ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M

So... the computer I am getting offers both and I am not sure which one to get. One thing to note- the GTX would cost me an additional $75. The main game I play is WoW if that makes any difference. Also, if there is already a thread on this, just link it (I wasn't able to find one, but it may be from some time back). Also, for gaming would it make much of a difference between 4GB me and 6GB mem? Or an i5 vs an i7 CPU?

 

The 5870 is better, and from your info 75usd cheaper. You'll hardly notice a difference between 4GB and 6GB. What i5 and i7 processor are you comparing specifically?

I hope this helps.

 

That was very helpful. I will give you all options that I am considering for a processor:
Intel Core i5-520M Processor (32nm, 3MB L3 Cache, 2.40GHz)
Intel Core i5-540M Processor (32nm, 3MB L3 Cache, 2.53GHz) [+$50.00]
Intel Core i7-620M Processor (32nm, 4MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz) [+$130.00]
Intel Core i7-720QM Processor (45nm, 6MB L3 Cache, 1.60GHz)[+$150.00]
Keep in mind my primary use for this computer will be college work / WoW / general (e.g. surfing web).

I am also not sure whether I should get:
15.6" HD+ LED Display with Super Glossy Surface (1600 x 900)
15.6" Full HD LED Display with Super Glossy Surface (1920 x 1080) [+$60.00]

The computer I am actually buying is the Sager NP 8690 by the way. Any other input/advice you have would be great. Thanks for the help so far.

 

The 5870 and 285M trade blows, but the overall message is that the 5870 is somewhat superior; there's no reason to pay $75 more for the inferior card, unless you just prefer Nvidia.

If you want an i7, then the quad-core 720QM should be your minimum. The 620M is just a dual core, and isn't worth the $$$ to upgrade over the i5 CPUs. So, either go 540M or 720QM.

 

Why would you need such a good card/cpu for wow? An integrated card with a crap cpu can run that game fine.

 

With ultra settings in a 25 man raid, you would be suprised how much power you need. Also, the next expansion is going to have a graphics overhaul--not sure exactly how big it will be--so I can never be too prepared.
Still need advice on whether one of the CPU upgrades I posted will make that much of a difference and also whether it is worth it to upgrade the resolution. Thanks for all of the input so far.

 

I think you won't really notice a difference between either CPU you mentioned for gaming, at least not until games start to take full advantage of 4 cores and require really heavy CPU resources. Personally I ordered a M15X couple days ago and went for the i5-540M as I run some emulators occasionally which usually don't like 4 cores CPU with lower frequencies. Otherwise I would probably have gone with a quad i7 as it was just a bit more expensive.

 

Where did you read this?

Last I read the only overhaul is just redoing the old maps (Azeroth) to update to the same graphics as Lich King. Which isn't a huge overhaul... In order to do a huge overhaul they would have to redo the engine and pretty much make a new game. WoW is running on it's last legs for sure, no doubt.

 

They'll be changing some little things like water effects and messing with the textures. Any computer bought within the past couple years should still be able to run it fine.

Will there be any updates to the graphics and changes to the minimum system requirements?
Yes, there will be incremental tweaks and updates to the graphics engine in this expansion. For example, we’ve made improvements to the way that water is rendered. We’ll announce the exact system requirements closer to the expansion’s release.

From the official Cataclysm FAQ
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/faq/


WOTLK:


Cataclysm:

 

Thanks for all of the advice so far.
Can anyone tell me if there is a major difference between the two resolutions I mentioned?

 

You will get more FPS with the lower resolution but more screen real estate with a higher resolution. It's up to you to decide which is more important.

 

WoW is one of those games I think you can crank up the settings. But the improvement in quality is minimal. But since the engine is so broken, whatever increased setting you choose, has a large hit on resources.

I don't see much if any differences from using low and ultra settings in WoW.

As for engine, it's pretty bad. Lineage 2 graphics IMO are better graphics by many times than WoW, yet Lineage 2 ran flawlessly with thousands of players participating in their castle wars.
- WoW broke, horribly with less than hundred players in Wintergrasp. 10 second lags... it was unplayable except at like 2 a.m when a lot of players went to bed.

Either way, I think the GTX 285 and HD5870 whichever you choose will be more than beastly for WoW, it's updates and any of the upcoming MMORPG. It should tear up Conan, Warhammer, LOTRO, Tera Online, FF XIV, and Guild Wars 2.

LOTRO might be the only iffy as LOTRO claims their next major update will utilize DX 11. But even then I don't think it will be major and 285M probably still overkill in DX 10.1 mode.

 

Well as a WOW player I can DEFINETLY see a huge difference in graphics low to ultra unlike ziddy. I agree, the engine is outdated and really not that good, but oh well.

Wintersgrasp first few months was horrible to painful to play. Over time they have smoothed it out some but it can become a lagfest.

Also I agree that a beefy machine is often needed for 25 man raids at good settings. I had also heard of the improved graphics and tweaks for cataclysm. I guess we'll see, that is if I keep playing. Kinda getting bored of the same old grind.

