New CPU in a laptop?

InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
edited September 24, 2009 in Digital Darkroom
I have a 2 year old Dell XPS M1530. It came from the factory with 2GBRAM, 150GB HD, a Dual Core CPU running at 1.66Ghz.

I've got CS4, and will be leaving the country. I'm wondering how much of a difference a new CPU will make?

I ran a task using the old specs and CS4, and it took a hair over 13 minutes, I upgraded the RAM to 4GB (only 3.5 shows up on my Vista, ok by me) and the job took just under 10 minutes.

Will I be able to shave off more time by installing a T9300 Dual Core CPU, running at 2.5 Ghz?

I'm also installing a new 320GBHD, so I'll be able to set up a scratch disk and all of that stuff.

I know that everyone says, upgrade RAM. Well I maxed that out. Is it worth doing the CPU? A new laptop is outof the question right now.


Oh, FYI, the task I ran was to pull up 6 photos in LR2, and merge them to HDR in Photoshop, hit ok, and hit save. The photos were saved on an external hard drive, which I know isn't optimal, but considering that my internal HD is 50% full, and thats after deleting or moving anything I could find. I'll be reinstalling the OS with a new HD, and will be able to store a few photos onboard in the future.

Comments

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited September 14, 2009
    I have a 2 year old Dell XPS M1530. It came from the factory with 2GBRAM, 150GB HD, a Dual Core CPU running at 1.66Ghz.

    I've got CS4, and will be leaving the country. I'm wondering how much of a difference a new CPU will make?

    I ran a task using the old specs and CS4, and it took a hair over 13 minutes, I upgraded the RAM to 4GB (only 3.5 shows up on my Vista, ok by me) and the job took just under 10 minutes.

    Will I be able to shave off more time by installing a T9300 Dual Core CPU, running at 2.5 Ghz?

    I'm also installing a new 320GBHD, so I'll be able to set up a scratch disk and all of that stuff.

    I know that everyone says, upgrade RAM. Well I maxed that out. Is it worth doing the CPU? A new laptop is outof the question right now.

    I would save up for a new machine instead. You have already done the cheap upgrade with memory. Beyond that, you tend to get diminishing returns--a faster CPU will help some, but then you'll find a bottleneck with memory or system bus speed. You might want to consider moving to a 64-bit OS so you can take advantage of the full 4GB. ne_nau.gif
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2009
    Richard wrote:
    I would save up for a new machine instead. You have already done the cheap upgrade with memory. Beyond that, you tend to get diminishing returns--a faster CPU will help some, but then you'll find a bottleneck with memory or system bus speed. You might want to consider moving to a 64-bit OS so you can take advantage of the full 4GB. ne_nau.gif

    Yeah, maybe when Windows 7 will come out.

    See, I thought I read somewhere that there will be a new USB3 coming out, and if this release is imminent (like definately in the next 12 months) then I'd rather just wait until after it comes out.

    My goal is to stretch this laptop another 2 years, or until it falls apart.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited September 14, 2009
    Yeah, maybe when Windows 7 will come out.

    See, I thought I read somewhere that there will be a new USB3 coming out, and if this release is imminent (like definately in the next 12 months) then I'd rather just wait until after it comes out.

    My goal is to stretch this laptop another 2 years, or until it falls apart.

    The first USB 3 implementations are expected in 2010. As with everything else technology related, I would avoid the first implementations, as the second round will probably work better. So another two years would be perfect if you can swing it.
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 14, 2009
    Richard wrote:
    The first USB 3 implementations are expected in 2010. As with everything else technology related, I would avoid the first implementations, as the second round will probably work better. So another two years would be perfect if you can swing it.


    Thanks. I'll do that I think. I hear its supposed to be pretty fast, and I can live with my laptop for another year or 2.
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2009
    Well, I put the new 2.5Ghz CPU into my laptop, as well as a new 320GB had, which I partitioned so that 40GB was set aside. I set this as the scratch disk for photoshop. My photos are currently stored on an external USB 500GB hd (and backed up on 3 other HD's, actually). By the way, the internal HD is a 7200RPM; the origional, 160GB drive was only a 5400RPM drive.

