Is a laptop powerful enough for photo editing?

[riclan]

<p>I wonder if a laptop with a processor Intel i7-720QM with 6 gigs of RAM enough for photo editing (LightRoom3)? My friend told me that a desktop is the only way to go. I would feel bad buying a 1 500$ laptop to find out it doesn't do the job.</p>

<p>Is anyone out there using a laptop?</p>

 

[garrison_k.]

<p>I'd use it. Five years ago, I would have paid $10K to work on a machine that fast to chew through D2x raw files.</p>

<p>Get a better monitor for home use though.</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I agree with everything Garrision said.....todays laptops will have no problem handling photo editting....but do get a "real" monitor for home use. The only thing I might suggest, depending on large your hard drive size is, is to put your Lightroom Catalog on an external portable hard drive. That thing tends to get quite huge.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>The problem you can run into with laptops is not inadequate processing power, it's more that the display might not be as good as what you're used to on a good, large monitor.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Why do you want a laptop, Richard? Your friend does have a point and for $1500 at newegg, you would have a superior desktop machine over a $1500 laptop.</p>

[riclan]

<p>Thanks for responding so quickly. I want a laptop because I carry it with me almost every day and when I have time, I can edit pictures. Having a desktop, and I do have one dualcore, in a room, it keep me away from my kids and wife. I'm with them in the living room, although not always attentive to them. It's a second best.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you're Windows, something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220688 would be a good option, or if you're Mac, the 15" high res matte screen version.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Assumption that a desktop is faster or more appropriate than a laptop can be wrong.<br>

You need to compare architecture, components, speeds, busses, etc.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The assumption isn't that all desktops are faster than all laptops. It's that for a given price point of laptop, a desktop can be found that's more powerful - which is true. But as Richard said, the portability has its advantages.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Six GB is way fast ! The only problem I have with my laptop is that the keyboard is allot smaller which makes it inconvenient. You don't always have internet access, it is not as secure. The monitor is not as good as on my desktop. </p>

[jeff_ford]

 

<p>for serious editing I'd suggest you need a Wacom tablet (or similar) so another lump to hump.</p>

<p>Desktop gives you max grunt for your $$, best display and peripherals. I just went back to a desktop with dual monitor setup after trying to work with laptops.</p>

<p>Depends what you consider 'photo editing' to be I guess</p>

 

 

[Uhooru]

<p>If you need mobility the new laptops I7 laptops have plenty of "grunt". The main problem is the monitor and storage, both easily solved.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>The problems with laptops tend to be the following:</p>

<p>1. Slow hard drives. Most laptop drives tend to be 5,400rpm in order to conserve power on the road. Of course you can add 7,200 or even 10,000rpm drives, but in those cases, the drives draw much, much more power and therefore end up making taking THAT laptop on the road less of a viable proposition.</p>

<p>2. Graphics cards. Laptop cards tend to be significantly less powerful than desktop cards and not only because of size and power but mainly because of heat issues. GPUs tend to run very, very hot and as such require quite a bit of ventilation and laptops reserve most of their ventilation for the CPU. As a result, GPUs run at less-than-optimal temperatures and therefore have reduced performance.</p>

<p>3. Size and weight should also be a consideration. I've seen friends trying to pretend their 17" laptop is really a PORTABLE computer, but really...! It's not. At 8+ pounds (excluding the HUGE power supply, the cables, the mouse, etc) you really, REALLY cannot lug it around.</p>

<p>4. Screen. Laptop screens are not - as a rule - as good as external, colour-calibratable screens. Folks do say, and with good reason, that you can connect an external screen and get over any built-in screen limitations. However that kinda defeats the whole point of the laptop. What is the use of carrying your laptop around, especially for photography, when you won't be able to truly rely on the colours you see?</p>

<p>I know the attraction of being mobile, but really, I would stick with a good desktop.</p>

[acedigital]

<p>You should be fine, I use an HP G60-530US laptop, Win7 with Pentium Dual Core CPUs 2.10 , 2 GB of Ram and I have no issues with Lightroom 3 and Photoshop Elements 8.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Marios, I think you missed the part with the good reasons for a laptop instead of a desktop.</p>

