Sager NP2096 Vs. Asus M50VM-B1

Alright guys buying one of these two by no later than the middle of this coming week, need some good insight on which to go with. I am not an extreme gamer, however I do use my computer for games from time 2 time. I am a college student (Computer Programming Major), and I will be using this laptop for the next 2-3 years. Big things for me are customer support/warranty, as well as longevity of the computer. Here is the specs for both laptops from xoticpc.

Sager NP2096

15.4" WSXGA+ "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1680x1050)
Intel® P8600 45nm "Montevina" Core™2 Duo 2.40GHz w/3MB L2 On-die cache - 1066MHz FSB 25 watt
512MB PCI-Express nVidia GeForce 9600M GT DDR2 DX10
4,096MB DDR2 800 (2 SODIMMS) Dual Channel Memory
200GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300 - 16MB Cache)
Built-in Intel® PRO/Wireless 5100 802.11 a/g/n
Sager 3 Year Parts & Labor Warranty, Lifetime Sager Toll Free Support (NO ACCIDENTAL COVERAGE)

Total Price (Before shipping):$1349.27

Asus M50VM-B1

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T9400 (2.5GHz, 6MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066MHz)
4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2-800 Memory
15.4" WXGA+ (1440x900) Color Shine LCD
nVidia GeForce 9600M GS Graphics Controller
320GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
802.11a/g/n Wireless LAN
2 Year ASUS GLOBAL Warranty, 24/7 Tech Support, 1 Year Accidental Damage Coverage & 2-Way Pre-Paid Overnight Shipping for Repairs

Total price (Before shipping):$1,357.03

Also, how big of a difference in heat and power consumption will the p8600 provide


Thanks

Michael

 

i just got the M50VM-B1 and will use just like you, it is a great machine, solid build and should last 2-3 years probably even longer.

 

Both look good to me - I have been on and off considering these two laptops (and a few others)

I think the Sager wins for gaming, longer warranty, higher rez screen, battery life (based on historical performance) and possibly build quality.

Asus wins with accidental warranty coverage and better styling.

I cannot get over the extreme vanilla look of the NP2096 but if you don't care, I would recommend that one. Good luck.

 

I would recommend the Sager based solely on the fact that it has a higher screen resolution which means less scrolling through multiple lines of code when you're programming. The Asus has the better warranty (w/ ADP) though, but you'll be screwed either way if your laptop goes out on you and you've got programs to finish. Probably a good idea to have a cheap backup in case and the college computers don't have what you need for your coursework.

 

A very good point, and that does make the Sager look better in that sense. However, noone has posted about battery life, heating, customer service for both companies, and which laptop will last longer (future proof as well).

Thank you three for submitting your replies so fast.

 

For build quality, heating, and other things on the Sager, I would suggest you ask those on the Sager board or the Compal board (which the NP2096 is based on).

As for the ASUS the battery life is what an ASUS is: right under 3hrs on battery saving without any modifications (pretty decent though for this powerful of a laptop). The laptop produces very little heat (mostly just the heat coming out of the fan). Customer service for ASUS in North America is very nice, my friend sent in his F8Sn for repairs and got it back in about 4 days. As for lasting longer, I'm not too sure on that, wish I could predict the future of technology.

 

I'd say 'SAGER' just because it is barebone COMPAL custom built for YOU.
So it has more careful assembly and better testing.
Probably (not sure) battery life is better too.
As extra there are 2 USB ports that can charge your MP3 or GPS while notebook is OFF

BTW you can order same COMPAL based notebook from some other exotic places

 

Also, how much faster/better performance will the 200gb 7200rpm get, compared to the 320gb 5400rpm?

 

Not much I think. But you need to do some research to be sure.

 

Here is a thread on the 5400 vs 7200 drive debate. Bottom line is that performance is close when comparing 200GB 7200rpm vs 320GB 5400rpm - 7200 will probably load a bit faster but will also run hotter and burn battery life quicker.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=205899

 

Do not worry about HD performance. There are many things that affect performance and HD will be last of them.
I'd prefer larger drive with low rpm

 

Their speed is about exactly the same.

QFT!

 

Actually, that's not correct. Assuming that your application setup does not exceed the amount of available RAM (few people do given that nowadays 3 and 4 GB -- which is still 3GB when you use a 32bit OS -- are standard), then the HDD becomes the major bottleneck. Every time you load an application and wait for its window to appear; every time you wait those 3 minutes after logon just for all the silly system tray applications to load -- each of these lags is due to the HDD. CPU is almost never maxed out in current systems.

