The best Netbook for gaming.

Yeah, scratching me head as to why they didn't go with a 13" laptop instead of the tiny screened 11", but still a very powerful little machine. Might even start off a "gaming netbook" race between the major players.

 

The m11x still isn't a netbook. There is no real definition of netbook, but something as large as that just is too big and bulky, and expensive. I think the next best thing, as much as I hate to say it, is the 1201n, at half the price. lol.

 

Sorry, but the 1201's CPU and GPU just don't cut it. And netbook these days IS defined these days by smaller screen size and below-average weight. The m11x fits both, at 11" and 4 lbs.

 

It's only defined that way by the ignorant that don't know any better.

 

I don't know if I'd consider anything nearly 2 inches thick a "netbook"

 

If I put an 10" screen in a HP Envy 15 chassis it's a netbook because it has a small screen and it's below average weight for a 15" chassis.

 

I find the m11x specs impressive, but it's just an expesive compact laptop. I'm still just waiting on SU7300 + ION for under $600.

Not only that, but if I'm going to spend $1000 or more I will most likely go with a 13" with even better components for not much larger or heavier than the m11x.

 

if i have more money then i may go for that m11x

but i don't think i should go more then 600 canadian dollars on something that i bring back to work everyday.

This is why i got myself the 1201 eee pc.
after clocked to 2ghz, i can do alot of "LIGHT" gaming.

 

I'm struggling with this... I'm tired of my GMA950 equipped ACER Aspire One, ready to upgrade, but cannot for the life of me decide between the Asus 1201 or wait for the MX-11. I'm actually ok paying a bit more for the MX-11, but I'm worried it will be too big. I'm also concerned the 1201 will simply be too slow, as it's still just an Atom netbook at heart. And, my assumption is the Acer Ferrari One is slower than the Asus 1201? If it's not, I may just grab one of those, as I know the ATI 3200 is atleast decent if the CPU is any good. Those are the choices, need something more portable than my current Asus G51 for work, and faster than the Acer I've currently got.

 

EEE Ion2 models coming soon

 

the m11x is not a netbook.

netbooks are not clear cut, but basically netbooks are:

cheap, low cost, small laptops.

if you are optimizing performance over cost, even if it is small, it isn't a netbook anymore.

 

The 1201N has not disappointed me so far. The Atom 330 is technically like having two Atoms in one. And the ION GPU ain't no slouch. I was playing Modern Warfare 2 on this thing last night.

 

I guess size then is my definition? I'm ok paying a fair price for a premium performance small machine. For the price of a MX-11 ($1000), is there a smaller, faster machine? And exactly how big is it?

 

That's awesome, curious, what settings and performance? I know on my AMD HD3200 Tablet with a 2.4ghz CPU, COD4 was playable in shader 2.0 mode and lower settings, but is the 1201 better than that? I know the 330 is quite a bit slower than my older AMD X2 2.4Ghz Turion, is the ION that much better than the HD3200?

Curious, as Dell has said the MX-11 will run MW2 at 720p @30fps.... is the 1201 remotely close to that performance? If so, I may have to go that route.

 

I actually googled MX-11 before I realized you were talking about the Alienware M11x. For a minute I thought there might be some new sub-12 coming out that I didn't know about.

Amazon U.S. has Acer Ferrari One in stock but I don't think $599 is worth the slower Neox2 and an XGP port I can't buy an external GPU for yet.

 

If you are in the slightest interested in gaming, the Toshiba T115D should be on your menu. It's the best of both worlds in terms of a real GPU (HD3200) and a real CPU (1.5 X2 Neo).

I am a recent owner, and it plays Mass Effect @ 1024x600, which is pretty much the most demanding game you can throw at it. 11.6 gaming is at it's pinnacle with this little demon.

 

Ig gaming is important, I can't see anything else being remotely close to the M11x unless Acer or Asus copies the specs and releases a less expensive version.

 

I personally think Dell should have went the XGP route and used the GT 335M's cooling on a full power AMD Turion II CPU with an HD4200 IGP.

 

Barf. Hot, slow, weak. There are a million crappy notebooks with that spec.

 

There are a million notebooks with an XGP?

 

I was running at 720x480, aka DVD resolution. It scaled pretty nicely on the 720p display. Settings were pretty much all at minimum or off. I didn't say it was very pretty, but it really isn't bad. I didn't have a FPS utility running at the time, but it was easily over 50 in less intense parts (like the little tutorial bit at the beginning), and probably dropped somewhere in the 30's in more intense actual battles.

