For Photoshop, i5 2430M or i7 2670QM in Laptop?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mihirkula

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2007
963
0
18,980
0
Hi guys, I need to buy a new laptop - i would be using it for the usual Email/movies/Photoshop and a bit of video editing. I won't play games (I have a desktop for that).


I have found these two good laptops which i am getting for a great price:


(1) Asus K Series X53SC-SX223D -- For $780 -- Which has Intel 2nd Gen Core i7 2670QM 2.2 GHz 6 MB Cache | 4 GB DDR3 | 750GB SATA | 15.6 Inch 1366 x 768 display | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M | USB 3.0 | other usual features.


And


(2) Asus K Series X53SC-SX224D -- For $640 -- Which has Intel 2nd Gen Core i5 2430M 2.4 GHz 3 MB Cache | 2 GB DDR3 | 640 GB SATA | Rest all SAME


I wanted to ask, is the extra $140 price justified for (1) ? As i said, i would be using Photoshop and mild video editing. I have attached the CPU difference here -- http://i.imgur.com/FjODu.png .. Should I spend the $140 and get the Core i7? Or will the Core i5 be sufficient for me? How much difference will these CPUs make in Photoshop/Video Editing.

EDIT: Does the Sandy bridge i7 overheat compared to the i5?


Thanks in advance.
 

kong911

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2011
67
0
18,640
4
Go for (1)...faster processor and more RAM which is great for photoshop. The graphic card is fine for movie watching. Faster CPU does make a difference in how fast some task can be done. Especially photo editing.
 

mihirkula

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2007
963
0
18,980
0
But would the difference in performance be worth the $140?

Also, there is another laptop without a dedicated GPU that is $100 less. Is a GPU essential for Photoshop and video editing? Should i just go for a faster CPU without a dedicated GPU? As i said i don't play games.
 
The first build is a quad core processor and has a higher turbo boost (3.1GHz vs. 3.0GHz) with greater cache. It also has double the RAM and a larger HDD. While these differences by themselves may not be worth the difference in price all together they make up add up.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
 

harna

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
282
0
18,790
3
Gulp!! my experience with anything graphic is more GPU and less CPU. However having said that in your case I'd probably choose integrated over discrete graphics simply as you have eluded to, the potential for over heating, especially in lengthy rendering jobs.

IMO don't disregard outright the integrated solutions offered by AMD. You will find they are a bit less pricey, but also full featured. AMD systems are strong in multi-tasking environments so have quite a lot to recommend them.

My niece, who is a extreme video/photo editor, every bit a professional, went from Core 2 + nvidia (8600) discrete to AMD Turion dual core = 4000 series Radeon and loved it to the point she is now pricing out a new Bulldozer system. She found that the pricey Intel system would consistently crash during sustained multiple sessions, with the GPU burning out twice before ASUS replaced it with the lower power 8400 with considerable loss of grunt.
 

mihirkula

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2007
963
0
18,980
0
Thanks a lot for the input, guys. I did spend the extra money and got the Asus with the core i7. I'm very happy with the performance. Also surprised that it is so much ($200!) cheaper than Dell, Sony, HP machines with the same configuration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY