Gaming on 9600M GT?

ok, my apologies then)

 

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5081017/Trail/searchtext>ACER.htm

£587 though its a later model 6930G comes with 9600M GT not sure if its DDR2 or DDR3 though. Very tempted to get it.

But i would prefer it with XP pro (it comes with Vista). Is it easy enough to do a complete format then install XP pro and download drivers as needed?

 

i can max out fallout 3 with tweaking on my dv5 which has 4900 less pixels than yours. i can max out crysis at aroun 25-27 fps with heavy tweaking.
i also maxed out all the games in the first post except team fortress which i don't have

 

some reason this card i have gets hot and not maxed out .. after say about 20mins

 

It's 2009. Stop buying anything less than the 9800M GS, if you're at all serious about gaming.

 

It all depends on what you call "serious". To buy a notebook primarely for heavy gaming seems odd, since you can get the equivalent desktop for about half the price.

Now if you want your games to go smooth on high or max settings on high resolutions, have fun spending all that money (enough money for 1 PS3, 1 PS2 and 1 Xbox360 total)... Or a monster Desktop. If you want a good, upper-mid range laptop, that can handle 90% of all new games at mid- to high settings with tweaks... A 9600M GT or 9650M GT (talking DDR2 here) are still valid choices.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that if you are SERIOUS about gaming, a laptop is a very bad choice. If you are Serious about it, then cough up the money although I consider it a waste. If you are merely serious about it... sure, why not.


Oh and Njoy: Sure As I said, if you just click preset: "High" my Dell stutters like no tomorrow...

 

With all of your needs and considerations, maybe you should hold off on getting a new laptop, or buy something like an EEE PC until you can build better credit, or make some money on your own. I don't think it's wise to buy something you don't really want, but "have" to get.

I'm confused. What exactly defines a serious gamer? Is it:

1) Someone who wants the newest technology, at a reasonable price, for playing the newest games on the market, and games in the future?

2) Someone who doesn't want the hassle of a full monitor, desktop, keyboard, speaker, and etc. assembly to carry around in case they go to a LAN, or spend the night in a hotel on a business trip, but still would like to game regularly?

3) Someone who likes the ability to take their work with them, or sit in the bed and watch a movie, because they don't have a home where they can watch it on a nice entertainment center?

All of these sound like things a serious gamer might be interested in. I mean, I play a serious amount of games, but I don't get too serious about it, and yell things at people I can't see.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that you might have just made a teeny bit of a generalization.

Just a small one.

Like this [---]. That size.

 

Counting monitor this isn't really true anymore. The equivalent-performance system to the $949 G50vt-x1 is just under $700 with OS license and a 15" LCD (granted it will have higher resolution) You would be hard-pressed to build a superior Desktop for $475 including LCD and OS license at the quality the ASUS ships at. There still is a premium for that mobility, but it isn't "double" anymore.

Console gaming and PC gaming are two different worlds with some overlap.
I now own a PS3 and there are some things it will never be able to do well.
It is a lot of fun sometimes, but it is no replacement for a PC.

For $949 you can build a decent desktop with LCD, and OS license, but its no monster. It certainly will outperform the $949 laptop, but it is still not playing crysis at 1920x1080 on full.

I think you overestimate the 96xx series and underestimate the 9800m GS.
While the 96xx are indeed valid choices, they are only so when the price differential is worth it.
If you bought this 9600 laptop for $500-600, then yeah, its worth what you paid for it in terms of a lesser gaming, but if you paid anywhere near the $949price tag of of the G50vt, and plan to game at all, you probably got burned.

His point is that the 9800m GS (easily turned into a GTS) with a factory OC'able to 2.5GHz C2D is difficult to beat price/performance.

This is simply not true. Bring your 9800m GS-equipped laptop to a LAN party once and you will be hooked. If you travel a lot, the 9800m GS laptops are worth it in time saved alone. Most LAN party games are not that taxing as most people don't want to haul their godboxes everywhere they go. Frankly, my 9800m GS kills most boxes people haul about and embarrasses the bejeebus out of the 9600-equipped $2700 macbooks.

Is laptop gaming for everyone? No.
Is laptop gaming more accessible? At $949 to $1000 for this good of a rig, yes, yes it is.

 

All I am saying is that if you want the best of the best, you get much more bang for your buck if you spend $2000 - $2500 on a desktop than a laptop. Lower end computers has less difference between them these days (like your $475 example above) but when you want to push it, the difference is still there, and huge.

Agreed, and I always laugh at those claiming PC gaming is dying (it has been dying for what? 15 years now?). I just used the example to show exactly how many toys you could get for that one $1500 - $2000 laptop.

Agreed. But again I think we are talking about different price levels. A $949 PC is not a SERIOUS gaming rig. However I also agree with you that if mobility is a real factor in your purchase then a laptop is the way to go.

I don't overestimate as much as being realistic. Prices in western europe and especially it seems Scandinavia is higher. There is no way I could get a laptop under $1100 that has a better card than 9650M GT. If I am really lucky I get one with a 9600M GT DDR3, but Acer is not sold everywhere and they are the only brand in Scandinavia I know of that has DDR3 cards in their less-than-$1600 models...