I'd say the ION, based on the 9400M GT, is probably more powerful than the HD 3200. The Atom, even though dual-core, is weaker, but Call of Duty games are generally more dependent on the graphics card than CPU. Conversely, Team Fortress 2, an older and less graphically intense game than MW2, struggles to get those same frame rates in DirectX 8 mode at even lower settings and resolutions; the Source engine is more CPU-dependent.

 

HA, my bad... I just put a replacement com radio in my plane, a TKM MX-11 (cheap radio but works)... so had that on the brain... my bad! sorry for any confusion!

 

I don't see why cheap needs to be part of what defines a Netbook.

Since EEE came out 3 years ago, the price has gone up and up and up. It was just a matter of time before they would start doing Netbooks for specific niches, like Gaming Netbooks, or desktop replacement Netbooks. When Asus N10 came out there were many people, who said it was not a Netbook. M11X is just a stronger N10, nothing else.

All Netbooks these days seem larger and bulkyer than the original 8,9'' model that was based on the One PC per Child concept for poor African children.



You wouldn't define a Desktop Replacement or Road Warrior by price either? Those are judged by performance. I dont see why a 10 billion dollar netbook cant still be a netbook.
As for size, yes it's a fat machine, but it's still in the 11'' range which seems to be netbook acceptable these days.


The question is now - Would you then go for a fat Alienware 11'' at 4 lbs, or rather go full throttle with a powerful 13'' that is thinner and lighter like the Asus UL JT?

 

Yeah, it seems that 10" is out of the realm of a "gaming" netbook. I still think the m11x is the best bargain at the moment. There aren't any 12" or 13" notebooks out there with the performance for the price. The UL30JT will probably cost $1500 decently equipped and only has a 310M GPU. Then you might as well go with the Sony F, but the pricing is getting ridiculous then.

That's the whole point. People are whining about the CPU choice, but there's always Dell discounts to be found, and for under $1000 you can get a decently equipped m11x with components found in a 14" at a similar cost (if not more).

 

Common sense should define what a Netbook is and isn't.

Problem is catchy marketing terms trumps common sense 8 times out of 10...and because we find it convenient, consumers (and by that I include PC tech & news sites) abuse the term Netbook and stretch the name's boundaries to include anything with a slight performance drop below Notebooks.

Most of the machines we've labeled as Netbooks, really aren't.

 

Exactly. To be a netbook it really has to be a 10" or smaller and the term NETbook makes it basically a portable web browsing machine with ability to do other basic Windows tasks. To me 11.6" isn't a netbook regardless of the guts in it. It's a damn small laptop, but it isn't a netbook. The m11x isn't a netbook either. Just a small laptop.

Either way, I think this thread has realized there's no true gaming netbook. The closest thing was the Asus N10J, but that's since been retired. The HP Mini and Eee 1201N aren't netbooks either, too big.

 

If I recall right, wasn't there 10'' laptops years and years ago, way before eee pc?


The way I see it, EEE is just another range along the ultra portable.

It's only recently(IMO) that we have started to see well equipped 13'' . It's only recent that many of them are getting their own GPU. 13''s used to be mostly IGPU.

And now the line is getting blurrier between 11 and 12, meeting the Netbook segment. It doesn't really matter if it's an ultra portable or not. In a sense I think the term netbook was always a farce when you think about that netbooks were not very good at going on the internet when it came to things like watching flash videos, which became very very big in the 2006-2007 years that EEE first came out.


just my two cents.

 

Years and years ago, laptops had 10" screens because of the cost of the screens, but with a large bezel arond it, they were expensive PC's anyways, and only a fraction of the performance of any desktop counterpart. Even in recent years with 14" and 15" as most common, an 11 or 12" laptop meant expensive and lacking lots of features.

The Eee made a compact notebook affordable. Prior to that these micro notebooks, or whatever you want to call them, were quite expensive for what they did. The Eee was actually designed as more or less an advanced Linux PDA with internet connectivity. Then people quickly noted that it would run XP reasonably well, so they started making them as XP or Linux variants.

 

so,,,if price is ignored,
then the N10J is the "best gaming netbook" right???

10" + atom n270 and 9300mgs


ofcause..after adding the cost,,, it is no where need the "best"

 

I would still consider the 1201N a netbook. 12" netbooks do exist, remember the Dell Mini 12?

Dual core Atom 330 and ION (9400M) with 720p resolution.

