Keep R1 or Trade back in for R2?

Last week I got my R1. I ordered it 4-5 days before they announced the R2s.

My specs are:

su4100
4gb
160gb 5400rpm
7 home premium.

Would it be worth the money increase and wait time to trade this back in for a R2? I'm thinking it might be since I'm still within my 30 day period. The time to act is now for me but I can't make up my mind.

 

if you need the additonal power because you intend to play a lot of state-of-the-art games on the little monster than I would trade it back for the R2.

It depends on that and on how much an upgrade will cost you, we in Germany here can get the i7 almost cost-neutral.

 

I would only do it if you can return with no penalties. You would have to talk to Dell, and it might help if the one you have now has some problem. Anyway, if you can do it for no penalties it might be worth it, however, if you have to pay restocking plus the added cost for the iX core it really is not worth it. The performance increase is pretty minimal, certainly not worth $100's in penalties and added cost.

 

What do you use it for? No one can answer this reasonably without that info.

 

Gaming mainly. I'm not one for flashy graphics though unless the games equally good. Mainly stuff like starcraft2 and other quality older blizzard titles until d3 comes out.

I think i'm gonna keep it, I got a great deal on it really and i've heard good things about my current configs ability to play said games.

 

well i play starcraft 2 on ultra with the R1, though i have the su7300 OC'ed to 1.7ghz and at 1680x1050 [external monitor] with no framerate issues

blizzard games are pretty good with low specs, i can run war3 on super low on a 400mhz celeron with 64mb graphics smoothly

war3 runs on max, easily, diablo2 works, starcraft has some graphical issues like in loading screens, but thats with windows 7 and not the notebook itself.

 

Keep the R1 and save your money, there is more than just a little more cpu speed we are talking about. There is also the extra battery life.

 

For SC2 I'd reccomend the new processors if you can return your R1 with no penalty

 

from what i understand, sc2 starts running sluggishly when you start playing in larger scale battles. This might be improved with processor power to calculate all the units on the screen.

 

So many people don't understand how computer hardware is utilized during games. Getting an i7 will have NO EFFECT on frame rate in SC2, it is a GPU BOUND game, when playing it I often have like 75% or less CPU utilization yet can still see fps drops.

Why? Because it is GPU bound. Turn down the shadows if you get lag, problem solved.

 

This.

I dont know why people are quick to state that having a more powerfull CPU will make a huge difference in games.

It can perhaps add a few more FPS if the GPU is being bottled in games such as L4D2 maybe but dont see how its worth and extra few hundred $ in just a few games.

 

I preffer a powerfull procesor because the computer like a whole is better.

 

That's what I thought. The two most extreme games ill be playing will probably be playing are sc2 and wow if I work up the motivation to renew my subscribtion. Does a oc'ed 4100 run wow well? I'd assume Its mostly gpu based too, id probably turn shadows off to help with fps.

 

Certain parts of the game are GPU bound while others can be CPU bound.

Turning down shadows won't solve your problem on a 100mhz CPU for example.

These blanket "CPU bound" and "GPU bound" statements are kind of a waste of time. Depends on what needs to be calculated and when.

 

Not really, we aren't talking about a 100 Mhz CPU, we are talking about the M11X, and on the M11X SC2 is ALWAYS gpu bound.

If you have FPS troubles in larger SC2 games on the M11X then you need to turn down some graphics, specifically shaders, since the M11X is bandwidth bound. This means for instance if you turned down textures it wouldn't do anything, because the M11X is not video memory bound.

However, most people never bother to figure this stuff out, they have heard from others and in reviews that the M11X Cpu is slower and so anytime they get any slowdown it is automatically the CPU's fault and if only they had a faster CPU everything would be better.

 

The faster processor couldn't hurt.

An MMORPG is rarely held back by the GPU, especially older ones like WoW and FFXI. In most situations you can just turn the graphics detail down, but you'd still get lag. However, you could play them on a more-than-needed video card and still get lag, or what looks like a drop in FPS. Chances are it is either your CPU or HDD that can't keep up with players being added into the world. The real "fix" would be to limit the number of players shown on the screen so they don't have to be calculated. This could even be limited by your internet connection.

But simply put, players in an MMORPG aren't told what to do by the game, and have to be accounted for when they do actions. Your computer taking in what they are doing relies more on your internet speed and CPU speed than your GPU speed (assuming you have enough memory too, of course. Not usually an issue on any PC made within the last 4 years)

 

That isn't true either. By your own logic, you stating it is GPU bound is like hearing it from "some other review" and are expecting us to take you at your word. It is nearly hypocritical.

