New 15" Laptop With a 9800M GT... For $1250

Asus has just released a new 15.6" laptop with a 9800M GT for $1250. That's an insane price for a 15" with a 9800M GT. Check it out here:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...oduct&id=1218012519873#tabbed-customerreviews

BestBuy says that it has a 9800M GS (which is a card that NVIDIA never even announced), but according to people that own it, it's really a 9800M GT. It's definitely great for the price and it's the best value that you'll find on a gaming laptop.

 

I have a hard time believing this...

Can we have one of these said owners give us a report?

 

9800gt is basically a 8800GTX, if that was true, then Asus just killed the other companies

EDIT: Jesus.. Max res is 1366 x 768 ? that sounds incomplete for me.

 

Just read the other thread on this front page in regards to this same thing.

Apparently a 9800 GS is a downclocked 9800 GTS.

9800 GT >= 8800 GTX > 9800 GTS > 9800 GS.

People are guessing it was downclocked for thermal issues.

 

Shame it can't use DDR3 RAM

And also it's not sold in Canada.

 

ddr3 ram isn't noticably better than ddr2
I think its a 9800m GS, which is a lower clocked GTS. Still, it's the best bang for the buck 15" out there no doubt

 

I know I know. In no way am I saying this laptop is not worth it. I'm just saying it'd be reaching the state of "too good to be true" if it used DDR3 RAM as well, because this machine is using latest-generation technology everywhere except for RAM.

 

pathetic resolution though

 

They'll probably release higher resolution versions later on - of course it'll cost more.

 

People we are talking about the Bestbuy version of the G-50VT, of course it comes with a cr*py screen resolution. Just wait for a different version of this laptop from like GenTech Computers or possibly newegg (if it is provided by them in near future). The Bestbuy versions are usually crippled in one way or another to save money and attract more customers.

 

At least it was the resolution that BB crippled, and not the graphics card, RAM, or CPU. I would rather have a 1366 x 768 res screen with a 9800M GS than a 1920x1200 res screen with a 9600M GT. No one really needs the extra resolution anyways because there's no Blu-Ray and it's hard to get decent frame rates at 1920x1200 + medium-high details on most new games.

 

the 9800 GS got 8200 at 1366*768 on 3dmark06. That is not a 9800 GT for sure.

 

Yeesh, I agree. 1366x768 is horrid.

'Need' is subject to interpretation.

 

9800M is useless w/o a high res screen. it makes little to none difference with 9600M GT under 1366x768.

 

I don't know what you guys are complaining about, this is very appealing to me. With all the student loans piling up, and waiting for a decent 256bit graphics card in a 15"

Why should I buy an M860TU for $2000 when I can get this for $1300? Are higher frame rates in Crysis worth $700? I could build a 4870*2 desktop for $700...

Now, all they need to work on is that resolution and I'm sold. This laptop beats the G50's they are selling for $1800+ with 9700M GT's... Nice find.

 

Not true.

A 128bit gpu in Crysis or Far Cry 2 (where games are headed) won't cut it. If this 9800M GS is 256 bit (which I suspect it is..) then you are wrong.

 

9800M GS and 9800M GT are different cards. The cost has a huge difference.

 

why you people always compare stuffs at extreme condition? I know games are heading that way, but how long? 2 years? 3 years? I would probably have my laptops replaced 3 times by then.

 

Most people want the best deal money can buy.

What are you suggesting? a 9600M GT is great?
What? That is ridiculous... 2, 3 Years? Have you tried playing games out now on a 128bit graphics card? (crysis, crysis warhead, mass effect, company of heroes, etc etc... far cry 2 in what a couple of weeks...) your limited by the resolution/shadows/ textures/shaders... you think an 9600M GT is the equivalent of a 256 bit graphics card under 1400*900?

minus rep!!!

 

ASUS G50VT-X1 - I wish they'd get rid of that lid...

 

What I am trying to say is that 9800M GS and 9600M GT shouldn't be much difference in low resolutions.

Oh I think I do have a little bit more laptops than you thought. sager 5793 8800m gtx, 2007 macbook pro x1600, 2008 macbook pro 8600m gt, thinkpad t43p v3200, AW m5500 and whole bunch of dells and HPs.

Do you have a 8800M?

