Which machine is better?

[YellowJersey]

Hi everyone,

I have the opportunity to get a second-hand desktop from a family member that seems to have better specs than my current laptop. Before I get it, do you think it would offer a noticeable improvement? If not, I'd rather my cousin take it. Hardware is not my forte. Here's what we're looking at:

Laptop: Windows 7 Pro
16 GB RAM
Intel i7-3820QM 4 core CPU (2.70 GHz)
250 GB SSD
Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000
Total available graphics memory 1696 MB


Desktop: Windows 7 Home
6 GB RAM (will replace with 16GB)
Intel -5-24000 4 core CPU (3.10 GHz)
250 GB SSD
AMD Radeon HD 6450
Total available graphics memory 3318 MB

Would the desktop with 16GB RAM offer a noticeable improvement over my laptop? My brother doesn't seem to think so. Hardware isn't my forte.

Any thoughts?

(and yes, I realise it would make more sense to install photoshop and give it a spin. But I can't do that just yet because I'd have to do a bit of a drive to go out and pick it up)

 

[Tom Mann]

If you are working on large images, the 16 Gig laptop will be better than a 6 Gig desktop. However, since you stated that you will upgrade the desktop to 16 Gig, this is a wash.

For static images, the size of the graphics memory isn't important once you are above a certain minimum.

However, if you decide on the laptop, and are then going to use the laptop screen instead of a real monitor, that would completely override any preference for the laptop. This is because few laptop screens are as good as a real, stand-alone monitor. This is a BIG deal.

Tom M

 

[YellowJersey]

If you are working on large images, the 16 Gig laptop will be better than a 6 Gig desktop. However, since you stated that you will upgrade the desktop to 16 Gig, this is a wash.

For static images, the size of the graphics memory isn't important once you are above a certain minimum.

However, if you decide on the laptop, and are then going to use the laptop screen instead of a real monitor, that would completely override any preference for the laptop. This is because few laptop screens are as good as a real, stand-alone monitor. This is a BIG deal.

Tom M

Hi Tom, nice to see you again.

I'm using photoshop for photo editing, working on 128mb 16-bit TIFFs using the Nik plug-in suite. So mostly applying filters as new layers one on top of the other.

The external monitor I'm currently using for a dual-display with my laptop is a Samsung SyncMaster 2433LW. Do you have any knowledge of this monitor? I would like to get a better monitor, but it's not in my budget at the moment. But I'd imagine it's probably at least on par, probably a bit better, than my Lenovo laptop's 1080 display.

Right now, I'm primarily concerned with the speed. since that's factor I can control (not discounting the importance of a good monitor that's properly calibrated). While your help with my laptop woes has got photoshop running at a tolerable level, a faster workflow would make things far more convenient. I'd be throwing more RAM into the desktop anyway, but I'm primarily concerned with the processor (in this case, 400MHz additional processing power). Do you think that additional processing power would make an appreciable difference? (and I realise that's more of a guesswork kind of question not having an actual comparison available).

 

[peta62]

Hello, I think CPU is important too, especially for computing speed, but there is no information, whether those are dual cores or quad cores.

 

[CPR]

Both quad core but his is an i5 and the other one is a i7. More RAM and the i7 would be my choice.

 

[Dan_Ritchie]

The discreet video card would likely provide some extra compute oomph for features in Photoshop that use it, over the HD4000, but neither machine is really a slouch. The desktop would leave room for future upgrade and expansion if needed.