That being said, it will always rely on what is being done on screen and when. Certain parts will be "CPU bound" and others will be "GPU bound". It could be CPU bound simply due to bad coding, who knows. And just because your CPU or GPU is more than enough in a situation, doesn't mean it isn't CPU or GPU bound.

 

Get your handbags at the ready! lol

 

Tweak, I am not trying to be mean, but you are kind of spreading misinformation. You were on the right track about it being limited by internet speed, but to suggest that WoW, a game that will run on a 800 mhz P4, would EVER be limited by a 1.6 Ghz Duel core C2D, is just silly. The C2D is easily 4 - 6 times faster than the requirements for WoW. Playing WoW on the M11X I would be surprised to see CPU utilization anywhere above 50%.

Slowdowns in WoW will be caused by internet congestion or GPU slowdowns. This is why for instance you might get lag in ICC when all 25 people are doing AOE. It is not your CPU, it is the GPU slowing down under the load of 25 people with 25 shadows doing 25 spells with 25 effects. Put shadows down a notch or two and voila, problem solved. Upgrade your CPU, you would still have the same problem.

Now you are right, the faster CPU can't hurt, but it won't help most games either. If I was getting my first M11X today and had the cash I would get an i7, but if someone has an R1, or is short on cash, the i7 is not going to provide any meaningful performance gains in the vast majority of games.

 

I honestly re-read this several times and can't get what you are saying. I guess you are just speaking hypothetically about everything? Like saying it is possible that in a game you could have one area CPU bound and one GPU bound. Sure, possible. However, in SC2, on the M11X, it is GPU bound in every situation I have put it through.

I have the M11X R1, I was in the SC2 beta, I have played it 4v4, evolves, etc. We are talking games with 1000+ units on screen, well above the normal unit caps, and anytime I had trouble all I needed to do was reduce shadows and shaders to fix it. If it was CPU bound I could go to all low settings and still have FPS drops, this simply does not happen, even on custom maps where you get far more units than would ever be possible in real games.

Fun random fact, SC2 will run quite smooth in all low settings off the integrated graphics.

 

This is wrong by my own experience from playing MMORPG's on a whole series of systems.

If you want to use the logic that the processor is WAY HIGHER than the requirements, then it has to apply to the video card as well. Its a pretty stupid argument. This is why I said you could remove your GPU limitation by turning off all the settings, and still have the issue.

Also I never suggested it would be limited by a 1.6 C2D. I just said a faster processor couldn't hurt.

Really sounds like you got the R1 and need to defend your purchase. Other than that, I haven't spread any misinformation.

 

It has to be hypothetical as we don't know what calculations are taking place. All we know is what is displayed on the screen.

 

Except if you just turn down shadows in WoW you don't get the issue, let alone going to all low, it is not CPU bound. You could get an i7, go the same place and you would get the same issue unless you turned down the graphics, because it was never CPU bound, the CPU is not making any difference.

I agree a faster processor could never hurt, but I got the impression you were suggesting that the C2D would be a major limiting factor, and in most cases this isn't true. In fact, if someone wants to spend $300 on an upgrade, getting an SSD would decimate the i7 in terms of performance gains.

 

You can know pretty well what is taking place, there are plenty of monitoring programs to see GPU and CPU load. If CPU load is sub 50% and GPU load is 99% then you know it is the GPU not the CPU slowing things down.

In most cases on the M11X it is neither the GPU or CPU but the bus bandwidth, but that is essentially a GPU issue, since reducing bandwidth intensive GPU tasks fixes it.

Anyway, with the appropriate tests we can be very certain what is holding a system back in any game.

 

I would not suggest the C2D is a MAJOR limiting factor.

Anyone who knows computer architecture knows that the #1 and #2 items that restrict a computer speed as a whole is BUS speed and hard drive speed (and even then it is mainly the bus speed to the hard drive).

If you want to see drastic improvement, find a way to up the bus speed between all the major components to where it doesn't limit anything. Then you will really start to reveal the individual bottlenecks. But until then, a faster processor is still a faster processor.

 

But even if a game is 95%+ of the time 99% pegged on the GPU, doesn't mean a faster processor won't help you in the other 5%, or however the %'s might work out.

 

Where? The i5 base model starts at 999€ (SU7300 starts at 799€ and the i7 costs 200€ extra.

