Need a new laptop - Intel or AMD Ryzen?

I'm in need of a new laptop as my current one is dying. I'm looking at gaming laptops for the video card, because I use Topaz for lots of editing and it won't work with integrated graphics. (I'm also a PC user - tried Mac but went back to PC, and am not interested in trying Mac again.) So I'm looking at Intel I-5 and I-7 and AMD Ryzen. I was quite skittish about AMD for a long time, but keep reading about the new CPUs and how these are better than then new Intels due to lots of techy thing s that I don't really understand.

Have any of you gone with the new AMD CPU, and are you happy with it? Or should I stick with Intel?

I would stick with Intel for a laptop. Ryzen competes in the desktop space, but not quite there for laptop/mobile.

For a desktop, it's a bit of a either or at the moment, Intel still have the high clock speeds but AMD are running more cores.
However for a laptop it's still Intel all the way.

Thanks! That's exactly what I needed to know.

Well, after all my dreaming about laptops, I ended up ordering a desktop from Dell - the Inspiron 5676. I do so much multi tasking while at the computer that I decided more cores was the way to go.

CPU - AMD Ryzen 2700X (8 core)
16G ram
GPU - AMD Radeon RX 580 (4G)
256G SSD + 1T 7200 HHD

Hopefully this will future-proof me for a while, anyway.

Moppie wrote in post #18793230
However for a laptop it's still Intel all the way.

My task this AM was to figure out the swing over to AMD chips vs Intel in our desktops and laptops for the next year, due to the Intel chip shortages. Lenovo has offered us the alternative of AMD Ryzen over the intel and with the price difference we were able to add on an additional 8GB of RAM on the AMD models for our desktops. After some working around I had come to the conclusion that a PC running a Ryzen PRO 2400G with 16GB is more than adequate for our needs, even though the Intel i5 8400/8500 may have better IPC, stronger/faster cores, than the Ryzen chips.

With that being said, thinking about the laptop side of things, that was not the case at all. For gaming, sure an AMD powered laptop is more than fine for home use and some light gaming although less portability due to battery life not being the best. That isn't what we need, instead the Intel just seems to beat it in most applications except for gaming. Battery life also seems immensely better but to be fair, not all laptops are created equal but from what I saw, Intel dominates in the productivity.

All in all, the AMD laptops aren't bad from what I read from tech sites, they just don't have a good alternative in the workplace side of things. I'd definitely buy one for home use at the right price for casual stuff but if it was my main device, pfft, "for a laptop it's still Intel all the way"

Lenovo makes laptops with both processors. On the merits of each, it says:

"Intel processors offer a number of strengths, including power conservation, graphics performance, processing speed, and processing power. However, Intel processors also tend to be more expensive than their AMD counterparts – something to be mindful of if you're on a budget (or are simply looking for a cost-effective option).

"By comparison, AMD processors tend to be more affordable than Intel chips. Additionally, AMD processors can do things that Intel chips can't. Whereas most Intel processors are locked in at a fixed clocking speed, many AMD processors can be "overclocked" – that is, they can be made to run at a faster speed than is available right out of the box. For some, this feature alone makes the AMD chipset the obvious choice.

"Ultimately, there is no “best” when it comes to answering the question, AMD or Intel? Both feature strengths and weaknesses. It is possible, though, to find a processor that better suits your individual needs."

It then discusses how a processor for one guy might not be the processor for someone else:

"In any processor comparison, it is important to determine what you're looking for out of a processor. Are you seeking speed? Graphics performance? Affordability? Flexibility? Do you play games, primarily, or are you seeking a simple processor to allow for multi-tasking while browsing the Internet? Knowing the answers to these questions can help you decide which processor is right for you.

"If you are looking for a more cost-effective processor, AMD processors may be the best bet. For students, budget gamers, and individuals with straight-forward computing needs, AMD processors are a great choice – they are powerful and fast enough for most while undercutting competitor pricing. And yet, you give up little when going with AMD chips. They can be "overclocked" for increased speed, provide robust and vibrant graphics, and are available in multi-core setups for multithreaded performance.

"On the higher end of the spectrum, Intel processors shine. If you are seeking performance that is at the upper range of the market, there is sure to be an Intel chip that suits your needs. You may pay more for it, and you may give up flexibility for this performance, but the processor itself will provide you with lightning speed, incredible capability, and beautiful graphics. In terms of outright power, it's hard to beat Intel processors."

I know the OP has purchased, but here's thoughts for others.

I believe for Adobe products, nVidia based graphics are still preferred. In general I would stick with Intel as they have better per-thread performance, unless you know you have a highly threaded workload or would prefer to save some money.

Not sure if AMD are quite there with laptops yet, but for desktops and servers they're fine.

