Advice for first gaming laptop!

Hello all


I'm about to venture into the realm of mobile gaming for the first time! I've got a couple of ideas about the specs I'm after but confess to being a bit out of touch with this generation of PC gaming in general. A bit of background, my 'current' rig for want of a better word is 7 years old and made up of an Athlon 3200+, 1.5GB of DDR memory and a Radeon 9800 Pro I'd struggled along with it until about a year ago when I (shamefully) caved in and bought an XBOX 360 as a cheap alternative to a new desktop. Luckily though I'm now in a position to get back to my PC gaming roots for all but the most demanding new games!

My budget is around £600 ($1000ish?) and I'm after the best gaming performance I can squeeze out. I'd be grateful for some advice on the following...


i3-2310m v i5-2410m - Any major difference in terms of gaming performance or future-proofing?

GT520M v GT540M - Again is there a big performance gap and also is the 540 worth pairing with an i3 CPU?

1920x1080 resolution on a 15" screen - Is it worth having full HD on a screen this size and also would the above GPUs and CPUs be powerful enough to run games at this res?

4GB v 8GB of memory - Any noticeable difference when gaming?


And finally, how would you rate my chances of playing upcoming releases like TES: Skyrim, Deus Ex and Diablo III on decent settings on this level of machine (the i5 and 540M for example)?


My first post and I've asked a lot haha my apologies but any advice would be great, thanks!

 

CPU and GPU is most important point and for above config i5 should be the choise and for the graphic card pls check NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M - Notebookcheck.net Tech it seems 540M better and other thing which I noticed 520M have 2 different type means you should be carefull and of course 1920*1080 should be the first choise but if graphic card is not strong means 1920*1080 is nothing

 

The difference is 15-25% in CPU performance. Given that these are low-end CPUs to begin with, it may matter in CPU-bound games.

Yes, there is a huge difference. The GT520M (not to be confused with the GT525M which is something else altogether) has half the number of shaders and half the memory bandwidth. It's not a gaming GPU -- modern integrated graphics is as good or better.

You will not be able to run games with those GPUs at that resolution. However, I believe it is still worth it for purposes other than gaming. Keep in mind that the quality of the screens (contrast, colors, etc.) is typically much, much higher for 1920x1080 relative to 1366x768.

No.

Depends on what you consider to be decent settings. You will not be able to max them out, but they should be playable.

Depending on your budget and availability of these machines in the UK, you may wish to also take a look at the new Llano laptops. These come with integrated graphics that are better than any others out there by a substantial margin. In addition, if you get a Llano laptop with a discreet Radeon GPU, the integrated and discreet cards will work together in some games (it doesn't work very well in many games right now, but it may eventually be fixed with new drivers). The drawback of these machines is that the CPU is very weak: single and dual threaded performance will be worse than even the i3. However, they're supposed to pretty cheap and so may be worth a look if you're mainly interested in gaming and the games you want to play are not CPU-intensive.

 

If you want the best cheap "bang for the buck" gaming laptop then the HP DV6Tqe has better GPU options. It also has a very good 1080p display and you should be able to pick one up for under $1000US.


Also, fill out the form and post here -> LINK <- for more helpful advice.

 

According to luckysword's link the i5-2410m/GT540M/4GB combo will run Crysis 2 on high settings at over 25fps which is mindblowing after what I'm used to, much better than I expected.

Thanks for those answers Althernai, sounds like it's definitely worth going with the GT540M. What are likely to be the more CPU-bound games? I'm most concerned with PC exclusive stuff... RTS titles and the odd MMO. Do you think it's worth a $100 step up from the i3 to i5 for these? And by decent settings I mean somewhere between medium and high, game-dependent of course. I checked out the Llano laptops but it looks like they're yet to be released over here.

grimreefer I'm pretty much set on buying from a custom retailer here in the UK that a friend had a good experience with, the HP works out more expensive with similar components. That's also the reason I didn't post in the forum you suggested, I'm after advice on components more than specific laptops but thanks for the heads up.

