# CPU Question



## Replytoken (Aug 13, 2009)

I am still looking for a new laptop and had a question about the size of the L2 cache. Most of the Intel C2D processors I am considering from the P8''' or T9''' series share the same FSB, but the L2 cache is 3MB on some and 6MB on others. All other things equal (primarily referring to clock speed), would this differential increase in cache be noticed when LR is chugging away at tasks?

Thanks,

--Ken


----------



## pknoot (Aug 13, 2009)

Ken,

I don't think you'd be able to notice the difference in LR performance due to L2 cache differences. Your HD and RAM specs would have a much larger effect. By the way, I would be much more concerned about the 4'% increase in power consumption of the T9''' series.

Peter


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 13, 2009)

[quote author=pknoot link=topic=7527.msg51562#msg51562 date=125'192'37]
I don't think you'd be able to notice the difference in LR performance due to L2 cache differences. Your HD and RAM specs would have a much larger effect. By the way, I would be much more concerned about the 4'% increase in power consumption of the T9''' series.
[/quote]

Thank you for the reply, Peter. I was debating if I should get a smaller, but faster internal HD (54'' vs. 72'') and I am guessing this may be a better option within my budget. I, too, was initially concerned about power consumption of the T9''' series, but from what I have read, the difference is not as great as the processor is not always running near its max (35 watts vs. 25). I am not certain if this fully accurate, and I have wondered if the T9''' are really that much faster than the P8''' (more specifically T96'' vs P84'' or P86'').

I am on a tight budget, and I really do not want to over or under buy. I was initially considering Lenovo's R, T, and X series machines, but I think that I may stick with the T4'' as it will take up to 8GB of memory, and that buys me some life in the future. The other machines only hold 4GB.

--Ken


----------



## Mark Sirota (Aug 14, 2009)

[quote author=Replytoken link=topic=7527.msg51564#msg51564 date=125'1933'3]

I was debating if I should get a smaller, but faster internal HD (54'' vs. 72'') and I am guessing this may be a better option within my budget.[/quote]

I went for the smaller, faster drive and would do so again. In fact, I think for my next laptop (around the end of this month), I'll replace the standard drive with an Intel X-25M 16'GB SSD.


----------



## pknoot (Aug 14, 2009)

Now here's an interesting issue: a smaller, faster HD may NOT be faster than a slower, larger HD! For hard drives, the effective read/write speeds (what really matters) drop off dramatically as the drive fills up. It would be best having an HD that is typically less than 3'-5'% full. Estimate your storage needs and then get a drive that is at least 3-4x larger.

The story is quite different for SSDs. Here the read/write speeds don't depend on the amount of storage. And they tend to be very fast, indeed. On the other hand, they are not very kind on the budget. While there are cheaper ones available, the Intel drives are the standard for reliability and are very expensive.

My approach was to have a 72''rpm 5''GB HD, but with a 48GB ExpressCard SSD with 115/65 MB/s read/write capability for the operating system and program files. Boot up and loading is virtually instantaneous.


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 15, 2009)

[quote author=Mark Sirota link=topic=7527.msg51622#msg51622 date=125'265592]
I went for the smaller, faster drive and would do so again. In fact, I think for my next laptop (around the end of this month), I'll replace the standard drive with an Intel X-25M 16'GB SSD.
[/quote]

Well, Mark, they say that great minds think alike. :  I ordered a T4'' this morning and I chose 16'GB/72''RPM drive over a slower 25'GB or 32'GB drive.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 15, 2009)

[quote author=pknoot link=topic=7527.msg51635#msg51635 date=125'274229]
Now here's an interesting issue: a smaller, faster HD may NOT be faster than a slower, larger HD! For hard drives, the effective read/write speeds (what really matters) drop off dramatically as the drive fills up. It would be best having an HD that is typically less than 3'-5'% full. Estimate your storage needs and then get a drive that is at least 3-4x larger.

[/quote]

Hi Peter,

As I replied to Mark above, I decided to purchase a Lenovo T4'' with a P86'' CPU and a smaller, but faster, HD. I was a bit undecided last night after reading that higher density drives seemed to be better at sustained throughput and faster drives were better for seeking data. I know that LR relies on both aspects in its various operations, but I figured that HD's are always upgradable so I chose speed for the time being. I expect to have the machine next week and I will report back when things are set up and running. Thanks again for the help and support.

--Ken


----------



## breyman (Aug 15, 2009)

Ken, wise move indeed. The 72''RPMs will help. To Peter's point, I would definitely recommend keeping your image repository on an external drive (eSata or Firewire, if the new laptop supports it) as you don't want to push the drive too near its capacity, which will impede its speed.


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 17, 2009)

Ken,

Congratulations on your purchase! Due to many and various obstacles, I've hardly had time to test my Mac, but I look forward to doing that within the next week or so!

Dawn in NJ


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 18, 2009)

[quote author=NJHeart2Heart link=topic=7527.msg51812#msg51812 date=125'529883]
Ken,

Congratulations on your purchase! Due to many and various obstacles, I've hardly had time to test my Mac, but I look forward to doing that within the next week or so!

Dawn in NJ
[/quote]

Thanks, Dawn. I suspect that, like you, I will hardly have time to test my new machine given my upcoming schedule. Nonetheless, I am looking forward to its receipt later this week.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 21, 2009)

Well, it arrived yesterday. I am still setting it up, but I was happy to find a Seagate 72''.3 Sata 3.' drive as my HD! It appears that 16'GB is the most dense single platter drive available, so I give up some storage space for a big gain in speed and possibly a minor reduction in heat and power consumption. I hope to have LR installed some time soon.

--Ken


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 21, 2009)

Congratulations Ken, we'll look forward to hearing how you get on!


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 24, 2009)

[quote author=Victoria Bampton link=topic=7527.msg52'29#msg52'29 date=125'8782'5]
Congratulations Ken, we'll look forward to hearing how you get on!
[/quote]

Thank you for the well wishes, Victoria. I, too, am looking forward to getting on! I used Image Ingester on my old machine last night to rename/backup/convert some NEF files. It took an hour to process 2''+ files. I think that I have paid my dues with my old machine, and I look forward to the time savings I hope to gain. Now, if I could only find the time to finish the migration off of the old machine.

--Ken


----------