As an addendum to graphics, I would recommend the Nvidia Quadro platform. Photoshop isn't as demanding, but if you get into video editing, Adobe's renderers utilize OpenGL (which is a standard that is fully supported by the Quadro line: GeForce is geared more towards gaming and is focused more on DirectX). You can still use GeForce cards with Adobe software fairly well. The main software I've encountered where OpenGL support/ Quadro line is a must is with 3D software (Maya especially). After one bad experience with AMD, I won't ever use their cards (personally, I think they're too quick in releasing drivers that aren't stable). I once bought a mobile workstation that had an ATI Fire series pro card, and it wound up corrupting my Maya files.

davesrose wrote in post #18822316
As an addendum to graphics, I would recommend the Nvidia Quadro platform. Photoshop isn't as demanding, but if you get into video editing, Adobe's renderers utilize OpenGL (which is a standard that is fully supported by the Quadro line: GeForce is geared more towards gaming and is focused more on DirectX). You can still use GeForce cards with Adobe software fairly well. The main software I've encountered where OpenGL support/ Quadro line is a must is with 3D software (Maya especially). After one bad experience with AMD, I won't ever use their cards (personally, I think they're too quick in releasing drivers that aren't stable). I once bought a mobile workstation that had an ATI Fire series pro card, and it wound up corrupting my Maya files.

No.

The fastest video rendering is currently being done on Nvidia gaming cards, the 1080 and 2080Ti.
Much of the worlds 3D graphics, special effects and rendering is also being done on these cards. They are generally faster and have a considerably better dollar/performance ratio than the Quadro cards.
And Adobe does much of it's rendering, especially video and effects using Cuda, which the 1080 and 2080 are the best at.

For some specialist 3D work the Quadro cards are better, they usually have more ram, but it's very program specific and generally limited engineering, cad and scientific work.

tim wrote in post #18822137
I know the OP has purchased, but here's thoughts for others.

I believe for Adobe products, nVidia based graphics are still preferred. In general I would stick with Intel as they have better per-thread performance, unless you know you have a highly threaded workload or would prefer to save some money.

Not sure if AMD are quite there with laptops yet, but for desktops and servers they're fine.

davesrose wrote in post #18822316
As an addendum to graphics, I would recommend the Nvidia Quadro platform. Photoshop isn't as demanding, but if you get into video editing, Adobe's renderers utilize OpenGL (which is a standard that is fully supported by the Quadro line: GeForce is geared more towards gaming and is focused more on DirectX). You can still use GeForce cards with Adobe software fairly well. The main software I've encountered where OpenGL support/ Quadro line is a must is with 3D software (Maya especially). After one bad experience with AMD, I won't ever use their cards (personally, I think they're too quick in releasing drivers that aren't stable). I once bought a mobile workstation that had an ATI Fire series pro card, and it wound up corrupting my Maya files.

Moppie wrote in post #18823180
No.

The fastest video rendering is currently being done on Nvidia gaming cards, the 1080 and 2080Ti.
Much of the worlds 3D graphics, special effects and rendering is also being done on these cards. They are generally faster and have a considerably better dollar/performance ratio than the Quadro cards.
And Adobe does much of it's rendering, especially video and effects using Cuda, which the 1080 and 2080 are the best at.

For some specialist 3D work the Quadro cards are better, they usually have more ram, but it's very program specific and generally limited engineering, cad and scientific work.

It seems to me, that given the OP query about a LAPTOP, that the consideration of a graphic processor card and VRAM cannot be a consideration. Am I missing something?

Wilt wrote in post #18823613
It seems to me, that given the OP query about a LAPTOP, that the consideration of a graphic processor card and VRAM cannot be a consideration. Am I missing something?

Laptops don't often have video cards you can change out, but they do have graphic subsystems. eg one laptop may come with Intel integrated graphics, another with nVidia video, another with another brand.

I'm really appreciating this thread and all the great info you guys have. let me tell you why I finally went with a desktop instead of a laptop. Firstly, I couldn't get a laptop that had a new GTX GPU - everything available was a 1050ti or at most a 1060. (I wasn't considering an AMD GPU due to the info above.) And when pricing, a laptop with similar specs to a desktop was averaging $300 to $400 more. So that led me to desktops.

And frankly, the Ryzen 7 2700X CPU with the Radeon RX 580 GPU fron Dell was $250 less than a build with an i7 8700 and a GTX 1050ti - and it was almost $400 less if I went with a GTX 1060.

I don't game. But I do some video editing, along with photo editing with software that demands a dedicated GPU. And I usually have several things going at once programwise. So I'mhoping that the multitasking will be easier with the Ryzen CPU. Frankly, anything will be faster than my current setup - an Acer with an i5 6200, 12 G ram, and GeForce 920M along with integrated HD 520.

Moppie wrote in post #18823180
No.

The fastest video rendering is currently being done on Nvidia gaming cards, the 1080 and 2080Ti.
Much of the worlds 3D graphics, special effects and rendering is also being done on these cards. They are generally faster and have a considerably better dollar/performance ratio than the Quadro cards.
And Adobe does much of it's rendering, especially video and effects using Cuda, which the 1080 and 2080 are the best at.

For some specialist 3D work the Quadro cards are better, they usually have more ram, but it's very program specific and generally limited engineering, cad and scientific work.

No,

3D software rendering is not done with graphics cards. As someone with first hand experience with Maya, I can attest that Quadro cards are still more stable and robust at hardware shading in the viewport (because of OpenGL). Even basic functions can still freeze with the recent GeForce cards I’ve tried. Rendering farms are also usually comprised of blade servers. High end scientific simulation is done with Tesla boxes.

Wilt wrote in post #18823613
It seems to me, that given the OP query about a LAPTOP, that the consideration of a graphic processor card and VRAM cannot be a consideration. Am I missing something?

There is a subset of laptops that have the professional line of graphics cards. I currently use Dell Precision (Dell classifies it a mobile workstation).