 

Your not going to sit there and tell me you expect a 9600M GT (128bit) to produce the same visual results as a 256bit graphics card (I don't care what the name is..) at 1280*1024 even, it is impossible.

The ATI card in my old desktop ATI X1950 GT (256bit) outpreforms every 9600M GT laptop on the market at 1280*1024, it cost me $129.99 two years ago, which is why I don't own one of those '9600M GT' laptops.

But I can tell you now that the:
9800M GS > ATI X1950 GT

and the:
ATI X1950 GT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>9600M GT, 8600M GT, 9600M GS, 3650, whatever.

 

Let's get back on topic in here.

 

This seems to be a pretty bulletproof laptop for the price...

 

well they do in average games like grid and rainbow six (I figured it would be more fair to talk about average), only difference are the framerates, like 40fps vs. 80fps. can your eyes capture images that quick? I have both cards, you don't.

like it's impossible to land on the moon a hundred years ago too?

 

Well, lets take a look at benchmarks in general, thanks chaz :

Crysis, 1280*720, 9600M GT http://www.notebookreview.com/picture.asp?f=35729
- Minimum: 8.6
- Average: 13.1
- Maximum: 15.4

Crysis, 1280*720, 9800M GT http://www.notebookreview.com/picture.asp?f=36582
- Minimum: 18
- Average: 37
- Maximum: 46

Your prepared to tell me that a 9600M GT will preform similarly to a dumbed down 9800M GT?... right.

What are average games? If a video card can play 'good games'? it can play 'average games'... especially if it's in the same price range, so I don't understand your argument. Furthermore, a 256bit gpu will be able to pile on the anti-aliasing if in fact the games are 'average' and still look sharper than the 128bit gpu.

 

They're saying the 9800 GS got 8200 @ 1366*768 on 3dmark06, tell me, can your 9600M GT get 45003d marks @ 1024*800? Or does it score 8000 also

 

tell me, how many crysis alike games have you seen in the market? 1? 2? why don't you compare Farcry 5? that would make your point more significant.

Please reread my previous statement, I didn't say that a 9600M GT will preform similarly to a 9800M GT. 9800M will get 100%+ more framrates. The thing is, can human eyes watch that quick?

Come back when you actually tried both 8600M/9600M and 8800M personally.

 

This is redundant.

You are right man... consumers definitely don't want to play Crysis/Far Cry type games right now if they can... they want to purposely pay for a worse graphics card to play "average games" for the time being... Besides, how many of these games could be on the market in 6 months? 5? 8? Consumers definitely don't care about those ones.......

 

"Originally Posted by Nirvana View Post
What I am trying to say is that 9800M GS and 9600M GT shouldn't be much difference in low resolutions."
"9800M is useless w/o a high res screen. it makes little to none difference with 9600M GT under 1366x768."

 

lol, based on a little research there is a 0% chance I will try a 8600M/9600M personally. As a matter of fact, my two year old desktop card beats them in every 3d mark test/gaming benchmark produced to date, so, ATI X1950 GT (Crysis, all high, 3 medium, 1400*900.... so why?

Again, you were dead wrong.

 

I don't care about all that jazz you stirred up after this comment. Simply having an external screen would warrant the choice of 9800M over 9600M already.

The frame rates might not even be that different, since Frame Rates is inversely proportional to Native Screen Resolution (assuming you'd be using said resolution) and proportional to GPU Performance.

 

Is it too hard for you to understand that under low resolution, they have similar picture quality but different framerates? a game running at 40fps makes no different to your eyes than a game which running at 80fps.

Do I looked like I care what you think?

 

Where are you getting 40fps? and 80fps from? Again:

Crysis, 1280*720, 9600M GT http://www.notebookreview.com/picture.asp?f=35729
- Minimum: 8.6
- Average: 13.1
- Maximum: 15.4

Crysis, 1280*720, 9800M GT http://www.notebookreview.com/picture.asp?f=36582
- Minimum: 18
- Average: 37
- Maximum: 46

Oooh? 'average games' running at 40 vs 80 fps... well, try 2x AA in GRID with a 9600M GT, then with a 256 bit card, and get back to me.

He's right about external screens... I like external screens Hahutzy Good point.

 

any one going to get on topic? why not just make a new thread about the 9600m vs 9800m on low res?

