How do notebooks compare to desktops?

There are plenty of notebook comparisons out there and plenty of desktop comparisons, but I can't seem to find many that benchmark across the two for direct comparison. How do mobile graphics cards compare with their desktop counterparts, both in benchmarks and real-world terms? Is a 2.4Ghz T7700 significantly slower than a 2.4Ghz E6600 in real world situations? Do 5400rpm, 8Mb buffer laptop hard-drives really perform that much worse than the desktop 7200rpm, 16Mb ones? I put this in the gaming forum because I'm looking for an emphasis in gaming situations in particular, but other real-world comparisons are very welcome, especially if you have direct experience.

Finally, how would an Asus G1s (or similarly spec'ed laptops) compare with an E6400, 1Gb PC2-5300, 7600gt with 256Mb gddr3, 250gb 7200rpm 16mb cache desktop particularly in gaming situations?

 

desktops have more powerful GPUs, and way faster processors. They also can hold more hard drive space than laptops can. And they are generally less expensive than notebooks

 

There seem to be two issues here, whether a laptop will perform closely to a PC of roughly equivalent specs and whether the highest end laptop compares with the highest end desktop.

On the former question, the performance gap won't be all that great (I'll try and find some benchmarks). However as far as the latter is concerned, the best laptops don't come near the best PC's.

A top end enthusiast dekstop typically consists of:

An intel quad core, a couple of 8800s or 2900XTs, 4GB RAM, a couple of Raptors in Raid 0 and a couple of large capacity HDDs for archiving, an X-Fi, a large screen 22"+ and a high quality speaker setup.

Now though some SLI and RAID supporting laptops have emerged, they aren't especially portable, generally have atrocious battery life, and even the best of them are not nearly as comprehensively or highly spec'd as what I outlined above.

 

the gpus are generally underclocked for heat issues as well. Desktops are also 100% upgradable so they will last you longer. However, they are also 100% non-portable, unless your just going to a LAN party down the street... or the repair shop.

 

I do realize that notebooks are generally very portable but not upgradeable unlike a desktop but I was asking for performance based comparisons. So for example, how would a T7500 (2.2Ghz, 4mb cache, 800Mhz bus) compare with it's closest desktop relative; the E6400 (2.13Ghz, 2mb cache, 1066Mhz bus) in processor intensive tasks such as model rendering and gaming assuming the two system have comparable components? Would a 8600M GT perform faster than a desktop 7600GT in gaming situations given comparable components otherwise?

 

I would like to second Elegy's question. Personally (and I assume Elegy, as well), I guess I am evaluating whether to go for a gaming laptop as opposed to a desktop, and I am trying to evaluate pros and cons. Most pros and cons are evident (such as portability, upgradeability, etc), but I want to know how a laptop would fare performance-wise against a desktop.

In other words, are there any rules of thumb with regards to CPUs and GPUs when going from desktop to laptop? Maybe some sort of rough equivalence or correspondance between GPUs (for example, maybe the 8600m GT is slower than the 8600GT desktop, but maybe it compares performance-wise with a 7600GT desktop).

Another specific question: according to rumors/guesstimates, what DX10 laptop GPU would be enough to run Crysis and/or UT2k7 in high settings? (I know it's impossible to know for certain, but an educated guess would be helpful. Also, I want to know specifically about GeForce 8m GPUs since I need DX10 for reasons other than gaming). Would an 8600m GT 512 suffice for high on Crysis, or I'm better off waiting until 8700m or 8800m are actually out in the market?

Please, speculate away

 

I'm pretty sure you'd be needing a 8700M GT or a 8800M for Crysis on high settings, because some of the demonstration videos using 8800 series desktop cards still show lag.

 

I'm going through a similar problem. My current desktop is an E6400, 1GB memory, 7600gt as stated in my first post and I basically want the cheapest notebook that is as fast (or maybe faster) for processor, memory and graphics intensive tasks. So I'm trying to find a way of comparing the two. I've been looking all day for benchmarks but I can't seem to find any.

If it helps, I doubt I'll be playing any directX 10 games because I'll have to lower the resolution and details so much on an 8600m gt that it's not worth it.

 

In that case wouldn't a more valid comparison be between a desktop and notebook in the same price bracket?

