PC Laptop Processor Question

I'm searching for a new notebook and am wondering what the minimum processor would be for running CS2. I need it just for field work. My main editing is done on a desktop at home. I know "fast" is subjective. I just don't want to have to go get a cup of coffee while an image loads.

Thanks!

Chris

Hi Chris,

This is totally subjective. I have a 1.6ghz Centrino that I think works acceptably with my 1DsII. I don't process a lot of raw files on my laptop - why do that if you have a machine at home w/ a calibrated monitor? What I do use it for a LOT is image browsing - using Breezebrowser. It's fast enough to do that.

What is more important is that you have the RAM to run Photoshop. Get as much as you can - it has a far larger effect on your PS2 performance. I believe XP can use up to 2 gigs of RAM and Vista can use 4

HTH

James

Hi Chris,

 

This is totally subjective. I have a 1.6ghz Centrino that I think works acceptably with my 1DsII. I don't process a lot of raw files on my laptop - why do that if you have a machine at home w/ a calibrated monitor? What I do use it for a LOT is image browsing - using Breezebrowser. It's fast enough to do that.

 

What is more important is that you have the RAM to run Photoshop. Get as much as you can - it has a far larger effect on your PS2 performance. I believe XP can use up to 2 gigs of RAM and Vista can use 4

 

HTH

James

James-

I run 4 gigs on my desktop and it works great. My reason for needing PS2 on the laptop is for a trip I'm taking that involves a photo contest and I need to edit in the field. There are no machines at the resort with PS and I'll need to take one. I'm thinking XP and 2 gigs on the notebook will do the trick with a Intel Dual Core at 1.8 ghz or faster if I can afford it.

Chris

Might as well make sure it has a Core2Duo CPU in it and makes sure you have like 256 megs of graphic power to drive the screen. Vista can handle more ram but it is power hungry as well in terms of how much CPU and ram it uses and will suck the battery down faster. ie a battery that lasts 4 hours with XP will only last 3 hours with Vista.

You can turn off all the fancy graphics though to have it looking like Windows 98 kind of thing which will give you more power to run programs.

Might as well make sure it has a Core2Duo CPU in it and makes sure you have like 256 megs of graphic power to drive the screen. Vista can handle more ram but it is power hungry as well in terms of how much CPU and ram it uses and will suck the battery down faster. ie a battery that lasts 4 hours with XP will only last 3 hours with Vista.

 

You can turn off all the fancy graphics though to have it looking like Windows 98 kind of thing which will give you more power to run programs.

The "Vista eats batteries faster than XP" contention is not really accurate. With the same apps running on both OS'es there will be very little difference. Vista itself is smart enough to put most background processes (search indexing, defrag, etc) into idle mode when running on battery power. Some PC makers loaded early systems with a bunch of poorly chosen apps that did tend to use more background CPU resources. (Google, Norton, Vongo...) Most of them have improved at this point, and you can uninstall most of the "craplets" that come pre-installed on new systems to avoid most problems. Some of the latest Dell machines are pretty craplet free already.

Turning of the nice graphics in Vista will slow down snappiness the display, but it will free up memory. If you have 2GB or more memory this should be a non-issue. Contrary to lots of noise on the Net, the Aero Glass graphics in Vista have about 1% impact on battery power. (See http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesk...vista_aero.html or http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsv...tery-life.aspx)

I agree that a Core2 cpu, 2+ GB of Ram, and an ATI or Nvidia 256 MB video option is your best best. I've been really happy with the HP DV6000, and Lenovo X61 notebooks.

Dave

The "Vista eats batteries faster than XP" contention is not really accurate. With the same apps running on both OS'es there will be very little difference. Vista itself is smart enough to put most background processes (search indexing, defrag, etc) into idle mode when running on battery power. Some PC makers loaded early systems with a bunch of poorly chosen apps that did tend to use more background CPU resources. (Google, Norton, Vongo...) Most of them have improved at this point, and you can uninstall most of the "craplets" that come pre-installed on new systems to avoid most problems. Some of the latest Dell machines are pretty craplet free already.

 

Turning of the nice graphics in Vista will slow down snappiness the display, but it will free up memory. If you have 2GB or more memory this should be a non-issue. Contrary to lots of noise on the Net, the Aero Glass graphics in Vista have about 1% impact on battery power. (See http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesk...vista_aero.html or http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsv...tery-life.aspx)

 

I agree that a Core2 cpu, 2+ GB of Ram, and an ATI or Nvidia 256 MB video option is your best best. I've been really happy with the HP DV6000, and Lenovo X61 notebooks.

 

Dave

Your choice will depend on your budget and size preference. The larger the screen, the better the resolution, the less portable is the machine. I use a 15.4" sxga+ screen 1680x1050 resolution, I prefer matte screens. An average 15.4" weighs in about 6.5-7.5 pounds. Mine is about 7 pounds. 17" screens weigh about 8-9 pounds. 13" screens weigh about 4 pounds. A core 2 duo processor above 2Ghx speed is better, you really don't need the fastest one out, but it would extend the usefulness of the Laptop, a T 13-7500 would do fine. Memory is at a minimum 2GB. Xp can only handle 2 GB, Vista more,. current 32 bit vista operating systems are capped at 3 GB, 64 bit versions can use 4 GB or more (currently laptops max out at 4GB). 64 bit operating systems are difficult to get all programs and drivers for at this time. There may be a patch comming out for 32 bit systems to allow > 3 GB memory. DO not get integrated video card, ie intel graphics accelerator, instead you need a dedicated videocard with as much video memory as you can find. 7200rpm stat 2 hard drives will speed up your processing. CS3 is better than cs2. hope this helps. My new computer is a comapl ifl90, aka sager 2090, aka powerpro 10.15. check out powernotebooks.com.

Chris,

I have an old ThinkPad T42 (1.7GHz w/ 512 RAM) and I have run CS2 on it without much difficulty. The only time it would bogg down was when loading multiple pictures or applying certain filters.

Any current system should be able to handle it without much difficulty, but as most others have said more RAM is always better.

On the Vista vs. XP front, you might as well get Vista as that is the standard with most new systems. You can always just blank the hard drive an install XP if Vista is giving you problems, but having Vista will give you some future proofing.

"the minimum processor would be for running CS2" I just upgraded from a Pentium IV to a Core 2 duo. I didn't notice any speed difference after the upgrade while running CS2 by just changing to a new MB and processor. When I went from 1G to 2G of RAM there was a noticable difference in speed.

Thanks for all of your help. Now I just need to find the best place online to build my machine. Dell charges too much for their upgrades. Maybe I'll try Sager....

Thanks for all of your help. Now I just need to find the best place online to build my machine. Dell charges too much for their upgrades. Maybe I'll try Sager....

If you just want to add memory. Search ebay with for memory for you model. I upgraded the memory on my Dell 9100 that way. It's easy and much cheaper.