Asus A7J vs Asus A8Jm

Hey guys i need to decide which notebook to get. I would like to be able to play following games: oblivion, battlefield 2, counter strike source and future stuff. Which notebook would be better for that Asus A7J or Asus A8Jm. I know that Asus A8Jm has a better vid card does that make a lot of difference? Also Asus A7J has a better screen 17 inch. What do u guys think which one should i get?

Thanx in advance

 

Well, do you also need portability? They both seem comparable in terms of specs (x1600 vs Go7600 are about equal in performance, so you can pick any of those and they'll serve you well), so it'll come down to how much you travel with it....

 

I thought Asus A8Jm has a 512mb vid and Asus A7J 256mb vid card. Isnt that right? That makes difference? BTW i wont be travelling with notebok much caus eits for college.

 

Actually the 7600 with 512megs is worse than the X1600 with 256megs (by a bit).. You need to do some learning kiddo, the size of the memory doesn't mean a thing.. The 7600 uses 8 pipelines and a high clock, the x1600 uses 12 shader pipelines and a lower clock..

=) Go for the A7J, but it's a piece of crap for the price you're paying. You could easily get a Dell E1705, for much less with a nvidia 7900GS, which is at LEAST 2.5x faster

 

The A8Jm has 512MB Dedicated memory, while the A7J has 256MB Dedicated and I assume 256MB hypermemory..., but in terms of performance it doesn't really make much difference, as not many games/apps can make use of a full 512MB dedicated RAM card.

In benchmarks, the x1600 wins in 3dMark05, while the Go7600 wins in 3dMark06 which supposedly makes use of the dedicated RAM. So, don't think either is worse than the other even by a bit

 

I don't know exactly how much 3dMark scores matter in real-world gaming, but the A8Jm (7600 w/ 512mb) scores just slightly higher than the ASUS notebooks with the X1600, but its so close some people's results are higher and some are lower.

I agree though, from the research I have done ASUS seems to really be the best choice in the 14" market, but when it comes to 17", there's a lot of other beasts out there, a highly configured Dell E1705 will beat any ASUS in gaming and with coupon codes will come in cheaper. Also the only available screen with the ASUS 17" is 1440x900, weak. With Dell you have the option of 1920x1200 (my ideal is 1680x1050 on a 17")

You might want to wait about 2 weeks for HP to release the dv9000 and see how that pans out. It's a new 17" model, 1680x1050 will be an option, optional HDMI port, GeForce 7600 256MB so it should have similar gaming performance to both the A7J and A8Jm as long as it hasnt been underclocked by HP

 

I didnt know how many pixel pipelines each one uses i do now . Btw u know where i can get that dell for a good price in Canada?

Thanx in advance

 

well, dell.ca and costco are your only choices really...

Wait a few weeks and hunt around dell.ca every few days and check out what prices they have posted, when you find a good deal buy it. Upgrade to the 7900GS, and i'd recommend u also upgrade their screens, as the default ones are pretty trashy compared to the upgrades.

 

The W3J (X1600) gets 3900, the A8Jm (7600) gets 3600. In what world does the 7600 scores better?

 

Ah, ok I see where I made my mistake. Notebookreview's A8Jm review only lists 3dMark06, which is 2,365. I thought there was a 2nd review of that model which had a 3dMark05 score (3,850), but I just realized that was actually a review of the A8Ja which has a X1600.

 

With stock drivers my A8Jm pulled 3950 in 3DMark05. That is not a typo.

There's really no point in fanboyism about either part, they perform about equally. Though for what it's worth, the X1600 has twelve shaders, but only four full pipes. It's a very odd little design.

X1600 beats Go 7600 in 3DMark05, Go 7600 wallops X1600 in 3DMark06, and in most games (excluding Doom engine games) you can consider them fairly evenly matched.

 

dude you got some learning to do before you go spreading information that you read about a few benchmarks...have you actually seen both cards in action? I seen both cards on bf2 and the 7600go was bit better so you take the bechmarks, pipelines all the stuff with a grain of salt. One game may play a bit better than the other, however actual game play is different then numbers from 3d mark.

 

Yep, in 3dMark05 my A8jm pulls out about 3950 also at stock, there's no way 3600 is correct.... in 3dMark06, stock I get about 2350...

 

yup 3950 at stock. I've never overclocked. If i change nvidia driver settings and move everything from quality to high performance my score is at 3972ish, otherwise its usually higher than 3950, i've only hit 3949 once.

