G71 a step backwards?

I was really considering getting the G71, but I saw this Gateway refurbed at TigerDirect for only $850, $300 cheaper than the G71 for $1150.
Naturally, I went to cnet to see how their tests checked out and I was kind of shocked.

Multimedia Multitasking test (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
Gateway P-7805u FX = 792
Asus G71GX-RX05 = 949
Adobe Photoshop CS3 image-processing test (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
Gateway P-7805u FX = 137
Asus G71GX-RX05 = 154
Apple iTunes encoding test (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
Gateway P-7805u FX = 159
Asus G71GX-RX05 = 185
Unreal Tournament 3 (in fps)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
1280x800, 0X AA, 0X AF*
Gateway P-7805u FX = 120.8
Asus G71GX-RX05 = 123.6
Video playback battery drain test (in minutes)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
Gateway P-7805u FX = 181
Asus G71GX-RX05 = 159

So for $300 dollars less I am getting a laptop that is better in every way, (according to the tests) might have better resoloution if I'm lucky(a lot of the P-7805-u's came out with 1900x1200 screen because Gateway screwed up hehe), but I am losing 3 fps oooo, and the obvious complication with getting a refurbished laptop? I heard the 260m graphics card had a 50% better performance than the 9800, but only 3 fps difference... Oh, and it has a 3 hour battery life in comparison to the 1.9 hours the G71 has.
Any thoughts to sway me one way or the other?

I don't really understand why the tests ended up this way when the G71 has 6GB DDR2 RAM 12max compared to the Gateway's 4GB DDR3 and has a better cpu and gpu. Is the G71 more futureproof with the newer gen graphics card and max Ram ammount?

Should I trust cnet's way of testing?
I am not trying to "bash" the G71 btw, don't hate me

 

Take CNet reviews with a grain of salt. From experience, CNet reviews are not so reliable and often very generic. If you want to see better reviews, this is probably the site for that.

 

I do know that a GTX 260m kills any of the 9800m cards, with the possible exception of the GTX. In the 9800m GTX's case, the 260m just beats it, not kills it.

By the way, those Cnet numbers look real fishy.

 

So you think the performance on the G71 is most likely better? I am just kind of confused

 

The Gateway FX has a 9800 GTS, supposedly only 3 less fps on cnet's fps test strange

 

Well, if any of those Cnet tests take into account hard drive performance, it might be understandable to have slightly slower scores for the G71 as it has a 5400rpm drive.

However, the G71 has a better processor, and a better graphics card. Those numbers from cnet always seemed fishy for me.

oh well. I can tell you with certainity that the G71 is a better performer than the gateway.

 

the gateway also has ddr3 ram, but i dont see that being anything else that would help tilt it in its favor. By the numbers, the asus is better, minus the slower hd speed, and ddr2. BUT i would (and did lol) take 6 gigs of ddr2 with the possiblility of even more over the max of 4 gigs of ddr3 within the fx.

 

If you look in the owners lounge there's a thread debating the two. I had both, benchmarked side by side, and kept the Asus G71.

 

Keep in mind that different drivers and operating systems can greatly affect benchmark scores. Even if one notebook scores slightly higher say in 3DMark06, does not necessarily mean it will play certain games better than another notebook that scored slightly lower.

 

Like David said, take into consideration that they might be using stock drivers and such.
What would happen to the scores if DOX drivers were used?
The Asus G71GX can overclock the GPU AND CPU - the Gateway FX (in the article) can only overclock the GPU. What would the score be then?
What would happen if they upgraded the Hard drive speed of the G71GX-RX05 from 5400rpm to 7200rpm like the other computers have?
As Forge said, the GTX 260m beats all 9800m graphics cards, CNET just sucks at doing tests. Their reviews should only be taken with a grain of salt and are often untrue anyway. CNET said the Sony Vaio is better than G71GX-RX05 in regards to speed/benchmarks but the Sony Vaio in the comparison has a crappy graphics card and slower CPU than the G71GX-RX05... those tests seem fishy to me as well.

 

i wouldnt be surprised if cnet were paid off, many car reviewers are. they probably "accidentally" left the g71 in power saver.

also as a thought, the g71 in high performance mode has a minimum cpu level of 5%. the fx has the default minimum at 100%. that might make a diffence somehow.

i can testify that the g71 in standard mode runs video and web browsers MUCH better than the FX while running divx converter. also, it runs dolphin much better too - even when not overclocking (but to run smoothly you need to).