 

the purpose of this thread was to determine if it's WORTH the money - you're addressing that the i7 COULD help in a mere 5% of game time in small particular cases.

since most games are bounded by the GPU these days, the answer is no, unless you WANT the new architecture for other computing usages.

 

I just used numbers to favor what he was saying. It could be 50% and 50%. Depends on the game.

The idea here is that the graphics card outweighs these processors by a large margin, which I will agree. But saying it wont help in gaming is not a valid statement. It will help, just not much.

I've yet to state that it will blow the other processor out of the water gaming wise.

 

But then we have circled back around to is a tiny performance gain worth $300 and back at square one. In the end I shall give you a link, this shows that the difference between an $80 Pentium 4 and a $1000 C2D Extreme processor in WoW is only 10 fps. The difference between a C2D like the one the M11X and a $1000 C2D Extreme is only 6 FPS. We can be sure the i7 is not anywhere near that $1000 C2D extreme, in fact it probably won't even out perform the next higher C2D in that comparison that got 3 FPS more.

World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King Hardware Performance Guide - Page 6 - Features at GameSpot

What we can gather from all of this is that the i7 might give you a 1-3 FPS boost in WoW, for $300, so about $100 per FPS, not exactly great when you can add 15 or 20 fps simply by dropping shadows down a notch.

 

I really don't have much work to do to make you go against things you say. You even found a link to prove yourself wrong.

Thank you.

I never said it would be night and day, but you at least proved what I said was right, and what you stated was incorrect.

 

You obviously don't know what it means for a game to be CPU limited. Oh well, a 1-3 FPS boost is not a CPU limited game, it is simply a slightly faster processor giving sub 5% FPS gains. For $300 it is pretty much a joke.

Anyway, the point of the thread was to determine if it was worth it to trade back in for an R2, and I think we can all agree that 1-3 FPS for $300 + whatever you lose on the trade-in would never ever be worth it.

I guess it is just different ways of looking at it, you see any performance gain and count it as a victory, I don't even count a performance gain if it isn't of an amount to be noticeable. No one can tell the difference between 30 fps and 31-33 fps.

 

I know what it means for a game to be CPU limited. However MMORPG's function a little differently, and you provided this exact proof. Technically from 18 to 28fps is a 56% increase just from changing the CPU. While the game can still be mostly GPU limited, you can benefit from the faster processor, as clearly shown.

And I'll say yet again, I don't think it is worth $300 either. But I won't state false facts just to prove my point.

 

Haha, a 10 FPS increase between an $80 processor and a $1000+ processor. How is that a good deal? If you take a CPU limited game and made that CPU jump you would be looking at like 60+ FPS difference. You are getting all excited about 10 FPS for over $920 in increased cost.

I don't consider 1-3 fps as any difference, and WoW is NOT CPU LIMITED, if you spend $1000 you get 10 FPS, if you spend that same money on a better GPU you can get 60 or 100 FPS. It is obviously a GPU limited game, since buying a better GPU can increase FPS by like 3 or 4 times while going from the absolute bottom line CPU to the absolute top line only gets you a 10 FPS boost.

You are just being intentionally deceiving and arguing semantics. The truth is in the real world that faster CPU makes no discernible difference, only with a program monitoring FPS would you be able to see the difference, and that was my point all along. WoW isn't CPU limited, and thus CPU upgrades give completely negligible improvements.

 

Sigh. I'm not being deceiving at all. The argument stands until you throw in "is it worth it?" at which point I've agreed with you every time that it isn't. To simply state you won't get a better (albeit 1-3fps) performance with a better processor is stupid. IS IT WORTH IT? NO. Still just opinion. Just because YOU don't consider 1 - 3 fps as any difference doesn't mean the OP won't. But unlike you, I'm not here to tell him if it is worth it or not, just state facts. Let HIM decide is it worth it. I've stated multiple times now I don't think it is. But I'm not the OP.

Are you off your high horse yet? You might be able to see what I'm talking about once you are.

 

I guess I just can't wrap my mind around anyone thinking 1-3 FPS is worth it for $300+. If I were to set an R1 and R2 side by side running WoW you couldn't tell the difference, it isn't even large enough to be noticeable with the naked eye.

I guess unlike you I am willing to give my opinion and experience, perhaps this guy doesn't know that he isn't gonna even be able to see that FPS increase. That it is so small it doesn't even exist except in the land of benchmarks and FPS counters. I feel like it is more deceptive how you presented it, because you make it sound like it might be worth it, like your missing out if you don't have those 1-3 FPS (and the increase isn't even guaranteed, since it is very possible the i7 would not show any increase at all, that link was meant to drive that home, that huge increases in processor power provide almost no noticeable FPS gains in WoW). I present it as it in the real world, you can't even tell, it is not worth it, the end.

