How well can the i5 4200U or i7 4700U handle FHD video editing?

EDIT: 4500U not 4700U in the title

I am just wondering how well the Intel U series i5 and i7 processors can handle full 1080p video editing. I know they will be slower than the quad core i7 processors, but will it be that much slower to render or convert a 5-10 minute video?

 

Not only will they be slower (much, much slower...) they are also in a chassis that is designed to throttle them too...

Unless you can give specific models to compare, I say this is a bad idea to pursue, especially with regards to video editing.

 

To edit video you really need a quad core CPU for maximum performance. They're just optimized that way. Can you edit without one? Yes, they're also designed to give you the best of whatever your cpu can offer, you just won't be nearly as efficient.

How much slower? That depends. But really difficult to tell without a comparison but it depends on the complexity of your edit/render and its length as well as other components you have.

Typically, a quad core i5 will work very well, and is all you need except for the most complex edits.

I wouldn't worry at that level. And only if minutes are a big deal where you're from.

 

If was to just get a laptop with a dual core i7 would probably go with a Lenovo u430.

I know the quad core i7 processors would be superior but they cost a decent amount more. I am looking for a laptop for school and for video editing on the go. I spent $1200 and built a desktop last year for editing and gaming, which is the only reason I am hesitant to spend $1000 for a good laptop with a quad core i7 vs $500-$600 for an okay laptop with an i5 or i7 U processor. But from what you are saying it seems that I might as well just spend the extra $400-$500.

 

If you don't mind a refurbished laptop, for $800 you can get the Lenovo Y510p with full HD screen, i7-4700MQ and a single or dual GT750/755M.

 

You're not giving us much to work on, but if you're used to a desktop level of performance over the $1K range; I would guess you're looking at about half that performance level during your editing sessions - if/when/until the cpu is throttled because of heat issues.

It sounds like you have the budget necessary to buy what you need. I always recommend buying the most computer (platform, cpu+RAM) you can afford. It usually works out cheaper in the long run and you get the performance you require too.

Keep in mind that even spending the extra $500 or so won't get you to your desktop's level of performance - but it will go a long way towards meeting your needs without you looking at the next model a week from now.


Good luck.

 

unfortunatly the Y510p is a bit to heavy for my needs. If I was going to get a quad core I would just spend the extra bit of money and get something on the lighter side (under 5.5lbs). This would also be my laptop for college, so I will be carrying this thing around along with some text books 5 days a week from class to class. Thanks for the recomendation though!

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/wha...mpliment-my-video-editing-gaming-desktop.html

I posted that earlier today on the "what notebook should I buy" forum.

I do have the budget to afford it, but having just spent $1200 last year on my desktop for the same purpose and I just find it hard to spend that kind of money again, but it seems like what is best so I will more than likely just get a more expensive & more powerful laptop for my needs

 

I would recommend you find/make a friend with a similar notebook (at least the platform/cpu/ram combo) ask to install the Adobe product you use the most (as a trial) and see how potent you find it in your actual use.

The link you gave is very helpful, I can agree with all your choices and would recommend as much RAM as the system you end up buying can fit.

The 15.6" notebooks should generally have better thermal design choices and should allow the cpu to work without throttling (or at least work for much longer than a more compact 14" model at full power).

 

Just for comparison, I ran x264 v5.0 benchmark on both my i7-4810MQ running at max 3.2GHz and the i5-4200U at 2.4GHz.

Raw results are here:


i5-4200u:

Code:

Results for x264.exe r2200 
x264 Benchmark: 32-bit 
========================== 
 
Pass 1 
------ 
encoded 5906 frames, 23.72 fps, 7775.81 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 23.82 fps, 7775.81 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 23.46 fps, 7775.81 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 23.79 fps, 7775.81 kb/s
 
Pass 2 
------ 
encoded 5906 frames, 4.85 fps, 8004.45 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 4.84 fps, 8004.45 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 4.84 fps, 8004.45 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 4.84 fps, 8004.45 kb/s

i7-4810MQ:

Code:

Results for x264.exe r2200 
x264 Benchmark: 32-bit 
========================== 
 
Pass 1 
------ 
encoded 5906 frames, 55.23 fps, 7779.52 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 55.51 fps, 7779.52 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 55.50 fps, 7779.52 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 55.41 fps, 7779.52 kb/s
 
Pass 2 
------ 
encoded 5906 frames, 14.08 fps, 8002.16 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 14.07 fps, 8002.16 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 14.07 fps, 8002.16 kb/s
encoded 5906 frames, 14.08 fps, 8002.16 kb/s

The end result is nearly three times the performance.

 

I usually find in the 2.5 - 5 times faster with a non U/UL Chip myself depending on software. hence why I can still do dirty edits on an X230 with a full volt dual core over an ULV in another unit I have.

now assuming a 5 minute video @ 1080 and no color correction etc..... I would say you are still looking at roughly 3-4 times the rendering time on the low volt. if you are running larger apps with color correction, stabilization or filters, you can crank that to close to 9 times as long

 

Wow, thank you so much!!!! I could not find direct comparisons anywhere so this is a huge help. for 2x times the cost, 3 times the performance for what I do seems to be the way to go. Thanks so much for this.

 

Keep in mind that my i7-4810MQ was underclocked to 3.2 GHz, which is how I usually run this chip only because it runs hot in my laptop when gaming. If I tune it a bit if I just run the CPU for encoding, I can usually get it to run about 3.8GHz. A larger laptop with better cooling could run it over 4GHz no problem and obviously result in even better performance. Even the i7-4710MQ chip should be able to run at 3.7GHz with Intel XTU.

And as KCETech1 indicates overall performance could even go higher in real-world usage sceanrios. This is just one benchmark comparison, but in reality the time spent editing and encoding will be significantly less.

This is not to say you couldn't manage with a "U" CPU, but if editing is something you'll do regularly, I would highly recommend a faster CPU.

 

depending on the software and if you get into 20-30 min + maybe even a GPU to match. but that is a whole new topic for another day

 

For us mere mortals, it will do, for a multimedia goddess like yourself... well that's a whole 'nother story.