So on the contrary, I would say that the HDD is a major player in the performance of a 2008 notebook.

That doesn't change the fact that a 320GB 5400RPM HDD will probably deliver nearly the same performance as a 7200RPM 200GB -- but with 120GB extra of available space.

 

CPU is maxed out at startup loading all necessary processes and these silly system tray applications and especially security applications.
Log on is easy. If you want to check it out, log off and log on again.

 

Hmm that's very interesting. So would you say a 200 GB 7200 RPM HD is significantly better than a 250 GB 5400 RPM HD in this case? I can't make up my mind between the A1 and the A2 models of the G50, there's only a $200 difference for a blu-ray drive and 7200 RPM HDs which is a good price but I don't wanna spend it if it's not worth it.

 

200GB 7200RPM > 250GB 5400RPM.

However as capacities speeds go up...think it's something to do with the the data density. I think for similar performance you're looking at .`. 320GB 5400RPM vs. 200GB 7200RPM.

It doesn't really matter however, since the G50v has 2 HDDs which can be striped in RAID (OMG), performance will be fast so you needn't really worry about this as much (5400RPM x2 ~ 10800RPM in RAID0).

 

I will be disabling RAID by taking one of the hard drives out so I don't know if I should get the 250GB 5400 or the 200GB 7200 RPM. I wanna do it only if there is a good increase in performance, if it's too small to notice then it doesn't really matter.

 

Just wondering why are you taking one of them out? The 200gb will be a little bit faster than the 250gb. I went with the A1 for a few reasons. It is $200 cheaper and that is money can used for so many things that I will be needing for college. The 250gb hd's in raid 0 will be much faster than the average laptop anyway plus they will have 100gb more storage. Lastly, Blue-ray is great but in order to experience what it really has to offer I would almost be forced to spend more money on a surround system or I would feel it's just not complete (this does not apply to everyone but I am an extreme audiophile). Plus I wont have my hdtv at college so 70% of the year I wont feel the benefit of blue-ray.

 

Well I really don't need 500GB of space, and taking one of the hard drives out would mean better cooling as there aren't 2 of those things crammed in there anymore. Plus it would be a little lighter, and I'd put the second HD in an external enclosure and give it to my dad to use as a back up. So it works out well for me. When you say the 200GB would be a little faster, I'm assuming it's not a big difference at all?

 

I asked Xotic and they said it wouldn't be noticeable. My guess is that you would have to run the A1 vs. the B1 back to back to actually see the difference. But alone you just wouldn't notice it.

 

I don't know I'm kinda confused by the whole situation. The majority of people I talk to tell me the 200GB HD is much better...but some, as you said, tell me there's really no noticeable difference. Then there's all this talk of the HD being the bottleneck and so you should go with the faster drive...I'd like to just go with the A1 if there is no significant performance boost from the A2 model.

 

How important is Blue-ray to you? Do you have an HDTV/watch a lot of movies/ have money to spend on the actual blue ray disks?

 

Doc Z, I really don't know what to suggest but if you do get a model with the 2HDDs in your place, I wouldn't remove the 2nd HDD, at least not in the first place. I would give it a try, see how it does with heat etc. If your dad needs a backup, just buy a WD external for that purpose.

I would use the computer in RAID0 - then it should really fly. Plus, you have the advantage of never having to back up stuff -- it's done automatically.

As to 200GB 7200 vs 250GB 5400, I really don't know whether the difference is noticeable. Can't you look up a review on google that compares these exact two drives (assuming you know the brand and model)? E.g., on Tom's Hardware. Different reviews won't do as well, because different test conditions (RAM, running applications etc) will bias the results.

Oldman, you are right that the CPU is maxed out, in the sense that it's running at its maximum clock during boot. I don't know if it's maxed out as in running at 100% both cores. I don't really have hard proof for it and I won't start researching it, but personally I still have a strong feeling that the HDD is still the main slowdown during bootup and loading the OS.

 

Blu-ray is really not that important to me as I already have a PS3 but it is definitely a nice bonus. My primary concern is speed/performance so the HDDs are the main selling point of the A2 for me and the blu-ray is an added bonus. Overall it's a great package for only $200 more.