 

Most people on the Hardware section of this forum agree that the 620M is far better than the 720QM for the majority of mundane tasks (gaming included). I can't give anymore specific advice, but at least get the 540M processor (better investment than in the graphics card).

Regarding the resolutions it all depends if you want a Full HD or not. Some people will argue that for a 15.6'' screen full HD makes no sense because you can't tell the difference with the pixels so small. I have no personal experience with those resolutions.

I hope this helps.

 

The 620M is not a quad core cpu like the 720QM on the other hand ... and the 720QM will handle 'mundane tasks' just fine as well.

The concept of 'future proofing' is not exactly too valid, but if you want to be as prepared as possible with what is on the offer right now (and taking into consideration that more and more software is becoming multithreaded), I would suggest you take the ATI 5870 (which is better and cheaper in contrast to the GTX 285M) with the i7 720QM.

4GB would be enough for you.
You can easily upgrade to 6 or 8GB later on if the need will be there.

 

If you do go with the ATI 5870, just be aware that quite a few have had issues with the heatsink not making proper contact in the Sager. People always say that the ATI 5870 is better than the GTX 285M but they never seem to mention these issues. I also did not find any games performing better during actual gameplay with the 5870 Vs the GTX 285M. I get the feeling that was due to Nvidia Drivers and the fact that I use a lower resolution of 1600 x 900. I think the 5870 Vs GTX 285M probably shows superiority at higher resolutions.

 

^Is the heatsink issue severe, and does it affect the speed/capability of the computer (I'm not a laptop expert so I'm not quite sure how bad heat sink issues could be)?

 

I don't know what laptopnut is talking about, but everybody knows the 5870 is superior to the gtx 285 and runs at lower temps. Cheaper, DX11, simply better. The gtx285 also has a very old arhitecture, while the 5870 is new. If sager laptops really a have problem with a 5870 on them, just get the asus g73 and you'll be more then satisfied with your WoW experience. One of the cheapest high-end gaming notebooks, and has the asus build quality.

 

^I am pretty set on getting a Sager, but thanks for the advice anyway. Is there anyway you could tell me what it would mean to have heat sink issues--aside from the computer getting too hot?

 

^^^
Not every W860/8690 with the 5870 have heat issues. Both cards are on par performance-wise in games.

 

This is what I mean, and here, also here is an example of the Asus one with a similar issue.

There are many more posts about overheating 5870's or other issues. Whether the GPU is superior to the older tech GTX 285M really amounts to very little when you find your self modding a new heatsink just to get some decent temperatures. When the GPU works, I am sure it works very well but as I said before, having used both, I did not notice better performance with the 5870 at all and noticed stuttering in some games that did not exist when I used the GTX 285M. I also got much cooler temps with the GTX 285M but that was most likely down to a perfectly fitting Heatsink and working PowerMizer. Anyone trying to decide on a purchase should be made aware of both sides of the coin.

In summary, the issue with the heatsink contact will cause higher temps under load resulting in overheating or merely much louder fan noise as well as higher idle temps. Some who modded their heatsink to increase the contact ended up destroying their GPU's as well.

 

Here is an easy way to think about it. The 5870m is almost a 5770 (with ocing it can be very close). A 5770 is about the same as a 4870. A 4870 beats the 250gts. A 250 gts is = or better than a 285m.

There you go. Also you get DX11 with the 5870 and its cheaper. Its pretty much a no brainer.

 

Thanks for the input. I was thinking about just buying my laptop from custom gaming laptops - Welcome to Sager Notebooks ... Is that the best idea?

 

XoticPC and PowerNotebooks hold the best record for customer service, which is not Sager's specialty. Truth be told, most Sager/Clevo resellers are pretty good.

 

why would you say the 720QM is a waste of money?

 

Not enough applications are out that use quad cores so most of the time it will perform worse than the core i7 620m.

 

Is there a significant difference between the i5 540QM vs the i7 620M?

 

The difference between them is ~10% in Turbo'd clock speeds and 4MB of cache vs 3MB.

My opinion is that, in terms of value for money (based on the upgrade prices in the W860CU @ XoticPC),
i5-520M > i7-620M > i7-720QM = i5-540M

The i7-620M is above the i5-540M here because I'd say that if $50 is worth it for 133MHz of clock speed, then another $80 is definitely worth it for another 266MHz of clock speed as well as an extra MB of cache.

It's a little harder to evaluate the i7-720QM in terms of value for money, because its performance in comparison to the dual-cores varies depending on the application.

I don't get why people keep recommending the i5-540M, honestly.

 

The above comment is for people who never play new video games.

 

There is also questionable concerns about if modern games are really using 4 cores of not. Most games like crysis use partial %'s of the 2-4 cores while keeping 100% load on the 1st one. Then games made by bioware(Dragon Age) which really kick a quad core's . As it stands now for the majority of current games a higher clocked dual core will do you alot better then a lower clocked quad.

 

Not really. Several benchmarks have already proved this. Hell, there were even game fights between the old Q9000 vs the 2.8ghz core 2 duo, and gamingwise, they performed about the same. Besides, when current quad cores have already decent dual core mode, there is no much point to go dual again. The extra sizeable clockspeed difference between the Core i7 620m and the 720m does not yield any considerable performance difference between them (because there are many more differences besides mhz between those).

