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

assuming they have same settings of course.

but you can't deny that they are far more populated than crysis, no? between CS and crysis for long term gaming, I believe most people would choose CS.

 

i find it funny that someone talking about hating extremes would buy a laptop a year instead of buying 1 really ****ing awesome one that will last that time.

 

well I buy high end rig every year.

 

Assuming they have the same settings at same resolutions cards will perform differently, eg: 8600m GT vs. 8600m GS...

THis is not the case on old games, because even crap cards like 8600mGS will play them very well, and the only thing that will fluctuate is the framerate, which CAN be noticed (unless they're above 60 fps).

Between CS and Crysis, OFC i would choose cs as well, but this doesn't even come into topic because we all know that CS runs good even on an FX5200 desktop card...
therefore "high end" cards like 9600 and 9800, will have no trouble whatsoever maxing out, at the highest resolution possible and it would still be yielding above 60 fps.

 

... finally acknowledging this?

1.No one plays at 1024 or below
2.I bet a 9600M GT still couldn't run Call of Duty 4 @1024*800 with ultra textures because of the memory limits, then you add on soft shadows, a little AA, and the 256bit graphics card will pull way ahead in performance
3.Apply 4*Anti-Aliasing in Battlefield (who still plays that?), or enable more in the console, and compare. The 256bit graphics card still wins.

Yes, you're missing the fact that you were wrong.

Overpowered? How many times do I have to show you the benchmarks of Crysis running at high@ 1280*720? The 9600M GT couldn't get higher than 15fps, while the 9800M GT averages 37fps.

 

didn't I've been saying that from the beginning? "average" games? and you kept bringing up crysis. I uninstalled it after after I blew the aliens out, which was only total of 7 hours gameplay.

well, you brought that up on page 3 didn't you?

There are thousands of players on BF2142 servers right now. 8600 vs. 8800 in this game is 60fps vs. 100fps+ receptively under 1440x900, you will need a microscope to spot the difference.

I am missing the fact that you are wrong by kept ignoring the fact that I was focusing on most populated games only, which excluded crysis.

again, crysis has super short gameplay life and shouldn't be considered as mainstream. the ratio of players of crysis vs. CS right now are like 1 to 20.

It doesn't has to be CS, I was just giving an example. We can compare COD4 and crysis under 1024 (as ARom suggested on page 3) if you like.

 

Please quote me where I suggested 8600M can hit 8000+ in 3dmark06.

1) I was talking about the mainstream only
2) I don't consider crysis as mainstream
3) Thus I never commented 8600M GT on crysis

 

... I'm not going to explain this to you again, BenLeonheart, just did:

Your not stupid are you? I asked you to tell me how high an 8600M scores at 1024*800, you seem to suggest it's 8000+ like the 9800M lineup.

You even then hinted that the 8600M GT could run with ultra textures in Cod4 or at high in Crysis with playable framerates just as the 9800M lineup at 1024*800, because apparently:

Your round a bout ignorance isn't going to fool anybody.

 

As I pointed out at least 3 times already in previous posts, the following comment:

was only referred to picture quality, but different framerates.

You are talking about difference of benckmark, but I was talking about the difference of visual. simple question, 40fps vs. 80fps, can you tell?
It is shame that you can't say anything else beside giving extreme situation such as Crysis.

 

Yeaahhh, sure

It's a shame you can't admit when you are wrong, or that you made an incorrect broad general statement to begin with.

9800M GS > 9600M GT, 8600M GT, 128bit graphics cards @ all resolutions in a diverse range of games. (since people only play Crysis & Call of Duty 4 minimally, and Battlefield 1942 or whatever is still a hit for years to come...)

 

COD4 and Crysis are VERY different games.
COD 4 has a demonically possessed engine that makes it run like butter on low resolutions maxing out graphic options (i ran it maxed out at 1024 x 768 with average 30 fps), but when i bumped it to 1280x800, i had average of 20FPS, somewhat...

Now Crysis is also demonically possessed, it needs higher and higher cards to run better at higher resolutions, BUT. try and max out crysis on an 8600m GT, on 1024... even with ULTRA HIGH DX10, the game WILL stutter.

 

I'm wondering why someone would buy a computer, and not intend for it to play new game sell, but for it to only play older games. I'm pretty **** sure I would get the best card I could even if a lesser one would play the majority of the games I have fine.

 

Bottom Line Genius:

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

He can't seem to grasp that concept.

 

I bought mine to play the latest games...
I agree with you...
But its funny when you use the z0mg newest dx 10.1 vid card to play something like half life 1, its just funny to see how technology progresses every day, and when your old voodoo3 card struggled to run halflife 1, now cards just munch it for supper...

 

BenLeonheart, chipmoney and ARom, I have 3 questions for you guys.
1) What games do people play the most nowadays?
2) Is crysis the only game you play?
3) If you have crysis, is it the major game you played?