 

Have a look at these articles:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Processors-Gaming-Performance.49600.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Processors-Gaming-Performance-Part-II.57170.0.html

 

Perfect, thanks!

 

Those SB performance links kinda answer this question for me but I've found another option spec-wise and feel better with a second, more experienced opinion As it stands within my budget I can choose between:

GPU GT540M
CPU i5-2410m
RAM 4GB @ 1333MHz

and

GPU GT555M
CPU i3-2310m
RAM 4GB @ 1600MHz


555 with faster memory over the 540 with a faster CPU, right?

 

Which 555M is this? There are 3 or 4 different versions of that GPU -- some have 96 shaders, some have 144, some have a 128-bit bus with DDR3, some with GDDR5 and some have a 192-bit GDDR3 bus. Performance will vary significantly depending on which one you get.

That said, it's going to be faster than the 540M either way and for a gaming laptop, you are generally off with a faster GPU.

 

I just found out there are multiple versions and was about to update that post

2GB GeForce® GT 555M, 144 CUDA Cores, 1180MHz Clock, 2048MB Mem Size, 900MHz Mem Clock, DX11

As far as I can tell that's the DDR3 version with 144 shaders?

 

Only GDDR3 555m's are being made for some reason. The bigger difference is the 128-bit bus versus 192-bit bus. Only the Alienware M14x and XPS 17 is making use of the wider bus, every other laptop is using the 128-bit variant which greatly cripples performance.

 

XPS 17 (both L701x/L702x) as well, my 445M has 192-bit bus.

 

I'm waiting on information from my retailer about whether their GT555M is 128 or 192-bit. If it's the slower bus model, would I be better off settling for a 540M and saving myself £65/$100-odd?


EDIT: Thanks for all the replies btw duly repped

 

I think it will be definitely a 192-bit bus, you can ask in the XPS L702x thread to confirm.

 

I'm not buying an XPS though, it's a custom laptop, so I've no way of finding out which card's inside before they can tell me themselves

 

I see, From the specs I read, seems a good laptop, but I would think it over very well before buy a 128-bit card, specially if you want to game on it..

 

Well, since you are in UK, why not consider this one:

Acer Aspire 5750G Core i7-2630QM 2nd Gen Laptop LX.RCF02.109 - Laptops Direct

It's £697 (£100 above your budget), but the 'perks' are that it comes with a quad core sandy bridge (2630qm), and 540M (not sure of the bandwidth or the type of VRAM, but I think you could easily check that out via phone).

Heh... this reminds me of my Aspire 5930G (in sig) offer which came to £600 (granted the RAM was 3GB and 250GB hdd, but still, for late 2008, that was a bargain).
I would surmize that Acer are literally 'giving' us yet another 'mid-range' laptop, only this time the CPU is not really mid-range (the gpu on the other hand is).

 

Well my budget's stretched to £700-£750 now to try and acommodate a better GPU for gaming From what I've found the 2630QM doesn't offer much over the i5 2410M in games so is it worth the upgrade? Here's the essence of the build I'm looking at (comes in at £730)...

Would sacrificing the GT555M (albeit the 128-bit model), 1080p screen and Scorpio Black HDD for the quad-core Acer be worth it?

 

Well, if it's the 128bit model and GDDR3, then it likely won't present much of a difference except in clock speed.
You have to check on the phone to determine the bus width and VRAM type on the 540M.

Aside from that, I would say the 2630qm is definitely worth it.
Why?
Simple, multithreaded games are becoming more and more common which will run better on a quad core instead of a higher clocked dual core.
Oh and that Acer I provided the link to also has the 1080p screen.
You can easily buy a new Scorpio Black HDD if you want to, so the only difference would in the end be the gpu.

EDIT: Looks like laptopsdirect is sold out on the Acer laptop I provided the link to.
The one in JohnLewis store seems to lack the 1080p resolution but offers a higher capacity hdd (and is by £100 more expensive than the laptopsdirect version).