There are very very few games where a higher clocked duo will be better (because of the game engine). But if I remember correctly, some games started to have minimal increase in performance after 2.2ghz because notebook graphics are quite lower end than Desktop, thus become a bottleneck much sooner.

 

One of the very few games that prefer a higher clocked Dual Core compared to a slightly lower clocked Quad is Microsoft fsx but you will still get great performance with an i7 Quad. I only recommend some one buy a Dual Core if they will only be playing specific games that are known to work well with that setup. Since you will still get really great performance from a Quad, more potential to handle a wider variety of near future games as well as a decent Turbo Boosted Dual Core Mode, I think going with a Quad is usually the better option. You also have a better chance at playing the poorly optimised and rubbish console Ports if you want to.

Those benchmarks of the Core2Duo Vs the Core2Quad that you mentioned are in the link in my sig. GPU dependency also plays a big part of course.

 

i would say an X9000 is but IMO , if u pay 40-50 more for a i7 quad , i rather take the quad than the dual...

 

Even if that's the case, i7-620M vs i7-720QM isn't a matter of "dual core vs slightly lower clocked quad", it's dual-core vs vastly lower clocked quad - with Turbo Boost it's 3.067GHz dual-core vs 1.73GHz quad-core.

This shows an i7-620M being equal or better to the i7-720QM even in heavily multithreaded benchmarks like wPrime and Cinebench. If you think that games are going to benefit more from multithreading than applications like that, you're kidding yourself.

 

Haha yeah but if you want a 3GHz CPU in my laptop the only choice is the X9000 because the X7800 and X7900 run too hot. Plus I got my CPU cheaper than most people pay for a t9990.

 

When it comes to the mobile i7, I tend to skip right passed the i7-720QM and only look at the i7-820QM as more worth while. However, even with the 720QM, in Dual Core Turbo Boost Mode it will switch to 2.4 Ghz, so it is not necessarily 3.067 Ghz Vs 1.73 Ghz either.

 

Sure, but while 3.067GHz dual-core vs 1.73GHz quad-core are pretty much equal for a number of intensive tasks, it's pretty obvious which CPU will win when we're comparing 3.067GHz dual-core vs 2.4GHz dual-core.

The i7-820QM will definitely perform better overall than the i7-620M (though it might still lose slightly when only using two cores or one, given its slightly lower speeds of 2.8GHz / 3.06GHz), but it also costs quite a lot more. I find that extra cost to be rather difficult to justify, on the whole.

 

The i7-720QM is fine. Your not going to notice any difference between that and the 620. I KNOW there is a difference, but I have had both and can honestly say that, its not really a huge issue.

But, as far as the title of the thread, go with the 5870 (even though I'm an Nvidia fanboy haha.)

 

If you're not going to notice a difference, then why not go for the i7-620M since it's cheaper?

 

I would rather future proof my self with a quad core than save a little money. The price difference between the 620m and the 720qm isn't that big.

 

Depends on how much the upgrade is, If i can get a decent dual core on a stock machine thats upgradable, in a year when prices on the quads are lower and more apps/games need the power i'll upgrade.

 

The problem is that getting the i7-720QM doesn't actually offer you any kind of future-proofing at all compared to the i7-620M. Try these benchmarks.

The i7-620M will perform better than the i7-720QM in the majority of applications, including many that can actually use all four cores of the i7-720QM, and in addition to that it's $20 cheaper in the W860CU.

 

I've decided to nickname you Captain Dual Core.

 

Well, in a desktop I'd definitely pick a quad-core given the budget for it, but the quad-cores in laptops are much slower than in desktops. Nickname me all you want, but if I saw strong evidence for the i7-720QM performing better than the i7-620M, I'd change my mind.

 

Is there any game benchmarks for the 620m vs 720qm?

 

Depends on the game, but if it's GPU limited (say in higher resolution, higher settings), even a 520M will perform the same as the 720QM in terms of FPS.

 

If you are a multitasker, say you listen to lossless music, play a graphically intense game, have skype opened and are using the new HD video chat feature, and are doing some light encoding/ripping/burning, then quadcore for the win.

Honestly, dualcore is the past. These days most people who know the benefits of a quadcore value productivity and the ability to get a lot done at once.

My 2 cents, but each to his own.

 

I'd like to see some actual multitasking benchmarks for the i7-620M vs the i7-720QM. Overall, I would expect little difference in multitasking performance between the ~3.067GHz dual-core and the ~1.73GHz quad-core, though if one of the tasks is power-hungry but single-threaded, the i7-620M should have an advantage.

 

With my T5550, I can listen to music in Winamp, Skype, Word, Excel, Adobe and Firefox in the background, while playing CS: Source just fine. The rest is a little excessive since I don't see people having video and encoding while doing that but even if you did, I'd also like to see some proof that the 720QM would be noticeably better than the 620M - heck, even the 540M.

 

If I was going desktop I'd probably go dual core because there is so much more head room to OC. You could get an E5200 to 4.0ghz on air, and it'll only run you $55.