Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MasterFancyPants]

Pretty soon I going to be getting a new laptop, but It may be the only computer I have for a long time.
So I was wondering does anyone know any good ones on the market right now? I just looking for something that can still be functional for the next 10 years (or at least through collage, I'm a sophomore) and maybe play top-of-the-line games for the next 2 or so.

My Pentium 4 has served admirably, but I think It's about done. 

[Frumple]

Price. Range.

If there's any laptops that are actually not-crap when it comes to (current) gaming that come in under $1k, I'd love to hear about it.

You'd be better off building a desktop, both for price, capability, and lasting potential. Laptops tend to have hellish heating problems, compared to a proper tower -- especially the newer ones. That alone is going to make a laptop lasting a decade a pipedream. Any computer lasting that long without something important in it breaking is bloody uncommon.

Why a laptop, specifically? If you can get by with a tower instead, you really, really want to -- and I'm saying that as someone who's been on laptops exclusively for going on five-six years, now.

[MasterFancyPants]

Price. Range.

If there's any laptops that are actually not-crap when it comes to (current) gaming that come in under $1k, I'd love to hear about it.

You'd be better off building a desktop, both for price, capability, and lasting potential. Laptops tend to have hellish heating problems, compared to a proper tower -- especially the newer ones. That alone is going to make a laptop lasting a decade a pipedream. Any computer lasting that long without something important in it breaking is bloody uncommon.

Why a laptop, specifically? If you can get by with a tower instead, you really, really want to -- and I'm saying that as someone who's been on laptops exclusively for going on five-six years, now.

The price doesn't really matter I've been saving for a long time have about 2k, I can go to work a get more if I HAVE to. (High School's nice Eh?)

And I move around a lot already and Collage will only make it worse.
I'll end up get a new desk-top, but I need some time.

[Tellemurius]

i would want to have a gaming laptop, i would die in Geology without one. for a really good laptop i go for SAGER. they just got the new intel processors and you can get a good gaming laptop under 2k.

[MasterFancyPants]

So does this: Intel® Core™ i7-980X Processor Extreme Edition ( 12MB L3 Cache, 3.33GHz, 6.4GT/sec QPI, 6 Cores )  = 19.98Gz of processing power?

Which is too much right?

[Fayrik]

So does this: Intel® Core™ i7-980X Processor Extreme Edition ( 12MB L3 Cache, 3.33GHz, 6.4GT/sec QPI, 6 Cores )  = 19.98Gz of processing power?

Which is too much right?

Ahahaha!
You couldn't be more wrong, but welcome to multi-core machines!
An Intel i7-980X Exreme 12MB L3 3.33GHz Hexcore will deliver you 3.33GHz processing power, six times.
And by six times, I don't mean 6x. "Times" in this case means time, that thing that makes the universe more than just a picture.

Basically, what I'm trying to satirically say is, you're not ever going to get 19.98GHz from a 3.33GHz multi-core machine.
It'll be a 3.33GHz machine that can do 6 tasks at once.
You'll be grateful for it to do 6 things at once, but I wouldn't expect it to make anything faster that much.

Also, try to go with AMD. I would try and compare their minimal differences to show a slight advantage of having AMD against Intel, but right now AMD just have an infinite moral advantage to me.
(The only bigger advantage AMD could get is if they started making cardboard chips! Hahaha.)

[MasterFancyPants]

Ahahaha!
You couldn't be more wrong, but welcome to multi-core machines!
An Intel i7-980X Exreme 12MB L3 3.33GHz Hexcore will deliver you 3.33GHz processing power, six times.
And by six times, I don't mean 6x. "Times" in this case means time, that thing that makes the universe more than just a picture.

Basically, what I'm trying to satirically say is, you're not ever going to get 19.98GHz from a 3.33GHz multi-core machine.
It'll be a 3.33GHz machine that can do 6 tasks at once.
You'll be grateful for it to do 6 things at once, but I wouldn't expect it to make anything faster that much.

Also, try to go with AMD. I would try and compare their minimal differences to show a slight advantage of having AMD against Intel, but right now AMD just have an infinite moral advantage to me.
(The only bigger advantage AMD could get is if they started making cardboard chips! Hahaha.)

So it can do 6 things at 3.33GHz?

[Fayrik]

So it can do 6 things at 3.33GHz?

Yeah.
Now, certain games can be threaded, which takes the strain off of the main process, and thus gives you an avantage.

But, on my 4 core Phenom (AMD's equivilent to the 4 core i7), I can run ArmA 2 twice at once. One on each monitor. Well, technically, due to directX limitations each instance would minimize when you bring the other one up...
But yeah, it spreads out sideways instead of getting faster.

[Sergius]

Something in the 1200 - 2000 range is usually nice. For a gaming laptop, make sure it has a big 17"-ish screen, nice speakers and definitely a gaming video card. I think nVidia's mobile gaming boards suck less than ATI. Make sure it uses STANDARD, downloadable drivers from the video manufacturer, not gimped vendor-locked drivers... I have those in my tablet PC with ATI and the only way I can get opengl to work on Windows 7 is using hacking drivers and now it won't boot on battery.

