Dilemma: A8Js or W3J

From experience, which one is better?

Here's what's really creating the dilemma:

A8Js
PRO: GF 7700 512mb, DVI port, 1400x800, webcam, cheaper,
CON: plastic build, not as stylish as W3J

W3J:
PRO: Aluminium, looks sleek
CON: X1600 (as opposed to 7700, no DVI, 1280x800, no webcam)

so .... which one...?

I'm leaning towards A8Js, but i'm a little worried about the hinges falling loose...

 

I would also add some more features, the A8js is cheaper and the screen resolution is 1440x900, while the W3J has a multi-bay in which you may want that?

So if your looking for more batterylife go for the W3J since it has the multi-bay, but if you want a or have the need for an external LCD/or TV by all means the DVI port is also very important.

If i was looking for the best performance, hands down i would go for the A8js. But if i want more batterylife with style, go for the W3J, but i also like the A8js chasis too, its not ugly by any means.

 

I've been debating the W3J vs. everything else for about 2 months now, so maybe I can help a bit. This is just off the top of my head and may not be perfectly accurate, so other users please correct me on any bad facts or misconceptions.

In no particular order:

Video Card: First thing I'd say is I actually consider the x1600 and the GF 7700 to be fairly equal for all practical purposes. In fact a few members on this forum have reported nearly identical 3dmark scores between them. (Although the lower native resolution of the x1600 has to be taken into account, so technically the GF7700 is likely faster, but probably not practically )

CPU: The biggest con with the W3J versus the A8Js in my opinion is the CPU. The T5500 of the W3J is not only 340 mhz slower than the T7200 of the A8J, but has half the Cache. That imbalance is going to affect performance to a much greater degree than the disparity between video cards, and not only in games.

Price: This is the next biggest con on the W3J for me. It's expensive, and if I got it I'd definately upgrade to the Core 2 T7200 which will cost me another $250+ cdn, where the A8J's already has the T7200 built in.

Resolution: For the difference in resolution, I'm still on the fence. One reason being is that I've never owned a laptop so I don't really know what I like. Might I appreciate the extra desktop space? Maybe. But on the other hand there are definately people that prefer the larger resolution.

Webcam: Personally I have no use for the webcam on the A8Js. It's pretty low resolution and who wants to see my ugly mug anyway

Bluetooth: There are a very limited quantity of A8Js with factory installed bluetooth, whereas the W3J has it standard. Probably the best thing about bluetooth is if you have a cell phone to use with it, and the free Bluetooth mouse that comes with the W3J.

Build: The W3J is the obvious winner here. Whether it's as huge a difference as some W3J fans make it out to be I'm not sure. I have heard that the A8Js plastic is prone to scratches, and the hinge loosening.

TouchPad: I believe most people prefer the W3J's 'matte' touchpad to the A8Js 'glossy' one. One A8Js user had a pretty strong dislike of the 'glossy' touchpad which he said was kind of sticky.

DVI port: I don't have any use for the DVI port at this point, so it doesnt make a difference to me. But I could see how this could be a deal breaker for some people.

Other ports: The W3J has 3 USB ports where the A8J has 5. Personally I can't imagine myself needing more than 1 or 2 at any given time, especially with a Bluetooth mouse. The A8Js also has ports along the back which makes more sense for some things, where the W3J has ports only on the side.

Optical bay options: The W3J optical bay battery option is very appealing to me. If I do go ahead and get the W3J I'll likely get the second battery right off the bat. You can also get a hard drive drawer to go in the bay, but personally I'd rather just get a large USB 2.0 external drive if I need more space.

Hard Drive controller: The A8Js comes with the more future proof SATA controller while the W3J comes with the older PATA controller. Currently this doesn't matter because manufacturers are still updating their PATA lineups. But if in 2 years the largest SATA drive you can buy is 300gb, but the largest PATA drive you can find is only 200gb, this would be unfortunate for W3J owners.

