Asus K51AB and K50AB with the HD4860 with 1GB of memory GDDR5

Asus K51AB and K50AB.
-LCD screen 15.6-inch HD LED Backlight (1366x768).
-AMD Puma platform (chip RS780 and SB700)
-ATI Mobility Radeon HD4860 with 1GB of memory GDDR5.
-4GB of DDR2 memory at 800MHz
-SATA hard disk up 320GB at 7200rpm

source
http://translate.google.com/transla...rce-102m-4874.html&sl=it&tl=en&history_state0

So now what do you guys think about those laptops? Those two are going to be the first laptops with that graphic card. How much do you guys think it will cost and do you guys think it is worth it?

 

They look really nice and elegant. If the price is right, they will make great computers.

 

1GB of VRAM is absolutely wasted on a 1366x768 display. That is just so low it's virtually unusable. That card could drive 1920x1200 with playable framerates on any game on the market right now.

 

Possible future proofing?

Crysis uses over 400 MB of VRAM easy on my set up.

 

Also GTA IV which chews up VRAM like anything.

 

Plus 1 GB of VRAM makes sense for video editing at high resolutions hence why medium end GPUs will sometimes come with 1 GB of VRAM.

 

How does that PUMA perform compared to more common CPUs?

 

I totally agree... The 1366x768 really turns me off. This machine better be under 1k or I'm not going to buy it. Resolution is just way to low for what I want. I mean seriously people are specing the 4860 better than the 4850 yet the 4860 gets the worse resolution monitors...

 

1GB GDDR5. 1366 x 768. Does not compute.

 

+ 1 on the res
I hate these new 16:9 displays, but regardless, that is a stupid res. I had laptops back in the mid 90s with the same vertical res (768), and they probably only had bloody 12" screens. It is old, old, old. To give me that res on a modern 15 or 16" display is like a kick in the teeth.

 

I was dubious even when Compal tried pushing that resolution with the 4650, but this?! With the 4860? Are they serious?

 

Its most likely fancy wording. Its probably 512 dedicated GDDR5 , 512 shared. Even so that card could handle every game out there except Crysis at WSXGA+ (1680x1050) so that resolution is really disappointing. Mind you with a good price performance ratio (hopefully this thing will be around $1000), it will sell like hotcakes.

edit: LED monitor is sexy though. Laptops are getting closer and closer to my dream laptop.

link's dream laptop:
15.4" WSXGA+ LED
Quad-Core CPU
256-bit GPU + GDDR5 with integrated graphics switchable
128+GB SSD
DDR3 memory
Brushed aluminum chassis

 

@link1313 Hah, that's what I was just thinking...

That's a good amount of GDDR5 for a 15" laptop, possibly that's total shared video memory (slight translation error).

But I'm sure other systems will have different screen resolutions.

 

Umm... no. Because then it wouldn't be 1GB of GDDR5. Read the original site.

 

PUMA uses AMD CPUs which are technically a bit slower and more power hungry but in pretty much all practical application, the performance difference is negligible. I wonder if Asus used PUMA so that they could have the option of saving battery life by switching to integrated graphics on the go and possible even crossfire with the integrated graphics (not that it would add that much to the already powerful 4860). If they have switchable graphics, it would be worth switching platforms since it would save a lot of battery life.

 

should be in the asus forum this is nice though too bad about the looks of the K series

 

meh ill just put a diff screen if its cheap enough ill take it and make it work


future of netbook is crysis lol

 

Eeeehhhh no. Doesn't work that way.

If you're talking about professional 3D rendering apps, then yes, that VRAM becomes useful. But for stuff like Adobe Premiere Pro, that much video memory just isn't anywhere close to relevant. Premiere Pro CS4 doesn't really take advantage of the GPU like, for example, Photoshop CS4. And even then, there's precious little actually done on the GPU. The video memory isn't relevant.

 

Your dream laptop is just like mine! Well except I would prefer dual 50gb HDD's as SSD is over rated IMO a good hard drive is faster ta all buthemost expensive SSD's (the ones that cost more than your laptop) and I use a ton of space for video editing, games, and music.

The W90 has the aluminum, and the quad core, while the K series has the LED screen and size.

I hope they put to two together and they have little WK90 babies.

I would not worry about the res too much, just like how that was a big advantage the G series had over the M series, it was not long until a M series refresh had a higher res screen. I feel most positive that the screen res will go up on this model too. Its probably a matter of the cost or quantity of parts making it better to release it with this setup.

 

Its nice to know they are using a LED monitor.

 

That screen resolution is very....unusual i must say :S

 

External screen?

 

You beat me to it.