I got my Gateway wossname 1700 FX, something, with a nVidia 9800M GTS (not really cutting edge anymore, but it was a couple years ago when this baby sold for about $4000), it only costed me around $1300. It's a Core 2 duo with 2.4 or so gHz. I'm a bit out of the look in what processor is good now, i5 or i7 or sumthin'. Can't recommend to get either AMD or Intel, I'm also uninformed which one is better this time.

[Thexor]

Ahahaha!
You couldn't be more wrong, but welcome to multi-core machines!
An Intel i7-980X Exreme 12MB L3 3.33GHz Hexcore will deliver you 3.33GHz processing power, six times.
And by six times, I don't mean 6x. "Times" in this case means time, that thing that makes the universe more than just a picture.

Basically, what I'm trying to satirically say is, you're not ever going to get 19.98GHz from a 3.33GHz multi-core machine.
It'll be a 3.33GHz machine that can do 6 tasks at once.
You'll be grateful for it to do 6 things at once, but I wouldn't expect it to make anything faster that much.

Also, try to go with AMD. I would try and compare their minimal differences to show a slight advantage of having AMD against Intel, but right now AMD just have an infinite moral advantage to me.
(The only bigger advantage AMD could get is if they started making cardboard chips! Hahaha.)

So it can do 6 things at 3.33GHz?

That's... actually, probably one of the best descriptions of multi-core functionality I've heard. I may have to borrow that. 

To put it another way: Each core tackles one 'thread' at a time. On a standard, single-core CPU (like a Pentium), the CPU rapidly switches between threads to create the illusion of performing multiple tasks at the same time. Emphasis on 'illusion'. Besides a bit of overhead switching between threads, it means the CPU is either running your game or running your anti-virus software or running one of a dozen other processes currently on your machine.

With multiple cores, you can run one thread on each core. In other words, it's no longer an illusion - you actually are running all of those threads, at the same time. However, any given thread is still limited to a single core. Dwarf Fortress, for instance, has only a single thread. If you run DF on a 6-core machine, DF will completely consume one of the six cores, while the rest languish. (Technically, the other five cores provide a slight advantage, since all the background tasks running on your computer can be off-loaded to other cores. But that's only significant if you're using a noticeable percentage of your CPU for background tasks.)


And the AMD vs. Intel debate is a great topic for inciting nerd wars, right up there with ATI vs. nVidia. Right now, I seem to recall that Intel has the fastest chips, while AMD has a better power-to-price ratio (although I'm probably seriously oversimplifying right now!). But hey, if you find an awesome gaming laptop for 1.5k and it happens to have an Intel chip, don't pass it up just because you're dead-set on a competitor's brand name!

[hemmingjay]

For the money I would get a custom built, desktop replacement laptop. I got mine from Cyberpower or Ibuypower 2 years ago and have played every major release game since with no problem other than ARMA 2, which runs fine on med quality, but make it cry blood on higher settings.

Cost me $2k in feb 2009.

It's not going to be playing new games in another 2 years most likely, but will last as a workhorse for probably 4 if the case holds up.

It's a core2duo 2.53
17" widescreen 1920 x 1280
6 Gb Ram
ATI Radeon 3870hd x2
750GB 7200rpm

This one is $2100 http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Xplorer_X7_Xtreme_S1_Notebook/

their service is lacking, but i haven't needed it at all.

desktop replacement(serious gaming) will be hot and heavy since they run real processors and full graphics cards. Also expect a monster power supply.

[BigD145]

Lenovo. It's industrial plastic. My IBM ThinkPad limped along for a decade or so with some minor repairs. The CD-ROM drive went first, which is not hard to bypass when you have DaemonTools. The CPU fan was going and that was the killer that caused overheating and random shutdowns.

[olemars]

Whatever you do, do not buy a HP, nor Dell XPS.

[Shades]

An Intel i7-980X Exreme 12MB L3 3.33GHz Hexcore will deliver you 3.33GHz processing power, six times.
And by six times, I don't mean 6x. "Times" in this case means time, that thing that makes the universe more than just a picture.

Technically it can 'hyperthread' so you'll get 12 tasks that can all potentially run at this speed (there is enough components that it avoids collisions for the right tasks, the point of hyperthreading).

However it also automatically steps the processor cycles based on temperature and your very unlikely to get anywhere close to the full 3.33 while using more than half the cores without impressive cooling (so not a laptop). I believe the stepping can also run faster than the 3.33 if not all the cores are in use but I can't recall where I read about the turbo like stuff.

[Graven]

Don't bother with the old Intel line-up, go get the Sager NP8170 from XoticPC, configure it with the cheapest Sandy Bridge processor, the GeForce 485 - this one is must-have, it's the newest GeForce 104 architecture, significantly (or so the marketing department says x) ) faster than the old GF100 design of the GTX460 and 470, take a 750 gig hard, 6 or 8 gigs of memory and you're set at about 2000 - 2200 USD. You can go for the 15 inch NP8150, which can be configured about the same, but it also costs the same, so you have no reason to, really. It'll be hotter and no-one likes that.

Since consoles reign supreme, there would likely be nothing out there for the next however years it takes for the next-gen consoles to appear that you couldn't run. And it says the geforce 485 is "user upgrade-able", which most likely means you can stick another one in there when you get the money, you can upgrade the processor too, I believe, so you're set for quite a while.