and turn the old hard drive into that storage you mentioned :) (or put it away somewhere as the ultimate factory restore backup). If you plan on doing it yourself though check how accessible the drive is, some manufacturers make it easy and some don't. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1 | |||||