After my desktop I need to upgrade my notebook. Can somebody tell me if an Intel i5 460M CPU is quick enough for LR 3.3 and Raw files from a 5d Mark II (I may buy a Sndy Bridge notebook eventually, but the i5 460M CPu seeems to be comparable in performance to the SB cpus that will be used in sub-notebooks)? Thanks.
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1299324540' post='6522']
After my desktop I need to upgrade my notebook. Can somebody tell me if an Intel i5 460M CPU is quick enough for LR 3.3 and Raw files from a 5d Mark II (I may buy a Sndy Bridge notebook eventually, but the i5 460M CPu seeems to be comparable in performance to the SB cpus that will be used in sub-notebooks)? Thanks.
[/quote]
The 460m is a duo core processor. LR can take advantage of multiple cores and 2 cores isn't that hot if speed is a high priority. That said a 460m is certainly sufficient.
Here's a searchable list:
[url="http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php"]http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php[/url]
The 460m is more at the low end (rank 238) as of today.
I'd go for a quad core sandy bridge.
The CPU is one thing - the screen quality is another topic. The differences are EXTREME here.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305465551' post='8330']
The 460m is a duo core processor. LR can take advantage of multiple cores and 2 cores isn't that hot if speed is a high priority. That said a 460m is certainly sufficient.
Here's a searchable list:
[url="http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php"]http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php[/url]
The 460m is more at the low end (rank 238) as of today.
I'd go for a quad core sandy bridge.
The CPU is one thing - the screen quality is another topic. The differences are EXTREME here.
[/quote]
Depends on what you want. The i5 460M (dual core) in my new Toshiba runs Lr as fast as my Q8200 (quad core) desktop from 2008.(I wasnt expecting that) The new sandy bridge are apparantly "killer" cpus, but for a secondary computer to be used on the road, I happily gave up the sandy bridge speed for a low price and more importantly low weight. This alos allows me to upgrade my home machine to Sandy bridge, which I think is much mroe useful, because this is connected to a real color calibrated EIZO screen.
The Sandy Bridge series definitely are "killer CPUs" but I would hesitate to recommend quadcores for notebooks. The quads do incredibly well in benchmark tests but what do you gain in real use? Quads draw more power than their 2-core relatives, which translates into shortened battery life and increased fan noise. In addition, when looking at the current Macbook Pro line even the "slowest" Sandy Bridge i5 2-core CPU (2.3 GHz) is significantly faster "per core" than the ultra high-end 2.3 GHz i7 quad. Hence, unless one has really frequent demand for the number crunching power only quads can deliver, one would be mostly better off with 2 cores.
05-16-2011, 07:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2011, 07:56 AM by Klaus.)
[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1305529222' post='8343']
The Sandy Bridge series definitely are "killer CPUs" but I would hesitate to recommend quadcores for notebooks. The quads do incredibly well in benchmark tests but what do you gain in real use? Quads draw more power than their 2-core relatives, which translates into shortened battery life and increased fan noise. In addition, when looking at the current Macbook Pro line even the "slowest" Sandy Bridge i5 2-core CPU (2.3 GHz) is significantly faster "per core" than the ultra high-end 2.3 GHz i7 quad. Hence, unless one has really frequent demand for the number crunching power only quads can deliver, one would be mostly better off with 2 cores.
[/quote]
It depends. You won't do massive imaging tasks on your lap anyway. I just got myself an Asus G73SW and while there is, of course, a bit of fan noise under heavy load it's not objectionable (far less than my old core2duo under load) . Admittedly this is primarily a desktop replacement and not really something "to go".
I ran the trial on an acer aspire 1810tz and seemed to run quite smoothly, even if it's 'just' a dual core..
Obviously, is not a powerhouse but LR 3 seems quite speedy compared to the previous versions.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305465551' post='8330']
The CPU is one thing - the screen quality is another topic. The differences are EXTREME here.
[/quote]
I totally agree with Klaus: what is the use of a processor fast enough for photo processing, when the screen is completely inadequate to judge the results? My Dell laptop is fast enough (for me at least, even with an old Core 2 Duo T7500), but the screen is worthless for photo processing (or viewing, and no, calibration doesn't help...).
So if you want to use your laptop for processing photos without an external monitor, my advice would be to select one with a good screen, and just take any Core i processor that fits your budget.
Thomas
I use a Toshiba Satellite L505 Intel® Core™ i3 CPU M 330 @ 1.13 GHz
Windows 64Bit and I have no issues at all running Lightroom 3. Works fine for traveling and even now and then at home when I don't feel like sitting in my office.
