• 0

Laptop for Programming?


Question

Hi all.

I'm looking to get a laptop which will very primarily be used for programming. It's something I've been thinking of doing for a while, and it definitely makes the most sense, as this way I can take the laptop to the library and do my programming there when I just need to get away and really concentrate without the usual household or other computer distractions (like Steam!!!).

Now, this isn't really a "what laptop should I buy thread" in the traditional sense (otherwise this would have gone in the HH ^^'), but more a couple of questions. I've usually gone with high-ish end PC hardware because I love my games, so naturally I've had nice compile times and never really been bogged down with Intellisense updates. However, seen as this laptop will primarily and nigh-on exclusively just for programming, I don't want to spend a lot of money if I don't have to (although not to say I won't if needs be).

So, what I'm asking really, is how much do lower-end processors like a second or third gen i3 processor effect compile times and intellisense updates compared to a second-gen i7 2600K? Is it quite dramatic, or is it within the realms of acceptability? I don't really want it to go dog-slow, but obviously I'm comfortable with it not being as fast as my home PC (for obvious reasons). Also, has VS 2012 implemented hardware acceleration or not? As obviously this would affect what graphics card would be best in this laptop.

Many thanks all.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1109705-laptop-for-programming/
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

My computer has a mobile i5 chip, and I can't say I've ever had a problem with intellisense update times (didn't even know this was an issue) or build times, though that's mostly with me playing with C# & F# projects, and nothing particularly massive. Unfortunately I have nothing more powerful to compare too.

VS 2012 has pretty much similar hardware acceleration to VS 2010 - given that both of their interfaces are built nearly completely with WPF which is naturally rendered by DirectX. So some form of decent graphics chip is probably in order, though the Intel HD 3000 / 4000 integrated GPU's shouldn't have any problems with it.

  • 0

The thing that sped up compile times more than anything else was when I got a SSD. It makes an unbelievable difference.

I don't think that the processor makes that much of a difference with compile times. I used to do most of my development on a 2.4 GHz C2Q (Q6600) machine but have since switched to a 2.67 GHz i5 (M560) and I don't notice any difference in compile times. That's not to say that the M560 isn't faster than the Q6600, I just don't notice it while compiling any of my software projects.

Something that definitely helps, on both my old Q6600 and my newer M560 is compiling in parallel (using multiple cores). When I compile one of my larger projects with -j2 instead of -j5, it takes ~ 15 minutes to compile instead of ~ 5 minutes -- a noticable difference. Compiling on a SSD instead of a hard drive halves that compile time as well.

Note: The -j switch is used in GCC and Clang to specify how many threads the compiler can create, allowing it to compile in parallel. The general rule of thumb is that you should specify 1+(number of processor cores or threads). I assume that MSVC has something similar.

  • 0

I just compiled identical projects on my i7-3930K desktop and a second gen i3 laptop that's been lying around (using VS2010 on both machines) - I wouldn't say the laptop was 'dog-slow' but there was a noticeable difference, however I'd expect there to be.

I'd still say for the purposes intended you could get a second/third gen i3 to do the job and be happy with it.

(That said; I'd probably opt for an SSD for the read/write speed to the disc)

  • 0

With really huge projects, a fast CPU would benefit of course, but also like xorangekiller said an SSD would also make a difference in compile time. I mean my computer is years old and it runs a q9550 processor and a standard samsung hard drive and compiles projects in a reasonable amount of time.

I think an i3 or i5 would be fine anyway.

  • 0

So basically it's a case of i3 processors will do, but i5 processors are a much better choice, combined with an SSD for silly speeds. Seen as I only want this for programming, I'll probably be able to get away with a 128GB SSD.

You guys have been rather helpful, thanks :) If anyone else has something to share though, please, input!! I won't be buying this laptop straight away anyway!

  • 0

Most important IMO is to get a higher resolution than the usual 1366x768 you get on laptops. Higher resolution screens not only give you more screen estate but also tend to just look a lot brighter and more colorful, perhaps because they're simply of better quality. Given that the entire Windows UI scales, that web browsers scale and most text editors do as well, there's really no reason not to go for the highest possible resolution whatever your screen size is.

  • Like 3
  • 0

I definitely agree with Dr_Asik that a higher resolution screen is a huge advantage! While I still wouldn't rate it higher than a SSD for development purposes, high resolution is very high on my priority list. I personally wouldn't buy a laptop with a low resultion display, like many modern laptops that ship with a 15 inch screen with a max resultion of 1366x768.

  • 0

I manage running Visual Studio 2010 and 2012 on an old 1.6 Ghz 2GB Ram netbook. So I think any modern computer will do.

On my system though, MS SQL server related stuff gets slow and so does debugging. The WinForms designer can lag but the WPF one is smooth enough.

Overall its usable but the only serious shortcoming is the small display. You have to set everything in the IDE to autohide.

  • 0

Depends on what are you trying to pull.

If you are programming with a modern IDE, you certainly need a large screen with a nice resolution.

If you are programming in old-school mode or following strict institutional coding standards you don't need a large screen.

As for the processor, you need to look at the provided instruction sets and pick your poison.

Note: The -j switch is used in GCC and Clang to specify how many threads the compiler can create, allowing it to compile in parallel.
That option is used by GNU make. Not GCC/Clang.
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!