 

Just as a clarification of why we put gaming netbook in quotes....the N10J was the Netbook with the most gaming potential, but the 9300m wasn't added to the machine with the intention of turning it into a sub-12" gaming system. At the time, the 9300m wasn't much more than a discrete version of an IGP, and the reason for adding it to an Atom platform was to give a Netbook better video playback and an HDMI connector. Increased gaming potential just came along as part of that.

The M11x on the other hand was designed to put the most gaming potential into the smallest form factor for the lowest price. It was designed with the intention of gaming on it, and as far as I'm concerned once a system reaches the potential performance level to handle tasks greater than browsing the internet it ceases to qualify for the label of Netbook.

*The Internet does include streaming HD video and hardware accelerated Flash so adding a GPU or IGP capable enough to handle that does not in and of itself disqualify a system from being called a Netbook.

 

The Dell Mini 12 was exactly where lines started to get blurred. The Z series Atoms were originally meant for UMPCs and MIDs so they didn't carry Intel's Netbook restrictions on them.

 

One of the defining characteristics that I personally think Netbooks have always had was the lack of a DVD Drive. Like the debacle that was raised when Apple released an Macbook without a DVD Drive(Macbook Air) I think Netbook meant that you could have a computer were everything was done from the net instead of physical media... Steam, Direct2Drive, Itunes, Gog, Amazon and so on...

And now you see larger machines like the UL30 and Acer Timeline skipping on the DVD Drive as well further making the lines blurry as Digital Distrubution will lead the way against physical media.



I don't understand why a Netbook being able to make greater tasks than browsing the Internet disqualifies it from being a Netbook. That would be like an Ultra Portable or a Road Warrior, not being that if they got powerful enough despite their size/weight/price/performance to be a desktop replacement.

It's only natural that hardware gets better and possibilities grow. Cost efficent EEE PC wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago, and I am sure that a Gaming Netbook like M11X is also something that has only recently become possible.

People have been complaining forever about how weak the Atom was. Everyone wanted more power but in the same 9-11'' form factor. It doesn't matter what it's called, it's just weird to me that something can't be something if it suddenly gets good at something else.
M11X seems to be a good Netbook. But the fact that it can game should you choose to enable it's Nvidia card, disqualifies it from being a netbook at all?


If a Football player is good at playing Football, but is also good at playing Basketball, you would not say that he was not a football player anymore? You would just say he that he was a football player who was also good at playing Basketball.


I don't understand why labelling the machine as a Netbook that is good at games is wrong. But I am beginning to feel like this discussion is running in circles.

 

Let's just eliminate the term "netbook" altogether. It means nothing. They're all notebook PC's of different sizes and configurations, period. There is actually a distinction between the terms "laptop" and "notebook" but that line is so blurred people use them interchangably anyhow.

 

Agreed. Netbook vs. ultra-portable vs. really tiny laptop/notebook, it's all arbitrary.

 

Personally I prefer the term "ultra-portable" only because it refers to what it really is. It's smaller and lighter than the average laptop (what is that, 14"?)

 

I think 15.4" or 15.6" is pretty much the mainstream these days. 13" and 14" usually fall into the thin & light category.

But once again, who comes up with these categories anyway?

 

Sounds like we need some form of standardization. It would help clear things up a bit I think. Even I get confused when I go to Best Buy's site and am looking for a laptop and the categories they have listed.

 

I would say that netbooks are generally considered to be anything 12" or under that is powered by an Atom CPU and integrated graphics (whether that's Intel integrated, ATi integrated like the HD3200, or nVidia integrated like the ION).

Ultra-portables are usually in the 12" to 13" range, and use CULV processors and usually integrated graphics (4500MHD/X3150), but occasionally dedicated/switchable as well (like the GT 335M in the M11x).

 

Still entertaining to me...

"gaming netbook" and "riding lawnmower drag racing" are pretty much in the same league.

 

Kinda like commercial airliner racing?

width='425' height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SnUSdIGxmZY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SnUSdIGxmZY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='425' height="344"></embed></object>

 

Man, thank god you're here to keep us daydreamers in check.

If this were 1970, this would be you:
A computer? Playing games? C'mon man, computers are the size of a gymnasium. Why would you want to play games on that?

 

maybe the thread should be BEST GAMES for netbooks

 

On the contrary... I'd be playing the games... as I have done for years.
The part where you fail is that the above example was indeed the height of capability at that time.

The concept is that you are cramping your capability on purpose for the sole purpose of portability... that only cramps the results.

You accept such rediculous limitations in order to have the "privilege" of playing on an 9" screen. You do this supposedly for portability... but frankly a full laptop is just as portable to any human not in need of massive medical attention for severe muscle weakness, and will currently play any game out there at nearing desktop performance.
Better yet, I can take such a laptop and plug it into a 40-50"+ screen and play for real.

