Specific options: are they worth it?

[videobruce]

I'm looking for a replacement Laptop. My uses/needs are;
1. Limited photo editing (no Photoshop though). Crop, resize, color correction etc,
2. Internet surfing,
3. Some letter/text composition,
4. HD video from a external USB tuner (unless I can find a decent express card tuner),
5. 1600 (or 1440) x 900 resolution on a 15.6" screen (17.3 is just too large I believe).
6. Gaming really isn't a issue, though I would like some capability.

I have come to discover my only choice are these lousy TN panels which suck AFAIC for viewing angles. I didn't want to go into a 17" screen as it is just a little to large. I also don't want a 768 panel either. What bother me is to get this I have to pay around $300 more for a 'custom' built Laptop where as I could get a stock 17" screen with the higher resolution for less. :twisted:

Anyway, here are my questions;

1. Processor; Is a AMD M600 worth $90 over a stock M320? Or, is a Intel i5-520M worth $150 over a i3-330M considering HD video is important?
2. Storage; Is a slightly larger 7200rpm HDD worth $50 over a 5400rpm drive?
3. Graphics: Is separate graphics worth $100 over integrated since gaming isn't a big deal to me?

Do I understand correctly that HD encoding/decoding is a function of the processor and gaming is a function of the graphics chipset?

 

[corkyg]

Anyway, here are my questions;

1. Processor; Is a AMD M600 worth $90 over a stock M320? Or, is a Intel i5-520M worth $150 over a i3-330M considering HD video is important?
2. Storage; Is a slightly larger 7200rpm HDD worth $50 over a 5400rpm drive?
3. Graphics: Is separate graphics worth $100 over integrated since gaming isn't a big deal to me?

Do I understand correctly that HD encoding/decoding is a function of the processor and gaming is a function of the graphics chipset?
__________________
Copyright protection & Intellectual property my ass. All the studios want is more money & control.

1. For me, the Intel I5 is worth the $150.
2. I find the 7200 RPM HDD to be far superior to a 5400.
3. Not being a gamer, I would not buy the discrete graphics.

Are you willing to work for nothing?

 

[videobruce]

For #1 & 2, why?
For #3, I'm surprised at your response considered how you responded to the first two.

Are you willing to work for nothing?

And that has to do with this thread, how??

 

[Brainonska511]

I
Anyway, here are my questions;

1. Processor; Is a AMD M600 worth $90 over a stock M320? Or, is a Intel i5-520M worth $150 over a i3-330M considering HD video is important?
2. Storage; Is a slightly larger 7200rpm HDD worth $50 over a 5400rpm drive?
3. Graphics: Is separate graphics worth $100 over integrated since gaming isn't a big deal to me?

Do I understand correctly that HD encoding/decoding is a function of the processor and gaming is a function of the graphics chipset?

1. Processor - go for the i5. Definitely worth it over the AMD chip; more power efficient and faster.
2. 7200 RPM drives are faster. The hard drive, particularly in laptops, can be a big performance bottleneck. (They also do not eat battery life or produce more heat)
3. Stick with the integrated graphics. They are more than enough for HD encoding/decoding.

 

[videobruce]

go for the i5. Definitely worth it over the AMD chip

The choices were AMD vs AMD or Intel vs Intel. Two different laptops (HP or Toshiba).

The hard drive, particularly in laptops, can be a big performance bottleneck.

Anyone else chime in here?

Separate graphics only come into play when it comes to gaming??

 

[corkyg]

For #1 & 2, why?
For #3, I'm surprised at your response considered how you responded to the first two.And that has to do with this thread, how??

1. In laptops, Intel processors are nominally faster, run cooler, and use less power.

2. Because 7200 rpm drives significantly out perform 5400s. Been there - done that.

Not really. Integrated graphics are just fine for normal work and graphics editing. Gamers like fast, high res responseiveness. As for the final comment - it relates to your signature which is part of your thread.

 

[videobruce]

In laptops, Intel processors are nominally faster, run cooler, and use less power.

I understand that, but the questions were between the choices among the respective processors. Is the upgrade worth it?

As for the final comment - it relates to your signature which is part of your thread.

I fail to see the connection. Compared to want the top 10% make, I do work for nothing.

 

[Brainonska511]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

AMD Turion II Ultra M600
3dMark06 CPU: 1905
Relative Ranking: 80

AMD Athlon II M320
3dMark06 CPU: ~1500 (based on the processor below it and above it)
Relative Ranking: 122

Intel Core i5 520M
3dMark06 CPU: 2730
Relative Ranking: 22

Intel Core i3 330M
3dMark06 CPU: 2199
Relative Ranking: 45

Based on that alone, I'd say go for the Intel system with the i5. The i5 has the same TDP as the i3, except the i5 also has turbo-boost for when the processor is running at under its TDP (which will accelerate single-threaded tasks). Is there a way to get the i5-430M instead of the i5-520M? It would be a good upgrade at a lower cost.

I don't know if the upgrade would be worth it for the AMD system. It probably would. You get a faster FSB, more L2/L3 cache, higher frequency, and same TDP.


Side-note:

I fail to see the connection. Compared to want the top 10% make, I do work for nothing.

If you're going to make statements like this, please don't lump the top 10% together. You should really lump the top 0.1% together (the ultra-rich, living on passive income). The top 10% excluding the top 0.1% are the people in upper management, doctors, lawyers, other working professionals... They are certainly well off, but they are not the people hitting it big. And your sig is kind of stupid. Yes, copyright and patent laws need reforming, but that doesn't mean we should do away with them completely. Of course the creators want control over their products, that's the point of the laws.

 

[poofyhairguy]

My vote:

For what you do an i3 is fast enough and integrated graphics are good enough. The real bottleneck on a modern computer is i/o and most of the tasks you are doing (web browsing photo editing) can be improved by an I/O boost.

If you want the best bang for your buck, stick with the i3, the integrated GPU, and the crappy HD. Throw away the crappy HD upon getting the computer and combine $200-$300 you are considering for upgrades and buy yourself a decent SSD drive instead.

Enjoy longer battery life, improved web browsing performance, and a computer that actually feels like it came from 2010.