 

I've never played crysis. I mostly play TF2.

But When I'm buying a computer I want it to be able to run new games at the highest settings possible for as long as possible. I don't buy a new computer every year.

 

No buddy, it really doesn't matter what games you think are most popular... if someone is looking for a bang-for-buck system, they only have $1300, why would a 9600M GT be a better investment than a 9800M GS? It isn't. You claimed a 9600M performs as well as a 9800M at 13*10 and lower, that is not true.

Secondly, I'd argue that if more people had 256 bit graphics cards, they'd be all over Crysis Wars instead of Battlefield 1942 or whatever... but if they wanted to play Battlefield or CSS, they could do so with 8*AA maxed out, when they spot something new they like, they also have the opportunity to play it well.

Period. cya

 

TF2 actually would be another good example, when playing in low resolutions, difference between 9600 and 9800 are minor except fps numbers.[/QUOTE]

Yes of course all of us want to run as high as possible, but the problem is, res on this laptop is so low, and that's why we are discussing 9600 vs. 9800 in low res.

 

[/QUOTE]
But FPS are a big deal in TF2, big firefights can cause a severe drop in FPS, so I'd still easily go with the more powerful card without even thinking about it.

 

chipmoney and everyone else, I did not nor I am telling you should get 9600 over 9800. In fact what I've been saying from page 2 is that 40fps shouldn't be much difference to 80fps. Please don't make me repeat this statement again because I had did 5 times already.

 

Not bad overall, but that resolution is horrid.

Not sure if I could get past it..

 

But FPS are a big deal in TF2, big firefights can cause a severe drop in FPS, so I'd still easily go with the more powerful card without even thinking about it.[/QUOTE]

Same here.

to answer Nirvana's question

I play Jedi Academy online, since the past 5 years.
I play Unreal Tournament 3

I uninstalled Crysis because i deleted a file trying to mod it, and ... well the DVD was my friends' :\


I think:

on old games, 9600 and 9800 perform the same, because ABOVE 60 FPS, THEY DO NOT MATTER.

on newer games, even at low res, 9800 > 9600 and not only on FPS numbers but on higher achieved graphical settings as well.

oh and btw, 40fps is different from 80fps
hell yes.

now, 60fps and 80fps, NO difference, since the HUMAN EYE CANT SEE IT.

but 30 to 40, 40 to 60?heck yes.

 

from post#22 which is my first post in thread:

I never said it has no difference.

 

Aww Nirvana its no fun when you edit your past posts (#70, you now added 'much' difference when you 1st stated 'no difference' on post 70 )
I'm gonna go to bed, have fun guys...

my closing statement:

Buy 9800 over 9600.
and freaking overclock it for higher framerates/settings/flying chickens at higher resolutions!

peace! (gonna go catch some z's)

 

Oh this is just to quote you on Post #33.

 

Actually, it has the 9800M GT, not an underclocked 9800M GTS:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4046808#post4046808

 

You caught me BenLeonheart, now how would you like me to worship you?

 

Thats a good res at least u can play all games in native res maxed. On other laptops u have to scaledown and get the terrible blur or low down the details.

P.S The 9600 and 9700 GT is NOT a gaming card!

 

Wow, that got terribly off topic.

 

That's just GPU-Z being confused because this is the first time anyone has ever seen that card. Those are not the clocks of a 9800M GT.

 

Well according to Nvidia´s page there is no 9800m GS at all

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_m_series.html

What did get offtopic thumbsucker?

 

Rooaaar *thumps chest a-la Donkey Kong*

 

Whoa . . . a post, which was half off the topic! LOL!

And also, the BB deal is great. But the display and warranty is not good, for me. I like higher resolutions. I can just lower in-game resolution when playing a game. And I agree that the G50vt doesnt have a 9800M GT. See the clock rate, a 9600M GT DDR3 has 800mhz.

 

The 9800M GS was posted on this 9M series GPU list some time ago, it just seems as though this is the first laptop with one.

 

that was a pretty dramatic thread

consider this though: you say that the 9800gs is best bang for the buck - is it? to someone that plays older games it isnt when they can pick up something like a vostro 1500 for 450 bucks with an 8600gt and still play games like cs:source and STALKER on static lighting maxed out at 1280x800

however PERSONALLY im glad that we're seeing more and more high-end cards shoved into 15" chassis, hopefully the sales will be good and we'll see even more selection in this "portable high-end" sector and lower prices

the ASUS is a bit bigger than other 15.4" laptops like a T500 but then again ive neer seen an Asus with a small bezel; all in all we went from having 0 15" laptops with cards higher than 9700m to having 3 now, good news IMO

they are alienware m15x, sager np8660 and asus g50vt-x1
i dont think there are any others
the Asus has the price advantage as of now but also a performance penalty compared with a 9800GT but overall id go for the Asus if i wanted a 15" gaming notebook, that price cannot be beat right now

also can a mod edit the thread title to not say 9800GT?