Hm... well, the i5 will probably remain a decent cpu for some time to come, and seeing how the 555M is %15-%20 faster than the 540M, I suppose you can get away easily with getting that one.
But had it been up to me, I would have picked the laptopsdirect version and simply OC the 540M to 555M levels (fundamentally speaking they are the same card with no other difference than in clock speeds - the 128bit versions... real difference is with the bigger bus version and GDDR5 if offered on the more powerful 555M - either way, gaming on 1080p will not be an easy task since the bus width and VRAM type aren't really in the category - and depends on the games).

 

for US$1000ish budget I think your best bet in terms of gaming performance is this.

i5 is sufficient for almost all games currently available while the gtx560m blows away all the non-gtx cards mentioned above.

IMHO this is the best bang for the buck gaming laptop right now. maybe a little over your budget after adding shipping though.

 

i3 vs i5. IMO not much difference in gaming.

520m vs 540m. 520m is not qualified as a gaming GPU IMO, 540m barely qualifies as one. to me only GTX stuff is considered gaming class.

4GB vs 8GB. may not be much different as of now but maybe in a couple of years.

1080p on 15.4'. definitely not needed. at least my eyes cant tell the difference on 15.4' between 900p and 1080p gaming while the later requires a much better GPU to get the same frame rates.

 

Wow, I am surprised about this system price and specs!

But... Is it a reliable company? and.. Would I be able to purchase it outside US?

 

That looks like an awesome deal. Just worried about support/warranty if buying from the US and shipping to the UK... and it's another $120 for Windows 7. DO XOTIC PC have a good reputation?

 

Okay, after reading through the thread, here is my conclusion:
Anyone who tells you that higher resolution doesn't matter, or isn't a worthwhile upgrade, is completely wrong.

1) Higher resolution screens let you fit more onscreen at once. 1366x768 is a really low resolution for a 15-inch screen, and doesn't effectively let you fit more than one window onscreen. Go with a higher resolution, not for the sake of games, but because games are not the only thing you do with the computer. The screen upgrade actually affects you more than any other upgrade, because it makes a difference outside of performance-related tasks, and makes the most difference overall.

2) Higher resolution screens don't affect your game performance. You don't have to run in native resolution. They only affect your performance when you do run in native resolution.

3) Higher resolution screens are almost always significantly better quality than mediocre-res screens like the 1366x768 screen in the Acer. Often times the sheer quality difference means playing games in a lower-than-native resolution on the high-res screen will look better color-wise and contrast-wise than playing in native resolution on a 1366x768 screen.

The GPU makes more of a difference for games, and the screen makes the most overall difference. Don't sacrifice either for a CPU upgrade. That Optimus II with the 128-bit GT 555M, 1080p screen, and i5 processor is a great option for an upper-midrange gaming laptop.

Good screen + Decent GPU + Any CPU > Good screen + Still-decent-but-less-powerful GPU + Any CPU > Bad screen + Decent GPU + Any CPU > Bad screen + Still-decent-but-less-powerful GPU + Any CPU > Bad screen + Bad GPU + Any CPU.

The Optimus II (Sager NP5165 / Clevo W150HRN) falls into the first category, with a good screen, a decent upper-midrange GPU, and a CPU that's plenty powerful to match with the GT 555M GPU.

 

Thanks for the advice!

The Optimus II is looking like my best option. The 1080p screen comes as standard so no upgrade fees involved. I've read the 2630QM runs hotter than the i5 too so with a view to overclocking the GPU I think sticking with the i5's a good idea to keep system temperatures down.

Just one question about the screen. Are there any drawbacks to running games at a lower-than-native resolution, like stretched pixels?

 

There's a minimal amount of blur, but the better contrast and often better colors and viewing angles that generally come along with higher-res screens usually outweigh that. For general computer usage, you'll notice blur when using the Windows environment in a non-native res, but that's when you WANT to run in native resolution, and for games you don't notice the blur nearly as much. I once accidentally played TF2 in non-native resolution because my settings got defaulted somehow, and I didn't notice until after a few minutes into the game.

