Comparison list of 24 latest gaming notebooks

Props to mujtaba for the last list

- list is sorted by 3dmark 06 score/Price
- Mostly based on stock specs and default 3dmark 06 test, that being said there might be few errors and your recommendations are appreciated.
- * price varies based upon configuration
Sources: notebookreview.com, notebookcheck.net, notebookforums.com and various other reviews

 

Thanks for this. The D900C is a killer

 

is it confirmed the V1s has GDDR3?

 

Inspiron 1705, 6 lbs?!?! and DDR3?

 

Thanks Fixed it

 

The IFL90 is DDR2, the D900c is GDDR3, and the V1s is almost certainly DDR2.

 

what... The 7900GS for Dell E1705 gets 5638 3dmark06 and the 7950GTX for Sager 5790 only gets 5311 3dmark06??? How is that possible for the 7900GS to get 5638...

 

It doesn't. Also, I strongly suspect that some of these were performed at non-standard resolution, and with different 3dMark06 versions.

 

Me too, I should have double checked, removed e1705 since it's older model

 

np2090 has ddr2 8600gt.
and i don think that 3dmark06 score is stock... kinda high without overclocking i think
but nice nice list...great share =)

 

One thing I don't understand is how the row with different resolutions fits in. They have NO affect whatsoever on the performance of the part, but can end up increasing the price considerably. Also, are we assuming 2GB of RAM each? Are HDD sizes standardized?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bring this chart down. I think its a great idea and clearly took lots of effort to put together. I would just like more information about how you ranked certain characteristics of the laptops, instead of just taking it at face value, which would be misleading.

 

Chart is sorted based on 3dmark 06 score/Price. Thanks for all input, Ill improve on it.

 

Great work on the chart, though the accuracy may not be very good(too many variables like amount of RAM, CPU speed, etc.), I certainly appreciate your work!

Perhaps finding a universal speed, like 2.0ghz with 2ghz RAM on all the notebooks(I'm sure there are at least one owner with those configurations) who can contribute.

 

Some of them are less than 1680x1050 so *must* have been run at a non-standard resolution (looking at the MBP compared to the G1S here). This chart is a good starting point, though--thank you for taking the time to compile it.

 

Well, no. Any good reviewer or hardware site hooks the lappy up to a standard external LCD for the benchmarking, but I get your point. Most forum members and such just post whatever the free 3dmark06 reports as the score, without realizing that a WXGA lappy won't have a standard score.

 

The Clevo D900C is definitely a beast.

It actually broke the 10,000 3DMark06 barrier.

And the weight and batterlife is unbeatable.

 

ahahahaha!!! So true!!!

 

That's a sweet chart, thanks!

 

Good point--I stand corrected . I was partially judging from the score, though--that seems high for the MBP to me . . .

 

Nice. It seems the best futureproof notebook here for its value is the Toshiba x205. geforce 8700m GT with a 3dmark06 score of 4600 and its nice price tag @ $1900 cant be beat

 

Thats odd that you would list the vostro and the inspiron 1520 separate, with the vostro 1500 at XGA, and the 1520 at SXGA+, since internally they are identical, except for chosen confguration.

If you swapped configurations, the 1520 would be at the top, and the vostro would be lower. That list therefore seems somewhat arbitrary.

 

I could have sworn I've seen the Inspirion 1520 with higher marks. I'm not sure if its the version of 3dmark06 or possibly the GPU drivers or whatever; however I'm pretty sure I've seen the 1520 with a much higher mark like around the 3500's

 

Great work but I think the only way to make the chart more reliable is to not use notebookcheck as a source. This chart is sorta iffy because it is done the way they do it (great work though just tryign to help) like other people have mentioned you have to get the configurations of all the laptops as close as possible such as ram and hd and test at the same resolutions. Noteboocheck uses multiple tests and makes averages sometimes while not doing that for others and tests under different configs.