 

I would say that actually the 9600 and 9700gt are both gaming cards. The 9700 is between an 8800gts and an 8700gt while the 9600 is equal to or a little weaker than an 8700gt. Both can play all games but crysis near maxed at 1280x800 and for the 9700 1440x900. I would say they qualify as gaming cards.

Also, considering you play games on you intel x3100, I would say any dedicated card would qualify as a gaming card.

 

What would you rather have? A 9600M GT with a 1920x1200 res screen or a 9800M GS with a 1366x768 res screen? If you think at 1366x768, both cards are the same, then you are clearly wrong.

Why don't you try maxing out CoD4 at 1366x768 on the 9600M GT and see how many FPS you get. Then, try it with the 9800M GS and see the difference.

Better yet, wait a year and see if your 9600M GT can play the new games at 1366x768 resolution with medium settings. See how many FPS you get.

Conclusion: I would take a better graphics card over a better resolution screen anyday.

 

I max CoD4 with excellent FPS on 1280x800 (similar res)...
Crysis is the only game that 9600m GT struggles to max.
Future proof wise, 9800m GS is the w2g for sure and I would take it and a low res over the 9600m GT (however, if weight and battery life is put in cosideration... idk), but I would beg to differ on your examples. Use Crysis instead..

 

The 9600M GT and 9700M GT are not "gaming" cards because they are crippled by a 128-bit memory bandwidth (even the 9100M G has that).

If you haven't noticed, memory bandwidth matters a lot. The difference between the 9700M GT and the 9700M GTS is huge. The 9700M GT has a 128-bit memory bus vs the 256-bit of the 9700M GTS. The 9700M GT only has 32 shaders, while the 9700M GTS has 48 shaders. The 9800M GS has 64 shaders and a 256-bit memory bandwidth, so it's even more powerful. I won't even go into the 9600M GT because it's worse than the 9700M GT.

This is why there is a huge performance gap between the 9700M GT and the 9700M GTS and higher. The 9700M GTS is the weakest enthusiasts card, while the 9700M GT is the best casual gaming card.

 

Stay on-topic in this thread, I deleted a few posts.

BTW - here are some benchmarks on a 9600M-GT DDR2:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=286033
It's far from the best card, but you'll be able to have a fun gaming experience.

 

I do understand that they are not the best cards out on the market, but the 9600gt and 9700gt are definatly capable of heave gaming. Looking at chaz's post, I would say any card that near maxes our call of duty 4 at 1440x900 and gets around 45fps average is a pretty capable gaming card. I understand how a 128-bit versus a 256-bit bus works, but that doesn't completely determine whether a card can play games or not. Like you called it yourself in the last line of your post, they make only be the best casual cards, but like you called them yourself, there gaming cards.

 

Some one put this link before (I know)

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-4797-view-GeForce-9M-Series-Gpu-list.html

The GT version has been removed and been replaced with GS

Seems its really is GT OR GTS (but DCed)

But the point is GT is gone!!!

Great Lappy!!!

Resolution wont matter after a while.....performance will!

 

o thats pretty nice....i paid less for my 6831, but 15.4 inch. nice setup though, asus has great build quality as well.

Im not sure what wrong with the res exactly? if its to fit more on your desktop just shrink the shortcuts by selecting them all holding control and scroll till they are the right size.

There is no blu ray, so that high of a res shouldnt be needed.

Also that laptop will last about 3 years, as with a higher res screen to stay at native wouldnt last even within 6 months.

 

Is there a review posted for this somewhere? I'd like to see it.

 

There is this.

 

There will be a ton of reviews very soon. Asus is shipping out samples next week. Plus a few of us owners should have complete reviews here soon.

 

have we confirmed how many stream processors it has and what's the memory bus width?

 

I am guessing here that it will be a downclocked GT and 256-bit bus.

 

More likely a DCed GTS...

 

What is wrong with some people? Again, THE 9800m GS is NOT a 9800m GT Downclocked.

Dont get your hopes up, the GS gets 8300 at 1366*736 on 3dmark06. This translates to about 7300 at 1280*1024 (default res) which is only 100 higher than the 9700m GT and a couple hundred less than the 9700m GTS. Unless that is the biggest downclock ever, that is not a 9800m GT. At best a downclocked 9800/700m GTS.

Also, whats this about the 9700m GTS having a 256bit interface making it leagues ahead of the 9700m GT? Is 700 points HUGE? No, thats the difference between 9650 and 9700m GT. The 9700 actually has better clocks than the 9700 GTS, just the memory bandwidth less.