Agreed with you there, again, but as I said in my post above, I don't consider that a SERIOUS gaming rig. Mine sure isn't.

I had to give up my dreams of an ACER because the supplier I ordered it from went belly up (well they are in the process of doing so, and could not ship my lappy at a decent time) and I had to settle for an ASUS X57Vn. I really like it, I have been toying with it now since I bought it last Friday.
But it only has a 1Gb DDR2 9650M GT in it...

It works, I have spent most of the time cleaning it from Bloatware, updated every driver, and installed everything else on it. Yesterday I put in the first game (SPORE) and of course that run at native 1440 with all bells and whistles. I am putting in Fallout 3 tonight, and I expect a playable game at high quality (tweaking away some water effects and minimize outdoor shadows usually is enough to get decent FPS). This is as good a computer as I can afford for the next 18-24 months, so it will have to do. Btw it costs $1100 in Sweden... oh cruel world...!

 

"Serious gaming" isn't really a well defined term anyways. Is it relative to the amount of time you spend on a game or to the game itself?

I mean, I know "serious" WoW players, but WoW doesn't really require a high end machine to play on >.> I also know "serious" Diablo 2 players and that can run on an EEE PC >_>

The way I see it, a "serious gamer"(which I suppose would not fall under the same category as "hardcore") is someone who likes to play games and usually plays a lot of them, including the newer released ones, hence why an upper level machine is needed.

And of course obviously the term "serious gamer" implies that when they purchase a machine such as a laptop, gaming is their primary concern. Weight, looks, portability and all that come secondary to its ability to game to these people. IMO if I'd be willing to compromise a laptop's gaming performance in a significant manner for any other factor, then I wouldn't consider myself a "serious gamer" lol

So yeah, "gaming" does not equal "serious gamer". Gaming simply means the action of playing computer games. Playing The Sims 2, is still in general terms considered "gaming" by this definition >.> Therefore, the thread title is appropriate.

 

9600m gt's gaming performance=
crysis on all high: 3 second slideshow
crysis on all very high : black screen (dude passed out)

 

The 9600 is serverely gimped when it comes to the 9600 gt, since it only features 300mil or so transistors and 32 pipelines

The bad thing is the 9800, which is pretty much a step up features 3 times the pipelines and transistors, the clocks are nice though.

 

would the machine linked to (the 6930G acer at argos) perform better in gaming with XP loaded if i'm mainly playing games pre 2008 ?

Is it a wiser decision though : to dual-boot it (so dont remove vista just in case) Just create another partition and install XP on it?


I kindoff agree with Avillion. I think he means: if you are a hardcore gamer who needs their machine to run everything at maximum settings and highest resolutions then a desktop is the better choice. Its not as mobile nope but its still ahead in terms of sheer power to cost ratio.

For example. My graphics card failed on my XPS M1710 now if it were a desktop id be able to get a replacement or better card than the go7900GTX for probably around or under a £100 but because its a laptop the price of the replacement graphics card (a 512mb go7900GTX) is £250 inc vat.

And it wasnt so long ago that RAM for laptops was hideously expensive compared to their desktop equivalent. Thankfully theyve come down in prices a lot since then but for a purely gaming performance unit for best cost - desktop is a better choice.

Bearing in mind i'm from the UK and tbh i dont think we have as varied a choice of laptop retailers and choices as our cousins across the pond.

 

Exactly. If you are seriously obsessed with having Crysis run on Max in 1600 or better resolution, why on earth would your primary choice be a laptop?
You would quite likely be able to buy a desktop that can max Crysis plus a lower-mid range laptop for the same money, so you can still surf or play WoW in front of the TV or watch pr0n in the kitchen or whatever

Edit: It might also depend on what you are thinking of as "good" graphics. I remember the revolution when I went from VIC20 to C64 gaming... And I am not that old (36). I am still blown away by Oblivion and FO3 on "Medium" quality...

 

"Use the right tool for the job."

I consider Crysis to be more like 3dmark or a technology demo than a real game. If I really wanted 20k+ scores in 3dmark and fluid fps in crysis on very high at 2048x1600, yeah maybe I should get a desktop.

I prefer to be serious about anything I do, but everyone chooses how much resources they wish to put in any one endeavor.

If to be "serious" in other people's opinions I need to spend 3k on a desktop gaming rig, then we disagree on that term.

Other than professional gamers, who really "needs" that kind of hardware to play? I don't "need" to win every round and quite frankly its less fun for everyone if I do. I have more fun war stories from showing up and beating people with a laptop than I ever would with a $3k desktop.

The truth is, a 9800m GS plays every actual game I want to play surprisingly well and is a great LAN party accessory. It's convenient and definitely not a waste of money at that price point. (I've spent more than that on a night out before.)