<p>Richard, the unsuitability of a laptop is seriously overblown. What you're looking at - an i7 with a decent hard drive and video card - is certainly good enough for almost anything. Photography apps don't require as much power as people think they do, and the video card is not a critical factor in 2D work. In actual use, the difference between a good card and a spectacular card is only noticeable in 3D. The huge turbo boost numbers on the i7-720QM make it comparable to a much faster CPU in anything single threaded, and most of what you're going to do is single threaded.</p>

<p>I've done a lot of research and testing of this stuff - I have a part time gig where I get paid to write about it. When I tested a laptop with a 720QM and a Radeon 5870 mobile, the single threaded CPU performance worked out the same as a desktop Core i7 at 2.5GHz would, and in multithreaded testing it was almost exactly equal to a 2.7GHz Core 2 Quad desktop. In OpenGL 3D display performance it edged out a desktop PC with a 2.93GHz i7 and a Quadro FX 1800. That is a seriously fast laptop.</p>

[jeff_ford]

<p>Barry - my point was grunt per $. There are other bottlenecks in a laptop if its purely a speed issue when you have a few RAW's open<br>

I second the opinion about connecting to an external monitor, kind of makes the whole portable/convenience argument a bit mute</p>

<p>But horses for courses, it all depends what the OP wants to do with his files.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>As a result, GPUs run at less-than-optimal temperatures and therefore have reduced performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Got any documentation on this?</p>

[macmoss]

<p>I carry a small hard drive with me to my office, home office, and to meetings, so using that with a laptop works really well.<br /><br />The GPU is at least as important (or more) in determining whether a laptop will do the trick. 6 gigs is plenty, as is the i7. A dedicated graphics card with as much memory as possible is a very important help. The built-in typical Intel 4500HD chipset is barely adequate.<br /><br />If you can physically test out your machine, on Windows 7, an Experience Index for Desktop Graphics of 3 is inadequate, 4 is sluggish, and 5 or better is fine.<br /><br />I always use a separate keyboard and monitor, with an extended desktop. Also it is important to create two hardware calibration profiles, one for the laptop, and another for the accessory monitor, and use the correct one for the situation in which you use the laptop.<br /><br />Given all that, I say go for it. I also have several desktops, but a high powered laptop is wonderfully versatile.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_b15]

<p>You're more than fine.</p>

<p>Have some sort of backup device, too.</p>

[lukerossknecht]

<p>get a mac mini and hook it up to your tv in the living room. Everybody wins!</p>

[norman_welsh1]

<p>I think IBM still makes a Thinkpad that is geared toward photographers. It has a built in screen calibration device and can hold 2 hard drives that can be set to RAID 0 or 1. I use a 17in. MacBook Pro with a high res screen and have been very happy with it. Neither of these solutions are cheap but they will do the job. </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>IBM stopped making ThinkPads a few years ago. They're made by Lenovo now.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Mac:<br>

<br />The GPU is hardly important at all. All you need is a fairly competent one that has adequate onboard memory instead of shared memory - which is what makes the Intel video cards bad. (Note that an Intel video card is not included in the "fairly competent" category.) To say that a laptop video card can't handle running photography apps is a bit silly, because the video card does such a small percentage of the work.</p>

<p>And regardless of how fast the GPU clock is set, a Radeon 5870 mobile is an excellent video card and can't possibly be considered inadequate for 2D work.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>If the main use of the laptop will be photo editing while in the same room as the family then how about a less expensive laptop and using it over a wireless network to remotely access the desktop, running the desktop's photo editing software remotely? You could use the destop's monitor as a 2nd display on the lap top.</p>

[jacob_kerns]

<p>I do all my image processing on a laptop this replaced my Macbook. Windows 7 64bit running - 1.66GHZ DualCore2, 4Gb Ram, 7200 harddrives in 250Gb x2 in Raid 0, Nvidia 8600 GTM 1GB , 17" 1920x 1200. External Monitor is a 30" NEC at 2500x1600. The only problem is battery life but its plugin all the time. Laptop are great for camera control. I used with my portable photography setup. It processes 12-18mp raws with no problem. I can up upgrade the processor in this laptop but I have had the need to. Photoshop cs4 and Lightroom 3 runs smooth as ice. I also have a Desktop thats twice as powerful but I haven't used in like 5months. Gateway P series FX edition or Apple macbook are the only 2 brands I use. The Gateways are the best for the price. <a href="http://www.gateway.com/systems/series/529598133.php">http://www.gateway.com/systems/series/529598133.php</a> </p>