Notebook 6700HQ+GTX1080 or 7700HQ+GTX1070

Why did you choose the 6700HQ configuration with the GT73VR? Was this some European exclusive option? That configuration was never available in NA. I'm aware of the naming shenanigans of the GT73VR / GT73EVR HM175 nerfed version with 7700HQ or 7820HK configurations, but you really should have the unlocked CPU with the full CM238 chipset version on these. The 6700HQ is a real dog of a CPU. 3.1 ghz on all 4 cores?

 

I bought the computer used on ebay, and the two reasonable priced notebooks around €2000 were the GT72VR and GT73VR with 6700HQ/7700HQ and GTX1070/GTX1080 in several combinations. Other computers like the GT83 don't have GSYNC or other caveats like 1070 SLI where not all games take advantage of or don't have 120Hz or whatever. There are too many MSI notebooks I think. I discarded the Asus G701VI because is presumed to have a bad screen with low contrast, (around 700:1 as per some websites) and have the HQ also. Some with HK are also very expensive.

Other GT73VR had the 1080p 60Hz screen, or the 4k one (which you can replace officially at Asus by around €260 one for any other). Also note that in europe there are several keyboard layouts and not all resellers have all configurations, and even some of those models are marked as discontinued so not possible to buy from them again. That said I bought a different layout than my country is but no problem, I always use external keyboards.

On amazon france there's the "PC Portable - MSI GT73VR 7RF-488FR Titan Pro - Intel Core i7-7820HK 32 Go SSD 512 Go (2x 256 Go) + HDD 1 To 17.3" LED Full HD 120 Hz NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8 Go Wi-Fi AC/Bluetooth Webcam Windows 10 Famille 64 bits (garantie constructeur 2 ans)" priced at €4484, which is quite a lot, considering that I can buy a case+monitor much cheaper and that the Asus Chimera is around the corner.

In europe the HK (or K) versions are scarce because people wants to sell the HQ versions and because who has the HK or K and is happy doesn't want to sell and buying new is a lot of money. Importing from the US sum up a 23% tax or whatever it is to price+shipment+insurance, and only 1 year of warranty while in europe there's 2 year mandatory.

 

You made the correct choice. 1080 without a doubt. GPU is much more important than CPU for gaming. Especially dealing with 6700HQ vs. 7700HQ.. You aren't going to notice the difference between them.

 

You're right...3.1 vs. 3.4...they both suck.

 

hah.. they're both good enough to game with though, if that's all you care about.

 

Good enough to game at 60Hz.

 

60 FPS with what? Witcher 3 on Ultra settings? 1080 with 7700 is easily enough for 120hz gaming with most titles.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

Getting to 120hz+ territory requires higher clocks and for the first time in a long time a lot of games benefit substantially from higher clocked RAM too.

 

I don't see 120 FPS and 99% GPU usage here:

 

As always it will highly depend on the game. Let's take BF1 for instance. With the settings on Ultra and maxed out, a 7700 paired with the 1080 will average 135fps. Bump the settings down to high and you're looking at 155fps. With the same set up, Overwatch will average around 190fps on Ultra settings. Bump it down to high and you're looking at 270fps average.

In regards to Witcher 3, and comparing the 7700 vs 7820, it looks like the 7820 nets you a 5fps bump on Ultra settings and a 1fps bump on high settings.

If you can find the 7820 for a hundred dollar difference then think about going for it. If not then it's not going to make or break your system.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

Obviously if you have to choose between a 7700HQ and 1070 and 6700HQ and 1080, you choose the 1080. But both processors are going to seriously destroy your minimum or maximum framerates. A 3100 mhz 6700HQ is slower than a 2600k @ 4.5 ghz. A processor more than 6 years old. Yes it's playable, but unless you're only playing games which hammer the GPU extremely hard, eventually the HQ is going to choke on something.

You guys really should not ever put yourself in a position where you have to choose "should I choose to jump into the frying pan or the fire?" unless you're getting a massively huge discount--or pricing error. People who buy the GTX 1080 are buying a GPU because they want a GPU that has legs. A 6700HQ has stumps. And a 7700HQ has slightly larger stumps. Or you can say, your engine (horse) is a mustang that's towing a chariot, but the chariot has square wheels. Yeah.

Both have an absolute 45W unavoidable power limit, which can only be exceeded by very difficult methods (hacking the EC registers, tricking the CPU to report less wattage than it's actually using (Negative Imon offsets, if you even have access to this) or undervolting it considerably.

 

I do not understand this obsession with CPU. Time and time again, for at least the past 15 years, minor differences in CPU clock speed across the same CPU generation & CPU wattage does not yield noticeable real-world performance difference in general application usage or gaming.

The only time you'll notice a difference is when you are running very specific CPU-bound applications; such as CPU benchmarks; CPU-based video encoding; or CPU-based professional applications like simulation modeling and BI reporting. Overall features (e.g. core count, hyperthreading, thermal envelope, power management tech to manage sleep states, etc) across the same CPU generation matter more than clock speed for real-world performance.

Most games are GPU-bound (and not CPU-bound), meaning there isnt going to be a real-world difference in game performance. Even among those very specific CPU-bound games (mostly strategy games with heavy game AI processing, like Civ 5/6 and StarCraft 2), you're not going notice a difference between two similar CPUs with minor clock speed differences, unless the only thing you do with your games is benchmark them.

For a laptop, minor differences in CPU performance is a pretty low priority. There are so many other factors that DO matter to the real-world usage experience of a laptop, such as weight, size, battery life, display quality, GPU (if you game or run GPU-accelerated professional apps), connectivity ports, connectivity features, storage connectivity, memory slots, warranty, build quality, security & remote management features for business-class laptops, etc. That's why laptop manufacturers don't focus much on the CPU. Laptops just needs a CPU with "good enough" performance, which is usually determined by CPU generation (which indicates IPC) and core count, and not clock speed.

So unless you frequently run a CPU-bound application like CPU-based video encoding, CPU-based modeling, desktop BI / analytics software, or databases with very specific usage patterns, then minor differences in CPU speed are irrelevant (assuming equivalent CPU features like core count, hyperthreading, TDP, etc). If you aren't one of those people, then just be aware that the only benefit you get from slightly higher CPU speeds is to get higher benchmarks for bragging rights, or to satisfy an OCD desire to have "the best" simply because it's the best. You will not notice any real-world difference.


or bragging rights


The only reasons people care about minor differences in CPU clock speed is benchmarks,