Other W3J issues: Owners of the W3J have generally complained about a few things like 1. side function buttons easy to accidentaly press when transporting the laptop 2. some people experience uncomfort from the exhaust port near the mouse area, most say it is minor if not a problem at all. 3. some problems with the optical bay battery and main battery not working properly together.

Other A8Js issues: Owners of the A8Js have had some quibbles about 1. a bit of light leakage across the bottom of the screen 2. not so fantastic battery life.

 

My 3dmark scores show there is a huge difference between the 7700 and the x1600

not a small difference, just not even comparable.

to give you an example the difference between the x1600 and the 7700 is greater than the difference between the 7700 go and the 7800 go which goes in large desktop replacement machines

apearance wise the a8js is very attractive.

Where it loses out is that it is plastic covered in a metalic finish that will not last and will doubtless be less attractive than the w3j in a short time.

I feel certain that the hinges on the w3j are more durable. The a8js is more like most notebooks in this area.

the 5 ports on the a8js are so great, and I only have 2 usb devices.

there is a usb port on 3 different sides of the machine. that means right or left handed mouse. It means you can hook up an ipod from whichever side.

I dont necessarily think that ide drives will become obsolete by size. Where they will become obsolete is speed. As soon as the 10,000 rpms ones are introduced there wont be a ide version of any size.

 

Define huge.

Besides, in this thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=87310&page=4
Nrbelex gets a 4357 stock score in 3dmark05 with his W3J (T7200, 1gb)
From your signature it looks like you get 4283 stock with the same cpu.

So either someone has a better configured machine, or someone is being dishonest. Either way, I'd hardly call the difference huge until you get into 300+ range.

 

ok, and look at the 3dmark 06 scores.... over 150%

3dmark 05 favor the ati cards.

highest overclocked c2d 2.0 x1600 system is 4800-4900. 7700 is 5100.

The gpu is more than 150% of the speed. More than 150% to keep estimates based on 3dmark scores in view.


no one is being dishonest but someone needs to read and concentrate a little better.

As you get closer to buying one Im sure youll have the hardware clearer. I actually bought mine without ever seeing a real comparison.

 

What?! How do you get 4357 stock with T7200 and X1600??? I'm barely breaking 4000 here in 3DMark05.

 

Hey I'm not trying to get into an argument with you. I just tried to tell what I knew to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not sure exactly where you get the 150% number. From some 3dmark06 scores I assume, but if you are going to make conclusions like that you could at least tell us where those scores came from and if there is more than source for that.

As for overclocking, I don't plan on doing that with a laptop as it is too much of an investment for me and I don't want to make extra heat when I don't need to. If the GF7700 overclocks higher than the X1600, than that is definately a plus for the GF7700. It just doesnt apply to me is all, maybe it does for others.

I have no problem admitting I prefer an ATI based card, for two main reasons: the Omega drivers, and ATI Tray Tools. I've become used to these drivers and software because I've owned a Radeon 9700 pro for so long. Before it I had an nvidia product.

As for reading and concentrating better, I'd say look at yourself because I had a hard time understanding most of your points and where you were coming from. And your grammar could use a little improvement, at that.

 

Ask Nrbelex, or go read that thread he posted the scores in.

Maybe he's tuned Windows well and deleted some bloatware.

Anway, to clarify again, the only reason I diminished the video card issue is because to me it seems like the cards are close enough that either will be able to play the same games. I could assume the biggest difference might be having to use slighly lower AA/AF settings or something. Not a big deal to me, maybe it is for everyone else, but so what.

 

The 3dmark 06 score of the same machine is 150% higher. A machine with the same cpu, same set up.

Because the 3dmark score itself doesnt measure only the gpu, it measures the cpu it doesnt even give you much other than an estimate to compare the two gpus.

But if the score itself is 150% higher, the gpu can only be more than 150% faster.

Your welcome for taking the time to try and explain something to you that you said which was incorrect, solely for your benefit as a consumer.

As opposed to asking me to explain 3d mark scores for you and what they are comparing, the difference in test etc, I think you should go to the futuremark boards where people take time to explain this on a daily basis.

 

Ya but where did you find 3dmark06 scores that showed the 150% difference?

