Crunching the Numbers: Desktop vs Laptop Performance

[pbalko]

<p>I'm currently working on a HP desktop with Win7 64-bit, AMD Athlon II X4 630 Processor at 2.8 GHz and 4 GB RAM. I'm quite satisfied with the computer's perfomance while simultaneously running Lightroom 3, PS CS4, and Firefox. I'm looking to pick up a laptop for tethered shooting on location and client presentation. Can I expect similar performance from a laptop with specs similar to those of my current desktop, or should I be looking for a laptop with better specs? Unless you suggest otherwise, I'll probably keep the LR catalog on the laptop hard drive and my 10,000+ image files on an external. Your thoughts, please? Thanks.</p>

[danny_low]

<p>In my experience, the minimum system for running your software well (including tethered shooting) is a dual core CPU with at least 2.4GHz speed and 8GB of RAM. You can get a laptop that meets those specs for $500 US. The main problem with laptops is getting one with a good screen. One solution is get an ipad2 and an app such as airdisplay which allows you to use the ipad as the second screen in a dual screen setup. Photoshop supports dual screens. The ipad has one of the best screens for viewing photos around. It is better than most desktop screens.</p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

[charles_wood]

<p>I would offer another alternative solution rather than an ipad, which does have an IPS screen, but I'm not sure it could be calibrated and it's simply too small for serious photo editing. I would spend the $500 on a 23-24" Dell or Asus IPS monitor with much higher resolution, a non reflective screen, and the ability to be properly calibrated.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Processor speeds should not be compared by looking at how many GHz of it's clock speed. For instance a common laptop CPU such as an Intel i7-2630QM runs at 2.0 GHz gets nearly twice as much done as that AMD Athlon II X4 630 running at 2.8 GHz. Both have 4 cores, but the somehow the Intel uses each clock stroke more efficiently. One place to compare CPU speeds is here: <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php">http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php</a></p>

<p>I have a 17" HP laptop with that Intel chip in it, along with 8GB RAM, and it runs Lightroom and CS3 quite well. Adding a Solid State HD will speed it up even more. The problem I have with the HP laptop is the so so screen that seems to be calibration resistant. Anyone have a fix for that?</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>The problem I have with the HP laptop is the so so screen that seems to be calibration resistant. Anyone have a fix for that?</em></p>

<p>I wish! The fact is laptop screens are designed to meet different needs than those of a photographer - low power consumption and narrow useable fov (for privacy). The video cards are embedded and usually less capable than those put on desktops or (better yet) work stations. I have a Lenovo W520 laptop which has a screen nearly as good as my NEC desktop monitor, but that's an exception.</p>

<p>Processing speed for image processing is not as much an issue as in the past. I leapfrog laptops and desktops, and each turn seems to give better performance than its immediate predecessor. Video is much more demanding than still processing, and my latest i7 laptop (the W520) compiles 1080p video about as fast as my 8-core HP/Xeon workstation. Disc speed helps. Both computers use eSATA drives, which have a throughput 3x as fast as Firewire 800 (150 mb/s v 50 mb/s). USB3 is theoretically 3x faster yet.</p>

<p>I use an eSATA RAID drive for image storage, and have moved the Lightroom catalog to that drive as well. While not a "net" drive, I share it with several other computers, and can physically attach it to another computer in a pinch. Internal drives fill up fast enough with things you can't store externally. With eSATA, there's no speed penalty for external connections - like SCSI, but without the thick cables.</p>

[hclim]

<p>Dell Alienware?</p>