 

In most cases, desktops would always be more superior. First they have a bigger power source, more space, ability to upgrade easily, and maintenance couldn't be much simpler especially with stores like Frys or Newegg.com that lets you buy any parts of the computer.

Laptop has its own good feature that you could carry it around (that's why most college students have it because if they could carry it easier to classes/home). Once I am done with college I think I am going to go back to a desktop because I feel like the lifespan of a PC is longer compared to a laptops.

 

Desktops are faster, cheaper and have fewer mechanical problems. If you do not need a laptop, I do not recommend one.

 

I agree with Homer.

 

I would not be getting a laptop if I didn't need one and I know that desktops have the potential to be far better performers for a cheaper price and are upgradeable. I am not asking about this, I am asking for comparisons of similar components. Eg:

T7500 vs E6400.
T7700 vs E6600.
8600M GT vs 8600GT vs 7600GT.
xGB of PC2-5300 notebook memory vs xGB of PC2-5300 desktop memory.

 

Thanks for the answers guys. I am pretty aware of most differences between desktops and laptops (I've used both extensively). I guess instead of advice for deciding between a desktop and a laptop, what I need is more of a rule of thumb or a table that helps compare graphics performance between mobile and desktop GPUs. So far, the closest thing I've found is this table where they throw all these desktop and mobile GPUs and rank them in tiers:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/11/the_best_gaming_video_cards_for_the_money/page6.html

Do you all agree with this table? Also, where do you think the 8x00m cards would fit there? (they only included Go 7xx0 in it) I think if we could figure out where the 8m GPUs fit in that table, that would answer Elegy's question and mine. Anyone wants to take a stab at it?

Really? I was thinking the 8600m GT would fit in the 9th tier (together with the desktop 6800 GT, desktop 6800 GS, Go 7800 and Go 7900 GS).

In my desktop I still have 2 x 6600GT 128Mb in SLI, which is about the same than a 6800GT. I guess that would make the 8600m GT comparable to what I have already in my desktop. If that is so, then you're right, the new and demanding games will only run decently at medium settings :/ slightly older games will still run at high.

I was hoping the 8600m GT 512Mb would score significantly better than what I have already :/

 

That's a great list of information. I'm guessing that the gDDR3 version of the 8600M GT would rest in the 8th tier though. Look at these specifications from others in the 8th tier:

7600GT: PCI-E, 560MHz core clock, 1400MHz effective memory clock, 22.4GB/s bandwidth, 6720MT/s texture fill rate, 128 bit.
7800GS: AGP 8x, 375MHz core clock, 1200MHz effective memory clock, 38.4GB/s bandwidth, 6000MT/s texture fill rate, 256 bit.

And now, the notebook card...

8600M GT: 475MHz core clock, 1400MHz effective memory clock, 22.4GB/s bandwidth, 7600MT/s texture fill rate, 128 bit.

That seems very competitive to me, and I'm really hoping that it performs as well as the desktop 7600GT in directx9. Anyone with direct experience, please feel free to share.

In my opinion, anything with less performance than a desktop 8600GTS will pretty much be worthless if you want the eyecandy of directx 10. Anything less and you'll have to start turning down texture details etc... of the game which will make the effects pretty much identical to directx9. And then, there goes the whole point of switching to directx10.

 

True dat. Although, in my case, I want DX10 for graphics development, there are some features that would make my life considerably easier. But, you're right, I want Crysis to look nice

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2049967&postcount=111

He says the 8700m GT will go somewhere between the 8600GT and 8600GTS desktop cards. So maybe 8700m GT would be a lower bracket for the performance you would like?

What are the specs of the Go 7950 GTX, the Go 7800 GTX and Go 7900 GTX? Maybe the 8700m GT may make the 7th tier.

 

Hmmmm... So in your opinion, where would you say the 8600M GT (with gddr3) lies in terms of desktop 7 series cards?

Maybe, but unfortunately I can't afford to go that high. I'm just hoping Evesham's 8600M GT with 512Mb gddr3 will perform on par with a desktop 7600gt with 256Mb gddr3.

 

The 8600M GT should perform around the speed of a Go 7600 GT. Currently, it performs almost the same as the Go 7900 GS, which was and still is a very fast graphics card, and the Go 7900 GS was around the same as the desktop 7600 GT graphics card.