    THe previously mentioned task took less than 5 minutes.

    Its of course questionable which made more a difference: The fresh install on a faster HD with a scratch disk set up, or the CPU.


    But I'd say my PC is now litterally twice as fast (in one bench mark at least) so I'm pretty happy.
  • cmasoncmason Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2009
    There is a sizable difference between a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. Not clear which yours is, but the Core 2 Duo is often seen providing 30% or more better performance, depending on app.

    Theoretically one can swap a Core Duo with Core 2 Duo as Core 2 is backward compatible and uses same connectors, but it is likely there will be some more significant impacts from the bridges on the motherboard.
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2009
    cmason wrote:
    There is a sizable difference between a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. Not clear which yours is, but the Core 2 Duo is often seen providing 30% or more better performance, depending on app.

    Theoretically one can swap a Core Duo with Core 2 Duo as Core 2 is backward compatible and uses same connectors, but it is likely there will be some more significant impacts from the bridges on the motherboard.

    Oh sorry, I started with Core 2 Duo, and just got a bigger, faster one.
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited September 22, 2009
    You weren't helped by your HDD upgrade unless you also upgraded to a faster drive.* Having a scratch disk as a separate partition on the same drive can actually slow things down just a tad. Scratch disk on a separate physical drive is a good thing; scratch disk on a separate partition on the same physical drive isn't really much help.

    The improved time is likely do to the fresh install and the faster CPU.


    * Off topic: I noticed yesterday that Best Buy has a 7200RPM notebook hard drive (320GB, I think) for $109. That seemed like a deal to me.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited September 23, 2009
    Pupator wrote:
    You weren't helped by your HDD upgrade unless you also upgraded to a faster drive.* Having a scratch disk as a separate partition on the same drive can actually slow things down just a tad. Scratch disk on a separate physical drive is a good thing; scratch disk on a separate partition on the same physical drive isn't really much help.

    The improved time is likely do to the fresh install and the faster CPU.


    * Off topic: I noticed yesterday that Best Buy has a 7200RPM notebook hard drive (320GB, I think) for $109. That seemed like a deal to me.

    InsuredDisaster's post stated that he upgraded to a faster drive. You're correct that creating a separate logical drive on the same physical drive offers no benefit at all, though the fresh install may have resulted in contiguous swap space, which is a good thing. I recently replaced my C: drive with a 7200 RPM model (the old 5400 RPM died) but I can't say that I have noticed any performance improvement in CS3. It did improve my backup time just a bit, as the external drive is also 7200.
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited September 23, 2009
    Richard wrote:
    InsuredDisaster's post stated that he upgraded to a faster drive.

    Doh, I'd missed that but see it now! 11doh.gif!
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited September 24, 2009
    Pupator wrote:
    You weren't helped by your HDD upgrade unless you also upgraded to a faster drive.* Having a scratch disk as a separate partition on the same drive can actually slow things down just a tad. Scratch disk on a separate physical drive is a good thing; scratch disk on a separate partition on the same physical drive isn't really much help. .


    Seperate than install? See, the photos come off of an external disc, but photoshop is installed on the internal HD. So if PS must be on a seperate disc, than no, I haven't got the best scrach disk. But if photos and scratch disk must be on seperate drives, then I've got that covered.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited September 24, 2009
    Seperate than install? See, the photos come off of an external disc, but photoshop is installed on the internal HD. So if PS must be on a seperate disc, than no, I haven't got the best scrach disk. But if photos and scratch disk must be on seperate drives, then I've got that covered.

    Unless your external disk is connected by an eSATA interface, you will get better performance if your photos are loaded and stored from the internal drive. Keep in mind we're talking about a difference of milliseconds here, so if it's more convenient for the workflow to have them on the external drive, then don't worry about it. The single most important thing you can do to optimize PS performance is have enough RAM available that you rarely hit the swap file. Everything else is just icing on the cake.
Sign In or Register to comment.