There's no stretching unless you run in a different aspect ratio. For example, running in 1366x768 resolution on a 1920x1080 display won't stretch the image because the aspect ratios of the two resolutions are the same. However, trying to run 1440x900 on 1920x1080 will stretch things a bit, so in that case either run in 1600x900 or a custom-defined resolution of 1440x810.

 

it actually depends on the screen, so far for me when there is little difference between resolutions like 1280*800 to 1366*768 there is little to no blur, however when you go all the way down from 1920*1080p, its going to look hideous. All the monitors that I have used so far presented this behaviour, there are some people that dont see the blur on some monitors, but for me it never worked that way

 

It depends on the size of the screen.

You're not going to notice running in 1366x768 15.6" on a 15.6" 1920x1080 display nearly as much as you'd notice running in 1366x768 on a 25" 1920x1080 monitor.

It's the same deal with watching HD content. Watching 1080p vs 720p content on a 15-inch screen regardless of the resolution of the screen won't make too much of a difference. But watching on a 42-inch TV you notice the difference a bit more.

Like I said, when running in 1440x900 on a 1920x1200 display, I don't notice too much of a difference unless I'm paying attention to the pixels rather than the actual gameplay.

 

maybe thats the problem but on several threads people still see the blur right there, annoyingly there.

I use at work 2 30''panels and at home 1 30''panel, and so far on hdtvs that I tested this, going all the way up to 56''(if I remember the size right) there is the noticeable blur.

the 4670m cant support that high res on gaming, thus I always go down a little notch when there isnt a depth of vision or other things like items bar

 

Even if you can see blur it's not worth gimping your productivity outside of gaming just to make games look slightly better.

 

I agree. So many people are like "omg! I can't game with a lower resolution!" What? 720p usually scales well from 1080p, and with 4xAA is barely noticeable from a 720p at native.

 

Im not saying ditch the FHD panel for gaming, Im just saying that blur will be there, from my experience it has always been there, no matter what amount of AA and AF I could throw at it

 

2) you don't have to run at native resolution but if you do that either the image is all blurred or you have to look at a tiny window, neither to me is a good gaming experience. I'd always recommend choosing the resolution according to screen size which is actually choosing the right dot-size. for 15'-16' I'd recommend 900p and 1080p is only for 17'+.

as of productivity work that someone mentioned above, again you need to choose the right resolution for the size of the laptop. 1080p on 15' screen at default font size is simply tiny. in order to comfortably do text editing/programming/web surfing you'll eventually scale up the font size but then what's the point of such high resolution?

 

XOTICPC is a reputable gaming laptop reseller in US. Check out the sager/clevo forum FAQ.

For this particular model, check out the review in MSI forum by Tim4. It is reported to be of quite good quality. After all it's a whitebook from MSI which is basically a GT683 without all the fancy lights.

If gaming is your primary usage, then I'd suggest you take this one over any non-GTX GPU based laptop. not trying to advertising or anything, just that I myself was planning to buy a gaming laptop a while back and found this one to be the most economic deal. The other candidate I narrowed down is Sager NP8130 but that's close to US$1200 with an i7 CPU and a better screen.

shipping to and warranty claim at UK probably needs some consideration but if you can bear the small risk, what you get is great value.

 

it's not "barely noticeable" to me, even with 4xAA. I'd rather gaming in a window if native resolution turns out to be too much to handle by my old laptop. It's not optimal but it's better than looking at a blurred image. This is a subjective matter I'd suggest anyone worried about not be able to gaming at full native resolution to try it out with some demo machine in a shop or a friend's to find out how they themselves feel about the different options.

 

It does depend on the game and the user's perception. But I see so many people playing Xbox 360 or PS3 on tube TV's and then freak when they can't play a game at their laptops high native resolution... lulz.

 

Hopefully my question for the OP hasn't already been asked, but have you considered getting a desktop for gaming, or is a mobile gaming computer a must?

 

I haven't considered, I've agonized over it Not had a decent gaming PC in over 6 years and when I look at the desktops I could buy for the same budget I'm very, very tempted to buy one, eat up new games on Ultra settings and just get a cheap netbook for carrying around.

