Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Clock vs Core, After Effects/Photoshop, editing

Tags:
  • Laptops
  • Photoshop
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 21, 2013 7:24:07 AM

Im looking to buy a laptop for work, mainly because they are on a budget, plus a laptop for me means I can also game on the run. Anyway, Im constrained about what spec I should be looking for, when it comes to reasonably fast rendering and editing with a lot of layers and complexities in After Effects/photoshop, which is better? Multiple Cores (quad core) or clock speed? I would be gaming on it too, but It'l be a 15 inch laptop, nothing crazy res wise.

More about : clock core effects photoshop editing

a c 96 à CPUs
November 21, 2013 7:28:04 AM

If a few minutes makes a big difference to you or your work then you almost have to buy an i7 laptop. (only way to get a quad core in an intel laptop). The mhz help, sure the more the faster but the cores will do wonders for you as well. If I remember the haswell naming scheme correctly, just stay away from any processor that ends in U (as this mean hella slow lol) I think it probably means lower power consuption, but they are very slow generally.
m
0
l
November 21, 2013 7:37:51 AM

Supahos said:
If a few minutes makes a big difference to you or your work then you almost have to buy an i7 laptop. (only way to get a quad core in an intel laptop). The mhz help, sure the more the faster but the cores will do wonders for you as well. If I remember the haswell naming scheme correctly, just stay away from any processor that ends in U (as this mean hella slow lol) I think it probably means lower power consuption, but they are very slow generally.
Thanks for the reply, heres the processor, intel core i7 quad core mobile processor i7-4900MQ 2.8ghz 8mb, combined with 16gb 1600mhz ram, 770gtx gpu, and of course a 250gb 6gb/s ssd, think that'll be good? Or would a dual core with a higher clock be better?

m
0
l
Related resources
a c 96 à CPUs
November 21, 2013 7:42:13 AM

For what you're trying to the i7 will eat up any dual core mobile processor. You have to remember its not really 2.8 ghz, its 3.8 as long as its plugged in and its not running hot.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75131/


I don't know what i5 you were looking at but I bet it can't be that much faster :) 
m
0
l
November 21, 2013 7:48:26 AM

Supahos said:
For what you're trying to the i7 will eat up any dual core mobile processor. You have to remember its not really 2.8 ghz, its 3.8 as long as its plugged in and its not running hot.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75131/


I don't know what i5 you were looking at but I bet it can't be that much faster :) 
Wow hold the phone, how does it go up to 3.8ghz? You say if its just plugged in??? Do I have to go into the bios and change the clock frequency? O_o.

m
0
l
a c 96 à CPUs
November 21, 2013 7:52:42 AM

No its called turbo boost. If the temps are good at the moment, and the load requires it (like say rendering pictures) it will automatically "OC" itsself up to 3.8 ghz until the need for that speed is gone. No changes are needed on your end. Most laptops won't turbo boost on battery (as this would certainly drain the battery quickly) but even then 2.8 ghz of hyperthreaded haswell cores will chew up the work in front of it.
m
0
l
November 21, 2013 8:06:45 AM

Supahos said:
No its called turbo boost. If the temps are good at the moment, and the load requires it (like say rendering pictures) it will automatically "OC" itsself up to 3.8 ghz until the need for that speed is gone. No changes are needed on your end. Most laptops won't turbo boost on battery (as this would certainly drain the battery quickly) but even then 2.8 ghz of hyperthreaded haswell cores will chew up the work in front of it.
Just curious, and that is awesome by the way, thanks for that info, for over 200 euro less, I can get the little brother, 2.4 ghz 4700MQ, it says it OCs to 3.4ghz, I know the 2.8 is better, but overall comparing the two, would there be that noticeable of a difference? Thanks

m
0
l
a c 96 à CPUs
November 21, 2013 8:17:28 AM

Assuming exchage rates are similar to what I remember (1.8~2 US$ per euro) then heck no get the 4700MQ there won't be a massive difference between the two and that is a pretty good chunk of change for the upgrade. If you were doing massive video renders, or made a living playing computer games (not sure why you would choose a laptop if either of those were the case) I would say get the 4800, but I think you'll notice very little, to no difference with a 400 mhz lower clock speed.
m
0
l
November 21, 2013 8:20:17 AM

Supahos said:
Assuming exchage rates are similar to what I remember (1.8~2 US$ per euro) then heck no get the 4700MQ there won't be a massive difference between the two and that is a pretty good chunk of change for the upgrade. If you were doing massive video renders, or made a living playing computer games (not sure why you would choose a laptop if either of those were the case) I would say get the 4800, but I think you'll notice very little, to no difference with a 400 mhz lower clock speed.
hehe... whats a massive video render?? Ill give you an example of what I worked with, all in all, 30 something layers, each layer having multiple parts, moving animations, along with a 3-4 minute render time, always, I mean always at a res of 1080p/1200p. And oh the 2.8ghz one was the 4900, the 4800 is 2.7ghz and the 4700 is the 2.4ghz

m
0
l
a c 96 à CPUs
November 21, 2013 8:22:04 AM

What are you using to render with now? I can try and eyeball guess to see how it stacks up.
m
0
l
a c 96 à CPUs
November 21, 2013 8:36:16 AM

Only thing that makes me laugh is the whole "laptops direct" site selling you a desktop :) 

The laptop should actually be a bit faster than your desktop which is not a thing you can often say with a relatively new, relatively high end desktop. I highly suspect between the SSD, additional memory, and I7's hyperthreading you'll end up not using that desktop anymore... It should cut render times down for you some actually


PS: read my signature That computer isn't all that far from mine... I have a 3.1 (3.5 turbo boost after bios changes) I5 ivy bridge, (I do have 16 gb of memory) however.


Nothing wrong with your pc and your laptop should run step for step with it and faster in most things.
m
0
l
!