Video Editing on 13.3" Laptop Processors

Hello. I'm buying a 13.3" (or 13.1") laptop soon and one of my concerns is that I willbe doing some light video editing in the form of ripping raw video from Mini DV and then authoring it onto DVD. There will be minimal actual cut and chop editing involved, though I will still need to have the option of doing some of that. Maybe some compression and encoding as well. I've never owned a laptop, nor done any video work, so I'd like some advice.

My question is: between the various processors available right now, how drastic a performance difference am I going to see between the Intel P7350, P8400, and P8600?

(In case it changes how you answer, I'm mostly looking at Sony and Lenovo laptops)

 

You won't notice a huge difference since all three processors have the same bus speed, same amount of L2 Cache, same TDP and small differences in frequency. The P7350 has more than enough power to do video-editing and stuff. But it actually depends upon the price difference, whether you should upgrade or not.

I guess if you can upgrade to the P8400 for about $50, go for it.

EDIT: Ok, I really suck at math, but I'll give it a try. Comparing the P7350 and the P8600, only in terms of CPU frequency, the P8600 will provide a performance boost by about 16%. So if encoding/editing a video with the P7350 takes about 60 minutes, you'll probably save yourself 9 minutes doing the same stuff with the P8600 (16% peformance gain, 60 min task done in 51 min with the P8600).

(I don't know if I am right, but the P7350 will be a good choice unless you are not into hardcore editing/encoding)

 

I don't think you would notice a difference at all. They are all Penryn-3M chips with the only difference being the speeds, between 2GHz and 2.4Ghz.

 

Thanks for the answers, guys. And thanks for coming back with some math, Andy, that's very helpful!

 

Go with the Lenovo if you are going to be bringint it around from place to place, cause they have a much better build than sony laptops.
If you are looking for style, than go with the Sony.
What you are also forgetting about is harddrive. The harddrive plays a huge role in video editing, You will really see a difference in performance from say a 160gb 5400rpm drive and a 160gb 7200rpm drive.
If you have the option, look for a 320gb 7200rpm drive, cause they are the fastest mechanical harddrives at the moment, and they will really help speed everything up. With these drives, personally look for the Hitachi 7k320 (160 and 320gb versions), and the Western digital (160 and 320gb 7200rpm drive).
The seagate ones are good, but they are the slowest of the 320gb 7200 drives.

You also want to have about 3gb of memory, and a decent graphcis card. Basically an 8400GS or better. Integrated graphics solutions are terrible, and you will want discrete video when doing video/photo editing.
A good resolution screen is also nice, so try to get the highest for that category, which I think is 1280x800.

Also dont forget the Dell XPS1330, its also a very nice 13.3" system. It has better processor options. The XPS 1330 with a T9300/T9500 will blow away the processors you mentioned. Video editing needs alot of processing power, and the more you have the merrier.

K-TRON

 

Math? 2.4Ghz is a 20% increase in clocks from 2Ghz.

1 hour with 2Ghz would take 50 minutes with 2.4Ghz if clocks are all that matter for speed.

.4/2=20% 60 min/1.2=50min

Math is not my strength but that is what I get.

All CPU's mentioned would work. GPU's not so important for your task.

 

Exactly the difference will be .4 Ghz you would probably notice it to be a bit faster if its only a little bit more go for the faster one

 

when I do video editing, I usually have it running across two huge 30" crt monitors, so you need a good graphics card to run large screens without lag.
Even when you so video editing, you will also need to do lots of photoshop and such, so I say you need a video card. It doesnt have to be all that powerful, so even the 8400GS will be fine.

What really makes a difference is processing power, and you should look at a 2.4 Ghz or faster dual core. However dont spend ridiculous amounts on say the X9000 or something of that nature, cause the performance increase is not worth the $1000 of the processor.

K-TRON

 

Uowwh..!! I definitely suck at math

I was doin' [0.4/2.4 * 100] = 16.66666 %

Sh*t Man.

 

Andy you don't suck at math it does get confusing. You derived a correct number. It is just in stating what that number is that it gets confusing at least for me.

Totally off point but math. When I was in physical therapy and they increased the weight from 80lbs to 100lbs. 25% increase. Well it was heavy. I said lets reduce it 20% (20lbs) I will still be 5% ahead? In my logic I go from 80lbs to 100lbs back to 80lbs and gain 5%? That is were much confusion comes in for us simple folk. I would in my uneducated way say it is "what is the object" or numerator/denominator.

You can do the equation your way but it would be 2/2.4=.8333 (17%) .833*60=50min?

Andy I am bored?

 

You can get the Sony SR with 2.8GHz 6MB cache. That would be nice for heavy video editing. (that CPU will affect battery life though)

But the job you describe, ripping from Mini DV to harddisk, I think you also need a fast hard drive. Don't forget that.

 

Actually, isn't transfer from miniDV to laptop real-time? Even with a 10k rpm hard drive, you're still limited by the fact that the transfer of a 1-hour tape will take 1 hour. I do miniDV transfers on my 5400 rpm HDD without any problems.

As for burning DVDs, it would be more dependent on your DVD burner. Laptops just can't go over x8 if I'm not mistaken.

The compression/encoding is where the actual CPU will matter and the previous advice will come in handy.

 

I think you are right. I forgot the limiting factor of Mini DV transfer.