Two things make me lean towards a less-powerful notebook though. I'll be using it at University, so there's not much room space and with the laptop I can carry it around and game in the kitchen, lounge area and other peoples' halls. My University's also a 2 hour train ride from home so I'd like to watch movies/play games while I'm travelling back and forth every month or so. The other is I've got an XBOX 360 to resort to if my laptop falls behind current-gen games in the next few years. A gaming desktop would pretty much make the XBOX redundant and even selling it wouldn't recoup much of the outlay for the PC.

Speaking of sell-on value, am I right in assuming Laptops probably hold their value better? I can imagine them being far easier to move on if I want to upgrade a few years down the line.

Oh and on native res and gaming, I've got a 23" FHD monitor that I can hook the laptop up to if needed. Would using that soften the impact of scaling down to 1366x768 or make it worse? Logic says worse but just wondering if there's a difference between laptop screens and a stand alone monitor when adjusting resolution.

 

If you were to get the Sager NP5165 (Optimus II) and get the 95% gamut display upgrade with it, games would look better on that screen than on many desktop monitors, because the colors are a lot more vibrant than on most screens.

But gaming in lower-than-native resolution on a smaller laptop screen already looks better than gaming in less-than-native resolution on a bigger desktop monitor.

 

Almost nothing in the computer world holds value very well. Laptops especially lose their value very quickly.

 

Hmm. I can just envisage selling it on to a non-enthusiast in a few years on the premise that's it's quick, FHD and can handle games better than an average notebook. With a gaming desktop that might be more difficult.

Anyway I've finally placed the order with just one minor change, £19 ($30?) upgrade from the i5-2410m to the 2520, seemed worth it at the price even if the performance increase is minimal. Here's the final build:

Chassis & Display
Optimus II: 15.6" Glossy Full HD LED Widescreen (1920x1080)
Processor
Intel® Core™i5 Dual Core Mobile Processor i5-2520M (2.50GHz) 3MB Cache
Memory
4GB SAMSUNG 1333MHz SODIMM DDR3 MEMORY (1 x 4GB)
Graphics Card
nVIDIA® GeForce® GT 555M - 2GB DDR3 Video RAM - DirectX® 11
Memory - Hard Disk
320GB WD SCORPIO BLACK WD3200BEKT, SATA 3 Gb/s, 16MB CACHE (7200 rpm)
DVD/BLU-RAY Drive
8x SATA DVD±R/RW/Dual Layer (+ 24x CD-RW)
Memory Card Reader
Internal 9 in 1 Card Reader (MMC/RSMMC/SD: Mini, XC & HC/MS: Pro & Duo)
Sound Card
Intel 2 Channel High Definition Audio + MIC/Headphone Jack
Network Facilities
GIGABIT LAN & WIRELESS 802.11N CARD INC. BLUETOOTH 3.0
USB Options
2 x USB 3.0 PORTS + 2 x USB 2.0 PORTS AS STANDARD
Battery
Optimus Series 6 Cell Lithium-ION Battery - 48.85WH
Power Lead & Adaptor
1 x UK Power Lead & 120W Adaptor (GT 555M)
Operating System
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit - inc DVD & Licence (£79)
Office Software
NO OFFICE SOFTWARE
Anti-Virus
NO ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE
Mouse
INTEGRATED 2 BUTTON TOUCHPAD MOUSE
Webcam
INTEGRATED 1.3 MEGAPIXEL WEBCAM
Warranty
3 Year Silver Warranty (1 Year Collect & Return, 1 Year Parts, 3 Year Labour) (£5)
Insurance
1 Month Free Laptop Insurance inc. Accidental Damage & Theft
Delivery
STANDARD INSURED DELIVERY TO UK MAINLAND (MON-FRI)
Build Time
Standard Build - Approximately 5 to 7 working days
Quantity
1

Price: £768.00 including VAT and delivery.



Thanks for all the advice guys Hope to post a comprehensive review in a few weeks' time for anyone looking at a similar build!