 

We only have ATI's word on its performance though. I expect it to perform well, just pointing out that our only source is ATI.

 

Well the 4850 performed better than the 9800m GT... So I would except this to be at least in the 4850 level.

 

No the backlight is LED the screen (monitor) is just like any other.

 

Lol, 1366x768 is not unusual at all, it has been around since HDTvs came, as it is a 16:9 resolution, a tad bit higher than 1280x720.

Altho indeed it is a rather low resolution, it is not bad by anymeans at all. I have no trouble with it, but of course a higher res would be ideal. Something like 1600x900, but I guess such res is not standard.

It is amazing how Asus laptops are getting all high end thanks to ATi's new GPUs! I might even upgrade to this new K series

 

I really hope that was sarcastic.

 

Whether or not it is bad in general is subjective (I don't like the idea of anything smaller than 800 vertical pixels), but offering it with the HD4860 and its 1GB of GDDR5 means that the potential of the video card will never be truly realized. It just doesn't make any sense to waste that kind of card on such a low resolution; there are no settings that will make up for that.

Also, 1366x768 is not exactly 16:9. It's close, but not quite there.

 

At least you can run all of your game on the highest details... Even crysis will run really well on high due to the low resolution lol...

 

i'm sure there is going to be a higher res version later on

 

1366x768 is more for integrated GPU's, not a more powerful GPU. At 15" 1440x900 or 1680x1050 are ideal. And with the HD4860? That's like driving a corvette with only a porthole to see where you're going!

 

I have been using 1366x768 screen for a while, and I gotta say it works decently. Of course it doesn't compare to 1440x900 or higher res, specially if you require more vertical res, but it is not bad at all.

Gaming wise, keep in mind you can still game on an external monitor (I play on my HDTV all the time when home) and like someone else said, the advantage of the rather low screen res helps by ensuring high settings on games.

This laptop is like my current one, 1366x768 screen with a 9800M card. The only games I actually would long for a higher res screen is only on RTS games, otherwise I don't have any problems with it and I actually like the extra wide space too.

as for it being 16:9 screen, it is, just as you have to accept that 0.999 is 1, since it is less than a full pixel on either vertial or horizontal res to match the ratio.

 

You can always ensure high settings in games by running at the lower resolution anyhow. 1280x800 on my 1920x1200 screen looks phenomenal.

 

arguing that a low res is future proof is invalid.
sure after 3 years you can still play the current game at native res. BUT you have to play your games at 1366*768 instead of 1920*1080 for 3 years! youre effectively 'wasting' your graphics card's power for 3 years in order to improve visual quality when its on it's last legs.

 

You're not wasting the graphics card's power by playing at a lower resolution and higher detail setting.

For example, I would rather play Crysis at 1366*768 maxed out with 4xAA instead of 1920x1080 medium with no AA. What happens when something more graphics intensive than Crysis comes out? You'll be forced to turn down the resolution. But then, that resolution is not your screen's native resolution, so it will be blurry.

 

The point is, at this resolution, this card will be running everything but Crysis on maximum settings at over 100 FPS. Some games over 150 FPS. That's a complete waste.

 

i dont see why this is a big deal? if you dont like it dont buy it, or change the screen. Future proofing is more expensive to ensure than retail space on a screen.

 

lmao so much arguement over the screen, im pretty sure they will make another version that will have a higher res.

btw, when is this coming out? spring or summer?

 

but the truth is you can play 99% of the games at a higher res with smooth frame rate.
crysis would bring down even hd4870 crossfire, but no ones will use a those cards to drive a low res screen just to play crysis at native.

 

Also, simply right clicking your desktop gives you a lower resolution screen, voila.

 

Q2... So prob around may. It tech starts at april, but that seems kind of early...

Also about the whole screen resolution... I personally would say it all depends on the price lol... Sub 1000, then I would its a deal even if it has a 1366x768.

 

Yeah this will probably have a 1600 x 900 screen sooner then later.

 

lets just hope they will have it by summer =p hehe thats when im getting my laptop

 

I hope it will, this will likely be my laptop of choice.

 

Good choice then


Yes im almost certain there will be a hig res soon.

 

Depending on how they price the machine, Asus can really make some huge competition for any other competitor in the market. I'm curious to see the final specs & price of this cute little bugger

 

Yeah I want prices ASAP. Like yesterday.

 

It is really not that low, compare to the screen I am using at the moment which is 1280 x800. Wait, I forgot everyone is spoiled by their big fancy screens. sigh.

 

Again! What's wrong with playing at 1280x800 on a 1920x1200 screen? Add 2x or 4xAA and it looks crisp and spectacular. Why is everyone so bonered on running at native res?