M4800 - Best CPU choice for Battery/Performance balance?

Hey all,

Apologies if this isn't the right forum. Since my question concerns a potential M4800 purchase (no alternative in mind), I figured it would be OK here.

Since Dell added customization options, I can potentially get more battery life from the right Intel chip with Optimus arrangement and 1080p screen.

These are the chips I'm considering (US prices. Mods, feel free to delete prices if need be):
-Intel Core i5-4200M (Dual Core 2.50GHz, x.xGHz Turbo, 3MB 37W, w/HD Graphics 4600) [Included in Price]
-Intel Core i5-4300M (Dual Core 2.60GHz, x.xGHz Turbo, 3MB 37W, w/HD Graphics 4600) [add $35.00]
-Intel Core i5-4330M (Dual Core 2.80GHz, x.xGHz Turbo, 3MB 37W, w/HD Graphics 4600) [add $91.00]
-Intel Core i7-4600M (Dual Core 2.90GHz, x.xGHz Turbo, 4MB 37W, w/HD Graphics 4600) [add $196.00]
-Intel® Core™ i7-4700MQ Processor (Quad Core 2.40GHz, x.xGHz Turbo, 6MB 47W, w/HD Graphics 4600) [add $133.00]

My current computer is an Inspiron 6400, (was preceded by a seven year-old 6000), and works for what I do (word processing, large Excel sheets and Netflix). But I've got a copy of CS6 Production Premium, and I'd like a suitable computer to use it on. Not all the time, but when I need it. Given what I read about Optimus and Haswell regarding my typical usage, I'd also like to have it last more than 7-8 hours when not using CS6. I don't have a frame of reference for using CS6 on battery, but it might be nice to have it last... I don't know, around 3 hours?

With that in mind, I'm wondering which available chip gives the best balance between battery life and the performance required to run CS6 adequately. I understand that a quad core will likely handle CS6 better than a dual core. But if the percentage point gain is low relative to the power draw, and the price, I'd be more than OK with a dual core.

There's also the oddity of the high-end dual core being pricier than an introductory quad core. Perhaps the truth behind that one is for Intel's marketing team, but it does make me wonder too.

My thanks for your information, anecdotes and your patience.

 

Haha, nice username.

Personally I would go for the quad core, just in case you end up needing it down the road. You should be able to manage the power draw by keeping the power plan set to balanced or battery saver when not running CS6.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I appreciate the nod.

My only concern is that those extra cores would just drain watts that might otherwise extend the life of the machine. If two extra cores might mean ~10% reduction in battery life, that might be OK. If it's any more than that, I wouldn't be so sure those extra cores would be worth it.

 

i7-4700MQ with 9-cell can pretty much run 3hr+

 

Get the quad core and 9-cell battery. With the 1080p screen, you should be getting over 4+ hours of battery life. I get around three with mine and that has no optimus (QHD+ Display).

 

I agree with the other posters, get the quad core. Personally I can't fathom carrying a computer that big that doesn't have a quad in it, but for battery life's sake, Intel has drastically improved the low power states in their quad core processors. Since Ivy Bridge, I haven't really found that much of a difference in general use (for example with the E6430, of which I used both dual core i7 and quad core i7 models). Of course drain will increase as workload scales up, but it should not be enough to deter you.

I think 3 hours in CS6 is doable. However in regards to 7-8 hours of typical use, I think that may be pushing it. I could only manage 3.5 hours of light use on my QHD M4800 with the K2100m (no Optimus). Even if having Optimus and 1080p only halved the power usage, that would only be 7 hours under below-typical usage. For comparison, the rMBP does not reach 8 hours under typical use. The only way you may be able to make that is with the battery slice, or to see how the W540 does, as I have found the W5x0 series to have a bit better battery than the M4x00 series.