I'm not saying your wrong, I'd just be interested in seeing your sources so that I can make my own decision on it.

 

Cool man, thats why I said you should read more if youre a real consumer for these two machines in the near future.

um.... ok well Im trying to catch where you dont understand.


2600 is 800 more than 1800 it is aproxomately 150% more.

3100 is 900 more than 2200. it is apromately 150% more. These are not 150% different ok but when you consider the amount of the score that is actually the cpu ( again, APX 20%) it can only be MORE than 150% faster.

if you compare 3dmark scores of ati cards vs nvidia cards which is almost worthless to start with, you have to add in a percentage for nvidia in 05 and a percentage for ati in 06.

Ok Im not even going to do that because I dont care. I can give you an estimate of its speed based on the data in my signature and the data in nberelex signature. Its more than 150% as fast.

Next analyze the statistics of the gpu itself. Here on nbr theres a thread that shows what each gpu is rolling with.

Its supposed to be 150% as fast. Its actually more than that.

 

You know Stamar, I think you're getting a bit overconfident in the abilities of the A8Js and Go 7700. It may be because that's what you own so you're a bit protective, and I'll admit that I'm more of a W3J fan so I'm on the other side of the fence.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=523936

In any case, a pretty much stock MR X1600 with with a 2GHz C2D (there actually haven't been that many of those posted yet) gets 2060 in 3DMark06. Compared to your stock A8Js, you are only 30% faster, not more than 150% as you expound.

Now you say 3DMark05 tend to favour ATI, but 3DMark06 tends to favour nVidia. Why? 3DMark05 is optimized to test SM2.0 DX9 code which ATI is heavily optimized for in order to promote there R4xx series chips which only support up to DX9.0b and not DX9.0c. By the same token, 3DMark06 tests SM3.0 code which nVidia has had 2.5 generations to optimize for. ATI is also lacking the checkbox feature of allowing reading of textures from the vertex shader, which is supposed to be part of the DX9.0c spec. ATI accomplishes it another way, but 3DMark06 would probably dock marks since it's still not conforming to standards.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1811219

The highest overclocked 3DMark05 MR X1600 score BTW is not 4900 as you say, but 5174. And this was on a 2GHz T2500 Core Duo with old Cat 6.2 drivers. Going to a Core 2 Duo and the newest drivers (not even Omegas) will easily add more than a hundred points. Nrbelex's 3DMark05 score, BTW, was only using stock Cat 6.10 drivers, not Omegas, at stock clock speeds with no particular optimization.

All in all, in a completely identical system, the Go 7700 will be faster, but not by 150% the speed, not even by 130%. Maybe on a good day, it might be 120% of the X1600 in 3DMark06, but that doesn't necessarily translate into experience changing real life amounts.

 

Ok, tone it down guys, I have said this roughly 3-5 times already.

luc23, I like how you broke your opinion down in your first long post, however, you are slightly off, but that's ok let me explain.

1) GPU - X1600 vs x1700 vs Go 7600 vs Go 7700
ALL numbers are in 3DMark06! (I'm not talking about 3DMark05)

The X1600 will get roughly 1800-1900 points, the X1700 will get 1900-2000 points, roughly translates into a 3-8% increase in performance respectively.

The Go 7600 will get 1900-2000 points while the Go 7700 gets a staggering 2664 in the A8js (some will differ slightly), this shows a which shows a 20-25% increase in performance respectively.

Now when you compare both X1600 and X1700 to the Go 7700, the Go 7700 once again out performs both ATI counterparts by roughly 600-700 points which is roughly 20-25%.

NOTE: 3DMark05, I unfortunately, when i ran this benchmark, the values turned out weird. For example, the X1600, X1700 and Go 7600 are all suppose to get close to 4000 3Dmarks. However when i benchmarked the A8js in 3DMark05, i got roughly 3500-3600 and i ran it twice, i didn't take a screen shot because I thought i did something wrong here when i made a quick test.

So if someone is willing to post the 3DMark05 values for all 4 GPUS that would be great and with pictures.

