CPU Speed or Better Graphics Card?

[normando]

Just a quick question to get a few other people's opinion.

My company is purchasing a new laptop that will be running fullscreen video in PowerPoint presentations, as well as playing back fullscreen Macromedia Flash and Director files.

What would provide better fullscreen Mpeg-2 and WindowsMedia V9 video files... 1) Laptop with a average speed processor and a high end video card or 2) Laptop with a high end processor and average video card?

Graphic Cards:
64MB ATI Mobility FireGL or 32MB ATI Mobility RADEON 7500

CPUs:
Intel® Pentium® 4 2.60GHz or Intel® Pentium® M processor 1.60GHz

I am thinking the faster the CPU, the better...

Any input would be appreciated.

[mujahid7ia]

i would agree, faster CPU, but Pentium M performance ratings can't be compared to 4-Ms, so those GhZ ratings are deceiving.

[pixel]

I would say emphasis on graphics card.

Anything to do with graphics, the graphics CPU on the card is specially designed for it so you should get better results.

Take 3D Mark 03 for example, your graphics card will most likely outperform your processor at graphics, because your processor only has a limited area attributed to graphics, but the graphics cpu is dedicated to it.

So anything to do with playing back video, you should think about a good graphics card.

[mrtristan]

Since you're going to be playing back mainly mpeg2 and wmv9 files, I would go with the 1.60Ghz Pentium-M. The 32Meg ATI card is more than enough to handle the files and you'll have a smaller, lighter notebook to carry around.

[Piccoro]

That video card will do just fine.

But slower PCs can't play good quality divx files very well so I would say the CPU is more important.

3D is where I would say Graphics card is more important.