[QUOTE=xmichaelx, post:27, topic:613612]
Non-pro photographer but pro computer guy here. This will easily run photoshop (in fact, I run CS6 on a laptop that’s not nearly as current without any issues at all). Anyone who tells you that a dedicated graphics card will help you with Photoshop has no clue what they’re talking about and should be ignored.
The real issue is the screen. Fortunately, you can buy a great monitor for $100 (not pro-quality, but good enough) and hook it up to this, and then you have the best of both worlds: portability and a great screen. But make no mistake, this is a pretty great screen for a laptop. The issue will be getting perfect colors, which few care about (I do most of my photo editing on my laptop screen and then color-correction on my nice work monitor. It’s often not necessary, but it depends on how much of a perfectionist you are).
This is a great machine at a great price.
[/quote]
As kindly as possible, that is incorrect, from both an amateur photographer (10+ years), and pro IT admin (5+ years), and Adobe’s own software requirements.
Photoshop has, for generations now, utilised a combination of CPU AND GPU for complex rendering and post-processing tasks, due to Open-GL acceleration, and the added benefit of dedicated VRAM (when available). In the case of a CPU like this with an iGPU (integrated graphics), Photoshop will then lean on the same bank of RAM as the CPU, which is dynamically allocating its resources between the functions.
It can be helpful to have a discrete graphics card in this instance, but will not always be especially noticeable.
With regard to Lightroom, the hardware reqs are definitely bound to CPU and RAM, since its usage is so different (library and exposure control vs raster image editing).
As such, I stand by my statement of this being adequate to run Photoshop/Lightroom, but I would hardly consider this an ideal primary machine on which to do that, because of the lower-powered CPU and inability to upgrade RAM.
Similarly, with regard to monitors, you have to be in the $350+ range to find a comparable resolution on a decent panel.
$100 panels will be FHD 1080P, either TN (mostly just used for gaming now, because it’s fast), or cheap IPS, which will yield horrible contrast and mediocre colour.
You would have to be in the Dell Ultrasharp series, Asus ProArt series, HP ZR series, or similar to start to approach the quality (not size) of this.
Some people may have had less than stellar experiences with this screen if they don’t calibrate (which I do). With a proper ICC profile, it is capable of a pretty good sRGB gamut. It isn’t AdobeRGB, but show me a good monitor that does for under $500, alone, and I’ll be mighty impressed. The panel is an 8-bit part, but with FRC, can emulate 10-bit, which, combined with gamut coverage is better than many laptops out there. This screen is still a highlight - not a drawback.
Other remarks
@wootski: Thanks. I’ll take props anytime.
[QUOTE=gak0090, post:22, topic:613612]
This is great F’in review- I don’t give that complement often…
[/quote]
Again, thanks for F’in praise
And to answer your question, for general use, the integrated graphics do just fine, even with that resolution. And video playback is smooth, thanks to Haswell’s fixed function decode ability. It just won’t game well. It can be done, but it won’t be impressive.
And as has already been answered, no, it only flips to 180 degrees flat.