CPU: 2mb vs 4mb of cache, from my research the difference is only 8%, but you would feel more comfortable with more clock speed and more cache. Here's an example, My E6300 which is an Allendale 1.86ghz with 2MB of cache. I have it overclocked to 3.2ghz on stock cooling.

Now lets take a E6600 which is 2.4ghz with 4mb of cache and OC it to 3.2ghz, now compare both and run benchmarks you will see roughly an 8% difference in performance. (from quickly researching this)

Now lets take both factors into consideration CPU and GPU, the A8js has the best of both, hence gaming would be better if your looking more into gaming, but if you want style and an option of more battery life then the W3J is a better choice.

I hope this clarifies this issue.

 

You are absolutely correct!, I was still typing my message, lol, i'm sure the A8js will do better in practical terms but i'm not sure by how much, you would need to take 5-10 games that benefit both ATi or Nvidia and take both W3J and A8js and benchmark them both together and see what comes out on top, and by how much.

In my opinion since the 3DMark06 shows a significant increase in performance, it would be safe to assume it will be perform better, but I don't know how much better in terms of FPS as a whole.

 

I think I came to a decision, and that's A8Js

thx guys...for all that info.

I realized that I'm sacrificing too many features from the A8Js by getting a W3J AND paying more. I might as well go with the "metal-like plastic" on the A8Js and rely on warranty when hinges fall apart. i doubt the hinges are bad, and even if they are, I can tighten them up easily.

Seriously, why don't they just make an aluminum version of the A8Js.

Btw, I also wanna know ... since it's a fixed bay on the A8Js, does it mean it can't change its dvd drive in the future, or does it just mean u can't add a 2nd battery in that slot (and it's only restricted to dvd drives)?

 

In the W3J, it has a special Multi-bay feature in which yes you can interchange the optical drive to a hard drive or battery.

The A8js does not have this feature, but it does not mean you are limited to that particular optical drive it comes with. However it is best that you inquire about the optical drive you want to use and whether it is compatible with the A8js.

 

I never knew the 3dmark06 scores were so much better on the 7700. That news is going to make my decision so much harder.

I feel I'm going to have to make a road trip and see these things in person before I decide.

Hey Milestone, I'll be in the Toronto area this Friday, and I know you have a shop in Markham. Would I be able to expect the A8Js and the W3Jp to both be in stock in Markham at the end of this week?

 

I still have an A8Jm, which is fairly inferior to the A8Js.

I've REALLY come to appreciate the port placement on the A8Jm/s. They're just where you'd expect them. Video/LAN/power/lock/2USB on the back, 1USB+audio+1394 left, 2 USB right. Meanwhile my friend with a W3J is cursing only having 3. In his words, "WHY DOES THE MORE EXPENSIVE LAPTOP HAVE FEWER USB PORTS?"

Plus, I have a 21" widescreen LCD, so DVI is a dealbreaker for me.

Looks wise, I've come to really like my A8Jm. W3J is sexier, but I'd be disturbed if I bought a laptop because of its sex appeal. I mean jeez, it's a tool. Now that the A8Js is faster and has a higher res screen...W3J becomes increasingly hard to justify.

Sometimes though, I think the optical bay battery would be good, if only because it would allow me to be less diligent about my power consumption (I've yet to have it die on me)

There's MANY threads on the forum comparing the two, with advantages and disadvantages for both. Look them up, make a list of which ones you care about, and then see which one has the most advantages.

 

33% more

is 150%.

100 is 33% more than 66.

100 is 150 % of 66.

I use 150% because that is clearer. the gpu is MORE than 150% as fast.


I am not even trying to produce an acurate number on how much faster it is. Ill say that again there is no exact data. I can say based on just the scores of owners the gpu is 150% of the x1600

it is 33% faster, it can only be more than 33% faster it cannot be less than that number. That number is huge.
The op is asking is the difference SMALL or is it LARGE. My definition of small is much smaller than that, my definition of large is smaller than that as well.