I think you have fallen into extremism in your post and I wanted to bring it down to reality. The 9600 is just fine for mid to light gaming, but the 9800m GS is SO much better and SO cost efficient that anything near the $900-1000 pricerange makes it a no-brainer if you want "the right tool for the job".
If you are a professional gamer, or really want to play tech demos at max everything... sure maybe the right tool is a $3k desktop.

 

In the end though it comes down to personal priorities, nothing more nothing less

Kernal made the most key point "everyone chooses how much resources they wish to put in any endeavor".

Performance is one aspect among many when purchasing a laptop, be it for gaming, working, multimedia or whatever. The price/performance ratio is also one among many factors. It is up to the individual as to what aspects he/she wishes to prioritize when purchasing a laptop really.

The argument comes that the term "gaming" associates the user's priority with performance, which is not always the case. I agree that a "serious gamer" would prioritize performance(and perhaps cost efficiency) over all other aspects, but not everyone is that serious about gaming. "Gaming" refers to the act of playing games, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, I've said that I know some very hardcore gamers, but that only play Diablo2 or such, so for them, performance isn't the king of the deal.

Yes, a 9800M GS runs every game out now very well and is more future proof than a 9600M GT, I don't believe anyone is contesting that a 9600M GT is better. What we're arguing is that the 9600M GT may in fact appeal to a certain market of buyers who prioritize different aspects between the machines which hold a 9600M GT and those which hold a 9800M GS.

Only a handful of machines with a 9800M GS are near the 1000$ mark(there are the Asus G50 and the MSI GT627 in the 15."category notably) so the choice is limited as to what aspects they hold. Therefore, if a buyer wishes to prioritize an aspect not within the scope of those few machines, he/she won't buy one. It's that simple. Are they wasting money for performance? Yes, maybe they are, but they've chosen as buyers to put the money for some other aspect.

And for the record, the example Kernal provided is not valid everywhere. In Canada notably, laptops with a 9800M GS have a 300$ gap with those with a 9600M GT. I mean, even something near the 1000$US mark comes to 1250$CAD and laptops with a 9600M GT can be found for near 800-900$CAD. Therefore, the choice is far more evident in Canada for those who prioritize gaming and those who prioritize work or other aspects.

 

Forever, I think we can stop splitting hairs with the differences between USD and CAD and a few hundred either way...

My example was rough to say the least, and didn't account for other priorities, accessories, or battery life.

I was focused on the "gaming" aspect and reasonable performance in games combined with what is really lost comparably when faced with exchanging other components for the money.

Like I said... right tool for the job... but the point ws that the "right tool" for most people who want to game is indeed the 9800 provided your budget is around $1000 USD.

The 9600 is a lesser GPU by a significant margin, and 200-300 hundred dollars (even CAD) all things considered is a reasonable gap considering the costs of the laptops we are talking about.

The 9600 does make more sense for instance, if budget is limited, battery life is more important, or you must place your priorities in other components.

One of our graphical designers for instance prefers a laptop as he travels and he likes to game, but higher processing power really does make his job easier.
His budget didn't really allow for a 9800, and his better processor... so he had to get by with the 9600. It certainly does work, but make no mistake, he sometimes wishes he had the 9800.

The 9600 is indeed sometimes the right tool for the job though...

 

A step up? I don't think so. Its several. The 9700M GTS would be the closest higher end step up.

 

And even then, the 9700M GTS will double the performance of the 9600. It really is a wide gap.

 

Well like I said "the right tool" is dependent on many factors concerning the context of the purchase as well as the buyer's priorities. If gaming is only a secondary thought to him/her, then a 9600M GT will do and he/she can save that extra 200-300$ to put towards some other feature he/she may deem more important. The choice of what is "adequate" for "gaming" will change and fluctuate for each person and their needs in terms of games.

 

Definitely true. And for a lot of us, price is the number one issue. My budget allowed for a $1100 laptop. I could not buy a laptop for $11001, and definitely not one for $1400-1600.

As I said in my first post, we must establish what we mean when we use the term "serious gamer" or "serious gaming". The way I read it tend to be as you describe, a person focused on performance first; my mother-in-law spends several hours a day playing flash games online. I don't think she or I, or my wife, would call her a Serious gamer, or what she does Serious gaming.

And you are right; there are serious gamers that spend all their time playing Diablo II on Hardcore Nightmare, still. There is also the (strangely still large) group of gamers that only plays Counter Strike still, but takes it all extremely serious... But again, the image I get when I hear the term "serious gaming" is someone with an extra-large Tower (for cooling), double graphic cards, high end processor and a 1000+ Watts power supply. Preferably a 24+ inch screen too.

Of course I am not arguing that it is better.

Exactly. Especially if you are outside the US. I have yet to find a single Laptop in Sweden sold with the 9800M GS period; I suspect there are some 17" or 18" inch upper market ones that are equipped with it, but I am not interested in anything bigger than 15" (or maybe 16" if it is 16:9 (yuck)). And as I said, the price is higher too; the situation in Canada seems about the same as here; the $1000 laptop in the US is probably equivalent in specs to a $1400-1600 laptop here.