And E.B.E., I guess I'll be going with the 7200 RPM HDDs but I want to take one of them out primarily because of cooling. And it helps me kill 2 birds with one stone considering my dad's in need of a faster HDD so I might actually use it to replace his HDD instead of giving it to him as a backup.

 

aethestically speaking, I prefer m50MV look to any sager, they are just too industrial looking....

 

2 seconds...

Go with the Asus. Its prettier, and they are both have 128bit gpus (very similar real game performance), full keyboard, 2.5ghz cpu.

 

Surely you realize that saying "2 seconds" is as meaningless as answering "42" to the Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

 

Now that I know you already have a blue-ray player I feel safe recommending the A1 to you over the A2. The reason being if you plan on taking one of the HD's out, you could configure your laptop on Xotic and make your first HD a 320gb 5400 for $124 more. The 320gb will be as fast as the 200gb 7200rpm plus it will hold more plus your dad will get 50 more gig if you give him the 250gb compared to the 200gb he would get with the A2 and it will be cheaper. With that said I think two hard-drives is nice feature and personally wouldn't take one out but if you don't need the space and your dad needs a hard drive what I recommended makes sense.

 

Hahaha, nice one

Back to the topic, both laptops offer a great warranty and have been renowned (both Asus & Sager/XoticPC) for their customer support. That being said, I think what should matter in this area is the time duration of your warranty and the extras given (ex: do you want accidental damage coverage or not).

Nevertheless, both are solid options, but since the NP2096 isn't yet available, I'd suggest waiting upon reviews. According to paladin44's post, they should be out pretty soon. Also, if I may, as a computer science undergrad student myself, I do favor faster CPU over faster GPU (I have the bad habit of compiling too often...). Hence why I'd compare the Sager NP2096 equipped with a P9500 to the Asus M50VM-B1 for a price reference.

 

Well, my A1 configuration with the 320GB 5400 RPM is $1763 and my A2 configuration stock is $1839. That's a difference of less than $100 for 2 faster HDDs (though less space but that doesn't matter to me) and a blu-ray player. It still seems like a better value don't you think?

 

I have very firm believe that during bootup both CPU cores are very busy because there are about 30 vital procedures to be loaded. than on the last stage AV software is a major player. It runs checkup throughout WINDOWS directory and continues this even after your windows look all open - screen looks good, all icons in place, but AV still running and running and and makes CPU busy. All other programs have to wait for AV to finish

About bottlenecks.
IMHO the real bottleneck is FSB.
If I replace SATA 1.5 HD with SATA 3 HD, i will not speed up computing,
RAID will never ever double performance - in best case scenario it will be 15% gain if software optimized (like ORACLE for instance) - I can't elaborate further.

 

I don't want to be difficult or to argue for the sake of arguing, but I want us to establish a valid conclusion before we close the discussion on this topic.

As I said I don't have time to do detailed research, but here are some links. Sorry for the heterogeneity of the results (different OSes, different machines... it's just what I could find with google).

Influence of HDD on boot time

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/perf/issuesImportance.html

(in 2008, replace hundreds by thousands)

A live demo of how faster storage media (in this case SSD versus HDD) improves boot up times on otherwise identical machines (I hope they did not use a biased test setup just to "wow" people):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpxab2osjKo

Also, Tom's Hardware always looks at OS startup performance when testing HDDs, for instance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...,1789,1788,1793,1829,1766,1785,1833,1786,1801

This also indicates that HDD performance is very important to booting up the system.

Influence of CPU on boot time

http://www.kegel.com/linux/comfort/startup-benchmarks.html

Check the 500MHz vs 1000MHz performance. System boot times are about the same. Also lists WinXP results.

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/Speed_Up_Windows_Vista_Boot_Time.html

Using 2 cores as opposed to 1 saved this person 5 seconds... which I'll bet is not really half the boot time. Of course, I'm not sure what exactly improved by that tweak, so this is just an illustrative link.

==============

I didn't find results explicitly comparing the influence of the HDD with the influence of the CPU (maybe you'll be luckier, if you find any I'm very interested). But it really seems that the consensus in the community is that the HDD is the main player when it comes too bootup times, and the quick numerical results I was able to find also support this theory (although weakly, these wild links are not really scientific proof).

I am sure that the CPU also makes a difference, it's not like it doesn't matter; but I think that difference is smaller than the difference made by the HDD. For instance, I expect that a 10% faster HDD will give close to a 10% improvement in boot times; whereas a 10% faster CPU will NOT deliver close to 10% improvement in boot times.