You choose "smaller" for the purpose of being smaller... not because it has any advantage or practical purpose.

Its like "dreaming" of participating in the special olympics when you are perfectly healthy. You and cartman ftw!

Hey, its your money... do what makes you happy... and good luck.
It also happens to make me happy... I think its entertaining.

Just get your comparisons right please...

 

HA, this did make me laugh...

But, for me its the difference from being able to play AT ALL or not... meaning, I work out of my truck alot (in construction) and need a machine that I can run from the center console (small size) and decent battery life for business reasons. But, as a gamer at heart, when I have time to kill waiting for subs or clients, I like being able to load up a game and play if I choose. Yes, I have a G51 which I love, but it won't sit on the console, and even if it did, it would wun hot and require external power if I wanted to play for more than 20 minutes. Physically I can lug it around, absolutely, but I simply don't because it is not practical.

Thus, that's where a "gaming" netbook comes into play in my opinion.

 

That is the aspect KP is not considering either. Gaming on battery is anywhere from 2-3 hours. Unprecedented by any laptop. Not to mention that if you take it with you frequently, a netbook, m11x included, will fit in my glovebox or center console, so it is easily concealed for security and out of the way from being damaged.

I mean you might as well get a 19" laptop instead of a 15" because you can have a larger screen, run at higher resolutions and put desktop components in there, and can be lifted by any human.

I just don't like how people insult users of a product if it does not pertain to them. I mean why do people play chess with plastic pieces and cardboard playing surface when there's surely much bigger, heavier, and more robust pieces like marble. I mean a normal human could carry that with them. Why even bother selling the cardboard and plastic chess sets.

 

KernalPanic - The point of the analogy was that you're attempting to crush the dreams of tomorrow based on today's limitations. Back then the limitation was that the systems were huge, noisy, expensive, and slow. Not exactly the best platform for gaming, but someone had the foresight to know that one day, computers would do great things. If those people let someone like you get them down, where would computers be today..? It's a very simple analogy, I'm sorry that you misunderstood it.
Today, there's not even much limitation! If you could get as much power in a 10" system as in a 15-17" system, would you be against that too? Not everyone needs pew pew graphics cards; a low end IGP will suffice. Take the smallest footprint you can while still fitting your needs.

For what I am doing, an Asus G50VT would not be a very logical choice. I carry a very small messenger back back and forth with me to and from work. In it, I have a Thinkpad X31. It's a bit heavy for it's size, it's larger than I really need considering how often I use it, it gets hot, and it has pretty bad battery life. A netbook would be a much better suited piece of equipment for what I do, and soon, a netbook will join the ranks of my technology arsenal.
If I get a netbook, I'm going to not only lose all the extra weight of the system itself, but I will also be able to take my PSP out of my bag, since the netbook will get my gaming fix on (all I need are basics, mostly emulators, maybe a simple FPS for "emergencies"), and I'll also remove my power adapter... most netbooks get 8-10 hours of battery life, there will be no point in carrying a charger if I can recharge the system every night [that I need to].

Admittedly, a 15" notebook would play games much better. Which is probably the reason why I also have a 15" behemoth. But that 15" behemoth gets under 2 hours of battery life (non gaming) and wouldn't even fit in my messenger bag. Sure, I could get a larger bag or a backpack, but why would I? I like to travel light, and a netbook will fit my needs. Do I plan on gaming for extended periods? Nah. I'm looking for a netbook for logging into my terminal server while I'm out on the road. But 30 minutes of the original Call of Duty or Team Fortress 2 on low settings here or there would certainly be a nice bonus...
Since items that fit this bill are emerging on the market at an increasing rate, I'll have to go ahead here and say that this isn't even a niche request.

You don't have to want a netbook that plays games.
You don't have to understand why we want netbooks with gaming capabilities.
But you do have to carry yourself in a manner which is respectful to the other members of notebookreview, which at this point, you're failing to do.

 

You're entire post was fantastic, but, let me say, well said and I agree completely, and I am a complete fan of the thread and a netbook that will do whatever I desire, whatever it is called.

 

Here is a video of my Acer Ferrari One with external Graphics running Crysis. It scores 5432 3DMarks in 3DMark2006 without any tweaks...

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SlI4lO9fbTc&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SlI4lO9fbTc&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='425' height="344"></embed></object>

 

so with the fujitsu amilo graphics you can use the netbook screen?