Anyway, in the end we differ in presentation, but I think we agree overall, I just present it in a more real world way, because a lot of people ask on NBR because they don't have the real world experience to know.

 

Your way contains many assumptions and personal bias with minimal facts. I don't present assumptions and (try to) give figures or processes. And even on top of that, I offered my opinion, yet again, multiple times, which in this case align with yours.

While I'm not pompous enough to say "I do it in a more real world way" or in an affect to say it is better than yours, I'd still like to point out the differences.

 

I think I provided more hard facts through-out this discussion, hard FPS numbers, actual cost numbers, actual performance increases, I explained why it was that way, with the GPU and bandwidth shortage.

You seemed to repeat vague insinuations that a faster CPU always helps and would be a noticeable and valuable upgrade, without really quantifying that as to how valuable or noticeable. In the end I think we got to the truth, the CPU increases performance, by 5-15%, or 1-3 FPS. Not a big deal, or even noticable without an FPS counter. We could have saved 20 posts and 2 pages by just sticking with my initial advice of it not being worth it because the CPU upgrade will have no noticeable effect. I guess that was my error though. I put NO EFFECT as a solid constant in the post you took offense to. I should have put no noticeable effect, so that you could rest easy knowing it did get 1 or 2 FPS faster, just no one can tell with their naked eye.

 

I don't own either (R1 or R2), so it isn't here or there which one does better to me. I also didn't use any facts that you didn't provide at some point. A "faster" cpu doesn't always help, in this case it does, albeit minimally. Additionally, at what point would 1-3fps be worth it to you? And where do those FPS come into play (18 fps to 21 has more affect than 30 to 33fps, so depends what game you play). What if it cost $1? What about $10? $100? Who knows when a coupon or a bundle comes into play where the cost difference isn't mostly the CPU. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never. Using a variable to state a fact is not logical. The OP will find the cost difference when he decides to buy and decide for himself. Stating 1-3fps in most games is logical and useful. Had you left it at that and not tried to be the end-all be-all judge you like to act as, then no, I wouldn't take issue.

 

I think you guys have covered the gaming aspects of what I wanted to know. Just for my reference, where is it proven/documented (sorry if it's posted in this forum already) that the i7 is ~ a 15% increase in fps?

I work as a network administrator and even though I can't use my own hardware on the job, it would be nice to know what sort of difference I would see between the i5/i7 and my current su4100 in those types of situations. Will running a lot of RDP\VNC sessions be limited by cpu to an extent? I would think memory would play the largest factor here to run the RDP\VNC sessions, and 4gb should be sufficent.

Not that I'll ever use this laptop for said purposes....

 

Documented? Not exactly. Keep in mind you can have 2 computers with the exact same configuration and get slightly different scores. Most of these %'s come off of the benchmarking done, so really you get an average to try and base your choice off of.

That being said, though, you running multiple connections like you pointed out would probably be most benefited by memory as you have guessed.

 

Most everything can be found in threads in this forum, the benchmarking and gaming threads are good places to start.

 

I received my i5 version last Friday. This replaced my R1 version which BSOD right out of the box when I attempted to OC the unit. I almost reorder another R1 but after reading about the BSOD issue , I just went for the r2 i5 version. So far I'm extremely happy with no issues at all. The 3 games I have played , Borderlands , L4D2 and Dragon Age have played as well as my Asus G73jh....so I'm extremely satisfied so far.

 

dupe post- sorry

 

Seems the main reason for the M11X is for portable gaming. The newer chipsets eat about 30% more power, so seems counter-productive. If the main reason to get the M11X is higher end gaming and not portable gaming, why buy the M11X?

There are far better 14" lappies with built in DVD roms that play games faster and for less cost. I have an M11X, but portable gaming is the reason I have it. Eating a lot more battery for not the same perecent of frame rate gain seems odd.

 

Ive had my m11x r1 su4100 since feb, OC since day one - I play EVERYTHING maxed with only specular lighting checked off and shadows off - 25-30 fps in 25 man raids, works fine no complaints - The only reason id get an r2 is for this "soft touch" stuff

 

Thats my thinking. The soft touch is a major bonus to me. Also not worth $300 though, of course. Wait for a good deal on the i5 or if they release the i3.