 

what the heck ppl talking about, high res screen > low res screen?
ur telling me any pc could have a better display than apple macs becuz mac use low res lcd. does that make sense?

 

Don't get me wrong. I really don't give a flying rat's *** (forced censor) about whether or not you care.

I post only to inform the general reader that some ignorant fool's comment is wrong and should be disregarded.

 

COD4, Unreal Tournament III, aren't these games much more popular than crysis? with 1280x800, I see no different on my 5793 and macbook pro 8600m gt.
9600m gt:

I can not agree more, like buying a high res external monitor for a laptop which already has a screen?

 

Framerates start to matter from the 1 - 60 range... beyond 60 is discarded.

But you can tell the difference:

eg.: play halo 1 (30fps on Xbox), Wind waker (30 fps on gamecube), unreal tournament 3 (30 fps on MULTIPLAYER), etc...

Now, go and play Timesplitters 1, 2 and 3... (constant 60 FPS), you can tell the differnece, OFC you can.

Again, beyond 60, Frames per second belong to the Hobo on 37th street...
but from 40 to 60, you WILL tell the difference.


Oh and on your last benchmark post, you probably are running lower settings on your games
because 8600mGT Stock speeds and 5|5 details on UT3 will yield you at most an average of 30 fps... 60 fps when you're facing a wall, etc.
Same as all the other games..

Unless you're running overclock, you will get higher speeds, therefore higher framerates, and can manage higher settings.

Oh AND, crysis is a much more demanding game (technically, or ... crappily optimized engine), than COD4.

 

they are comparing the frames per second on games at lower resolutions with different video cards. this laptop is an awesome gaming laptop with awesome specs. the downside is people are not happy with the low screen resolution. on the plus side you get an awesome video card, processor, and ram

the argument is that you wont see a differences between a 9600m and the 9800m at the resolution that the laptop supports.

 

Really? With 2/4*AA, all three Ultra Textures, 2/4/8*AF, Soft Shadows? That is a lie.

As a matter of fact, the graph you just linked showing 19-56fps isn't on high/max out as you seem to insinuate:

Your argument is flawed. You were wrong in the beginning.

 

Right. How can I be so inconsiderate as to not state clearly that "external screens" can mean HDTVs / HD projectors, which, y'know, people do, in fact, hook up to their laptops with good graphic cards like 9800M via HDMI to watch videos or game on? Surely I am at fault for not spelling it all out for someone as intelligence as you. My apologies.

----------

On topic: G50VT-X1 does have an HDMI port, so you can make full use of your 9800M! Yay!

 

Be notice that charts I used was benched under 1440x900, which does not consider as "low" resolutions as we have been discussing about. I stand correct if we lower the res down to 1024 as you suggested.

 

Apologies accepted.

 

They are not LOW resolutions, but they are MIXED settings(not MAXED out).
(note the period at the end). <-- whoops, another period!

 

You cannot be serious, stop throwing around ridiculous information. Run Call of Duty 4 at 1280*1024, 2*AA, Ultra Texutres, Soft Shadows, 4*AF etc... instead of 'normal/medium' @1400*900..

A 128 bit graphics card will not preform similarly to a 256 bit graphics card at any resolution
.

What is wrong with those Crysis benchmarks at 1200*720 you disregarded? the 9600M maxed out at 15fps, the 9800M GT's minimum was higher than that...

How ignorant can a person get?

 

reminds me of emeek77

 

howard911s owns the ASUS G50VT-X1:

Now lets wait for Nirvana to tell us that all of his 8600M's and 9600M GT's are scoring 8500 3dmarks @ 1280*720

 

ARom, how about this?
-for cutting edge games like cyrsis, which is less than 5 as of now, yes they show noticeable difference in ANY resolutions;
-for more populated games under 1024 or below, such as COD4, CS, Battlefield, the only difference is really the framerates.

Am I missing anything?

excuse me, since when have I said that the 9600M GT has the same actual calculation power as 9800M GT? What I've been saying is that they both are over-powered in low res, thus same picture output, but of course, with great difference in framerates.

 

the framerates BECAUSE of the settings.`
oh and btw, CS and Battlefield will always max out at 2362346FPS, they are just old games that 8600m + cards can crunch in a heartbeat...