Im not trying to slant any data I hate talking about gpus to be honest with you. I have a new machine and have looked into this subject in reasonable depth and I think people would benefit from my opinion....


you have to think for a moment about what you are purchasing with these two machines. You are spending about 700 for the gpu. If you didnt want to use the vista ui or game you could buy asus own a8jfetc or a dell e1405.

Spending that much on the gpu, putting value on the gpu, and then not appreciating one that is 33% faster doesnt make sense to me.

I would have loved to have aluminum lcd lid. You just stay tuned to me I have an idea about that.

edit i posted pictures of my 3dmark 05 scores in my signature in the a8js lounge. my scores are not optimized in the least all with bloatware and standard drivers. Im not looking to improve them lol someone else may want to. Im sure the 05 scores will go to 5500 just in shutting down background programs.
the 06 scores at least to 3300. Im not into overclocking my system I just happen to have the only data posted on the net about it atm

 

it commander.... i dont feel i should respond to your posts sometimes.
you are not on the correct wavelength of trying to find the hardwares actual stats and provide any objective information.

The highest overclocked 06 score ive seen on a x1600
is from the nbr user ap26 using a t7400 lg s1

Its oced really high like my o5 score

his score is 2196 with the higher cpu which is at least 100 points.

Mine is 3096.

If you even want to get in touch with planet earth and understand what the score is testing ( 2 tests are cpu only) The 06 difference in scores between both of our brand new unoptimized systems

Is around 170-180 percent. You will have to subtract a huge percentage of ati test bias to even get to 150% faster in 3dmark 06 scores.

I would not even try to estimate unless i gave you a lowball estimate because I dont want to respond to strange contradictions and I dont want to talk about the ati nvidia differences.

I would rather call the ati x1600 a 7600. Then i can show you, it is 150% faster exactly. Thats exactly what it is the 7600 150% If you can make the leap that the x1600 is the 7600 go then you have a real comparison, you dont even need to do anything just look at the gpu stats.

and IF the 7700 were 150% faster than the 7600 go, the 06 scores would be about 130% different because 2 tests score the cpu. But its more than that. Its more than 150% faster than the 7600 go, and the x1600, by a lot.

It exceeds its advertised stats even and i dont even understand why. But Ill find out eventually.

 

I am not very technical but heres what I see:

I have a W3j with T7400 merom 2 gig ram X1600 256 HD

3dmark05 = 4408
3dmark 06 = 2212

Thats out of the box, no OC.

I know the 7700 is better etc but its not like night and day...its not like you can play games on the 7700 but not on the X1600.

I have been perfectly happy with my setup and I can play all the latest games on high settings with great framerate and no problems.

I think you guys should worry more about the laptop features and dimensions than comparing the 7700 to the 1600 because as far as vid cards go, they are both just dandy.

If you really really need to have the best video card then you should move up to a 17" laptop and get SLI 7900's...now that would rock...you know an XPS or something. It just seems like this argument is blown out of proportion for such a small difference.

just my .02.

 

Absolutely, the video card should not be a decision point. I'd argue that even DVI is trivial. Has anyone seen the quality of VGA these days? Analog conversion isn't what it was before. I use VGA on my dell 20" and I can see the individual pixels when I look at pixel art!

I ended up choosing W3J because of build and screen. The build quality is something you deal with all the time. It's a very "hands on" thing that will have much bigger impact on your experience than the vid card or the # of USB ports you have. I prefer the lower resolution screen also because I think 100pixels/inch is really the sweet spot. Modern laptops have really gone overboard with resolution (especially Acer). Computer users are already prone to poor vision, why exacerbate it with stratospheric resolutions?

 

I must add in...please please please, consider the design of the A8J vs the W3J. The A8J is notorious for having a weak hinge that can break, as well as cause the LCD cover to crack even under the most diligent of care. I would most definitely consider the W3J over the A8J because of this issue.

 

This is quite an old thread, that was answered quite a while ago, and the OP has already bought his laptop. That being said, the hinges fo the A8Js seems to better than that of the A8Jm, since I haven't seen any reports of A8Js hinges breaking.

I would have bought W3J (even with a Core duo) if I could have afforded it.