What is more important for screen recording - CPU or GPU?

[sldvd]

Sometimes I want to save a video off the internet but those browser plugins that let you download the video losslessly don't work on all sites. So I have to use a screen recorder program to record a video while it's playing. A lot of times the video that gets recorded is really choppy and sometimes the audio is out of sync with the video. I'm in the market for a new laptop, so what is more important to try to ensure that the video gets recorded smoothly - a better CPU or a better GPU, or both?

[Bjs]

Cpu over gpu ... thou it depends on both the capture program and pc ... by which we cannot answer until you give us some system details being used.

[sldvd]

I'm either going to get the Dell M6800 or HP ZBook 17, with a minimum CPU of either the i7-4710MQ or the i7-4800MQ. There are more expensive CPU options.

The Dell offers the AMD M6100 GPU plus the Quadro K3100M, K4100M and K5100M. The HP just offers those Quadros. The M6100 is significantly cheaper, but doesn't have CUDA support. I was told CUDA support would make some programs significantly faster, so I was thinking about getting one of those Quadro GPUs.

As far as programs, there are various ones I'm evaluating. Some that I like are Mirillis Action, Bandicam, ZD Soft, BB Flashback.

[olyteddy]

I use Action! on a lowly IvyBridge i3 and never see more than 10 or 15% CPU, including real time AVC encoding using QuickSync.

[Bjs]

I was told CUDA support would make some programs significantly faster

No, it only helps with encoding of video ... if you do opt for cuda make sure it has a minimum of 96 cores.

Yes, Zd soft works well ... better support than most.