Darrick i know you wanted me to oc and test my vid card core freq, i still havent managed to get around to it, i will eventually after the 12th of Aug, when my last summer school course finishes

 

zydus: np... looks like your marks will be similar to mine in 05... mine got ard 4250 .... in 06,, it's still 2580 max.... the only one here who managed to get past 2600 is cdd ..

 

a very important factor here ok, way more important than the 3dmark 05 score or the 06 score ( which the 7600 is better in) is this

Game compatibility. Im going to give you the example you need to consider.

Lets say the game is Fear. It needs 128 mb to run. If you dont have it it tells you no way. It doesnt say do you want to give it a try.

Now, Im going to give you a common example. There was the ti 4600 , and the ti 4800. They both came out with 64 and 128 mb. the ti 4800 was marginally faster.

If you have a ti 4800 64 mb no fear. if you have a ti 4600 128 mb Fear. that simple. A whole cycle of games are compatible with like um... ati 9200 128 mb and not ti 4800 64 mb. I mean slow mind you, but function.

For something you cant upgrade, this will matter more in the life of the notebook than the speed.

A 512 mb 7600 is more desirable than a 256 mb 7800 in the e1705, using my logic. It will LIKELY be game compatible for a longer period. Neither card has any difference other than speed as far as dx compatibility. they will both go to the salvation army at the same time, only the 7600 will have a few more months of limping through the generation of games coming in a few years.

 

You might have a point about compatibility but the fact remains that the 7800 is ALOT faster. By the time 512 is a requirement, your battery will have died and your laptop will be in your dying breaths. That, and your 7600 won't have been able to run a game for a while.

I have an A8Jm and I'm very happy with it (though the screen is not as excellent as many make it out to be), but a 7800 is faster and I wouldn't worry about 512 and compatibility.

 

what is the power consumption heat generation of the 7800 as compared to the 7600?

 

Almost twice the power consumption, 30-40% more performance.

 

given that i wud stick with 7600. the A8j is a 14" beast with 1 fan which is super quiet and churns out ~3hrs of battery life.

Not to mention the dells are just ugly

 

Dont u think 14 inch is a lil small compare to 17 which A7J has?

 

You got some information to learn before you can tell me that statement. There are programs out there, which I no longer use because I'm running latest hardware on my desktop, but there's DX modifiers, which changes the graphic settings on your card to make it emulate stuff. For example, if you have a DX 8.1 card you could emulate it to run Shader Model 3 games, such as doom 3, even if it's not supported.

You can also emulate it to give your computer the feel it's running a 128meg, or better a 500gig video card. And there you go, the game will run. It's exactly wat I used to do to my old Ti 4800 and radeon 7000.

 

As for conclusion to this point:
The A8Jm is a winner, the A7J is a loser.

Why? Well because for a 14.1" the A8Jm kicks ass. But for a 17" laptop, the A7J sucks balls.

 

I think the A7J just sucks because of its lower res for a 17" notebook ...... specs and power wise, it's equal to the A8Jm in this comparison..... dunno if it can be configured with a higher res than WXGA? If it can, then it wouldn't be too bad...

 

Nope, it can't, unless you were to buy a higher res LCD panel and try and install it yourself (no idea if its practical or possible). 1440x900 on a 17" isn't bad, it's a comfortable size, I'm looking at one right now. Everything is the same size as you'd expect from the resolutions available on desktop monitors. But it is a waste to get a 17" notebook and only have 1440x900, a 1680x1050 would make them a lot more competitive

Darrick, to get an idea, the screen on your A8Jm is about 11,600 pixels/sq. in. A 1440x900 on a 17" is 9,900 pix/sq. in. A 1680x1050 on a 17" is 13,500 pix/sq. in.

 

After reading through this thread, I'm just wondering why we are comparing a relatively top of the line 14" to a mid to low end 17" laptop. The comparison just isn't there as far as weight, power consumption, portability.... but if you're looking for a desktop replacement, the A7J is def not the route to go, you could do alot better. For a 14" though, the a8jm looks very solid, relatively on par with w3j but for less. Still looking around the 14" space for comparisons though

 

Do u guys know where i can buy A8Jm in Canada?

 

The 2 places most ppl buy from are MilestonePC.com and NCIX.com ... I know there are a couple more places if you do a Google search....