I just suggest you remake the chart with known 3dmark and overall 3dmark score based upon what the people of NBR tell you then for the ones you can't get info on ask for 3dmark scores for. It would be a much more reliable chart but nonetheless good work in taking the intiative!

 

According to the thread linked below Ken at GenTechPC got a 3D Mark06 score of 2844 using all the default settings for the Asus V1s, so that could be added to the chart.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=156705




This post just moved me from Notebook Geek to Notebook Consultant status!

 

Could you possibly put in the scores for the 2.4 GHz 15" MBP?

 

IMO a Vostro of that configuration should be more expensive, unless you can direct me to a thread where someone paid that exact price for those specs and get that score.

I also think you could perhaps take the average score from say, a dozen Vostro 1500 and Inspiron 1520s, and use that as a single entry for that particular model. Just a thought, considering how varied their configs can be (conversely you could just show 2 entries, highest and lowest).

Regardless, very nice chart and great work

 

The Vostro can easily be gotten for that price. Just configure it from the smart value package:
http://www.dell.com/content/product...nb_1500?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~tab=bundlestab

 

Thanks for the chart, makes me feel good about my 1500 choice trying to get best bang for the buck.

The only way to future proof a notebook, is spend $1k on a 1500, put the extra $600-2000 you would have spent in your pocket and buy a new $1k notebook in about 1 year when everything will be changed. A year from now I'll likely be buying a new $1k notebook with an 8800m gpu and will have 2 for the price of most folks 1.

 

No hardcore gaming notebook is $1k. Heck its even hard to find a nice fast casual notebook sometimes for $1k.

 

Unless you're into Dell and Acer

 

Wow i was really considering to buy the Asus F8JS with the 7700 w/512mb. But i decided to get the Asus F3SV-A1.

I though the F3 would be better than the F8, but apparently the F8 gets better battery and a better gpu performance?

Is this true??? Anyone? :[

 

doesnt the 2.4GHz macbook pro usually get around 3600-3800 not 4100, very nice idea just got to fix it up a bit.

 

I was slightly disappointed that the Macbook Pro had the highest 3D mark for 15.4" laptops.

Then again.. 2500$ for a machine scoring 4100 seems hardly worth it vs a machine for 1600 (IFL90)that scores 3,590.

I mean... 900$ for 510 more 3D mark points..?

Not to mention the 100$ for XP/vista.

 

Yeah, I was the 1st to break the 10k mark on the D901C. Scores are in my sig. But to be honest they aren't the best way to gauge performance. You really need some FPS from 3 different game engines.

 

is there someone kind enough to respond to my question?

 

the f8 isnt out yet so its very hard to tell. im assuming your talking about the asus f8sv?

 

The A8JS has a Go7700 w/ 512MB. I don't know about battery on the F3, the A8JS get's about 2hr30mins. The Go7700 and the 8600M-GS are very similar in power, though Asus slightly undervolts and/or underclocks their F3SV's, depending on exactly which GPU you got (they differ by VRAM type).

The F8Sv is an upcoming model with either the 8600M-GT (North America only), the HD2600, or the 8600M-GS. Both of the first two options should nicely outperform the Go7700 in newer games. Battery life is as yet unknown.

 

this stinks :[

 

why would test out 3d benchmarks on a 1520 at wsxga+ resolution? of course the number is going to be lower than every other laptop!

 

The notebooks are tested at default 3DMark06 setting (unless their screen cannot display the 1280x1024 resolution), the list for WSXGA+, WUXGA+ etc is what type of screen they have, not what they were tested at. Just FYI.

And of course, as most people know, if you lower the resolution in 3DMark06 then your score will go up.

 

Also, keep in mind that unless the native resolution has at least 1024 vertical pixels (i.e., WSXGA+ or higher) 3dmark06 won't be able to run (on the laptop's LCD) in it's native resolution, thus producing an abnormally high score. I suspect that it the case for many of the scores posted in this list.

 

That's a GREAT chart, and I was wondering; can you tell us what program you made it in, or possibly upload it somewhere (so we can use those handy sort-by functions)