 

I can't tell for sure, but my somewhat-ignorant guess would be that they're about the same. Anyone else could confirm that?

EDIT: Ah, thanks Zero

 

Thank you very much. My research suggests that the T7500 is pretty much identical in performance to a desktop E6400 so I'm pretty satisfied that my future laptop (T7500, 4gb 667mhz memory, 8600m gt, 160gb 5400rpm 8mb cache, Vista) will perform equal to or slightly better than my desktop (E6400, 1gb 667mhz memory, 7600gt, 200gb 7200rpm 8mb cache, XP) in almost all cases. Unless anyone disagrees?

 

You could save some money and go for a slightly less faster processor. If your not performing any processor dependant tasks on the notebook, then its somewhat pointless going with a fast processor. Gaming is much more dependat on the graphics card, and any alot of the processor currently available will not limit the 8600M GT, in that regard. You could go for a T7300, and spend the saved money on a faster hard disk.

 

You're correct, it'll be pretty close, but a little overclocking on the desktop and you'll blow away the laptop in CPU power.

On the other hand, the 4GB of RAM in the laptop versus 1GB on the desktop will make for a much smoother computing experience. (wow that sounded cheezy)

 

I most likely will be doing processor intensive tasks though. Modelling landscapes and building scenes in various programmes is one of my hobbies and I believe the T7500 is the best processor for the price when this is taken into consideration. The T7300 is right up there too, but the notebook I'm considering already has a T7500 and doesn't allow you to scale it down anyway. This is also one of the reasons I'm going for 4gb of memory (plus the fact that more than 2gb seems to really help gameplay as I've seen with regards to the G1s).

This desktop has to last me around 3 or 4 years at the very least. I very seldom upgrade and I don't want to risk shortening the life expectancy of my components by overclocking unfortunately. If I had better cooling, that would be a different story.

And that's true on the memory front. Even if my laptop performs marginally slower in games for example, there will probably be less random stuttering during gameplay which will balance it out. At least that's what I'm hoping. If the stuttering is due to the hard drive, I'm pretty much screwed since the laptop is 5400rpm with 8mb cache compared with my desktop 7200rpm with 16mb cache.

 

Wait, i don't get how it'll fit into the 8th teir of the 8600 GT (desktop) is in that same tier.

 

I believe the consensus so far is that the 8600M GT either right at the very top of the 9th tier or one of the lesser performing cards of the 8th tier. Basically, it's performance is in the Go 7900gs/6800 ultra/7600gt area on average.

 

Cool! So I guess Elegy's future laptop is Crysis-insured then? I'm considering going for a laptop with similar specs (maybe with an 8700m GT instead) in a couple of months, and all I care is DX10 + being able to run Crysis and UT2k7 in high (not ultra) settings. Can someone guesstimately confirm this?

One more thing: Elegy, where are you going to order this new laptop from, and how much is it going to cost? (if you don't mind me asking)

 

The devs were suggesting recently that a top end DX9 card would be able to run UT3 at high settings. The 8700m GT could conceivably if the the DX10 renderer is much more efficient and/or drivers improve a lot, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

I read a while back that the developers were saying a desktop x1800xt/7800GTX-class video card (6th tier on that Tom's Hardware chart) could run Crysis at high settings. An 8600M GT or 8700M GT might be able to run it at medium-high setttings. As for DX10, it seems that (at least with the DX10 games and demos released so far) that enabling DX10 destroys performance, instead of improving it. Even an 8800 GTX has problems running DX10 Company of Heroes or Call of Juarez with high framerates. This might just be because of early DX10 drivers, or DX10 could just be that much more demanding. (hopefully the former)

 

Well, 8800GTX drivers are pretty terrible...we have a 8800GTX SLI system that has serious problems with drivers every so often.

Now, DX10 giving poorer performance is a big bummer, one of the main points of DX10 was to optimize the way the raw power of the video card was used.

So, with the 8600m GT at the top of the 9th tier or bottom of the 8th one, and the 8700m GT supposedly at the top of the 8th one (or maybe bottom of the 7th one?), I guess Crysis at medium-high is a reasonable expectation, but high settings might be a little too much for the cards. I think I can live with that, or maybe I can wait to see if they manage to fit an 8800m in a decent size for a laptop.