Faster processor vs better screen for gaming

I am buying an expensive laptop with 2GB RAM and a GeForce Go 8600M GT GPU D). I'll be using it mainly to play the latest games. Playing Oblivion with maxed out settings is first on my list. I can either go for a T7300 processor or a UltraSharp(TM) WSXGA+ (1680x1050) screen. Not both, since that would become too expensive. If I have the T7300 (2.0 Ghz, 4MB L2), I have to settle for a (non-UltraSharp(TM)) WXGA+ (1440x900) screen. If I take the better screen, I'm stuck with a T7100 (1.8 Ghz, 2MB L2) processor. I'm totally confused! What do you guys suggest?

 

Take the better processor because of the cache size increase.

 

Just a small addition - I have a 15.4" screen.

 

Also, does anybody here think I should take both these upgrades and instead settle for a 8600M GS GPU?

 

If gaming is your only consideration, the better screen. If you do any other encoding and such, the processor.

 

Dont go for the GS! Its much slower than the GT. 1.8 is a little slow these days, considering theres 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 out already. 2.0 should be your minimum IMO. Also, by going for 1440*900 (which is still good bearing in mind its a 15 inch screen), you will have a longer gaming life. The graphics card will be less strained on the 1440*900 when compared to the 1680*1050. Sure you can down the res of the 1680*1050 to 1440*900 but then you are coming away from the native resolution ofthe screen and will get blurring.

 

Thanks Gi1b0, that was very informative . Gaming 'life' is not a criteria for me since I'll be gaming almost always at home, using the AC adapter. However, I'll certainly keep your advice in mind.

 

get the faster cpu and lower resolution if you have to pick.

the faster cpu will make the system as a whole better, the higher resolution will do nothing for you, and running a game in a higher resolution only lowers it performance anyways.. Oblivion is a rather demanding game so if you hope to play it at max settings your better off with the lower res.

The only reason to get the screen instead is if its actually a higher quality screen and not just a resolution boost. If thats the case I would pick the screen because no matter how fast/good your computer is, its pointless on a poor display.

Best upgrade I ever did for my computer was not making it 5x faster via hardware upgrades but my 37" HD LCD I got for it

 

What laptop are you buying, what are the specs and price?

 

Tough decision. Having a higher pixel count screen is nice but thats a pretty high resolution for 15" if its mainly for gaming. If you need the high resolution in terms for screen real estate, so you can have more windows open and be able to have more space to work with then thats totally worth it. Of course some people like it because they may only think, higher is better so they would definetly go for high resolution. For reference, my desktop LCD is 20" and has a resolution of 1680x1050, the same as your possible 15" LCD notebook. My notebook is 13.3" and resolution of 1280x800.

But as for games, the GPU is generally the limiting factor these days... especially in notebooks. The CPU normally isn't the bottleneck unless you have a really nice GPU and go into the really high resolution with all the AA and what not turned on.

In my opinion, if you want to play games with maxed out settings it would probably be better to go with the 1440x900 screen. Its easier to max out settings at a lower resolution than a higher one. Also... having higher resolution is nice, but keep this in mind. Since its a 15" screen, objects will be a bit small as compared to if you play on a 20" at same resolution. Question is, is that acceptable for you?

Its good to post this type of question, get the insights and opinions of other people.

 

Mostly right Lyshen, but you dipped into my area of extpertise about the cpu/gpu bottleneck its just the reverse of what you stated.

The higher the resolution and more eye candy you have on, the more the gpu will do the work and the less the cpu has to worry about. You will get a cpu bottleneck easier/sooner with a lower resolution and less details as the gpu will be rendering so fast the cpu cant keep up.

Some games are starting to hit market that take alot more cpu power than they should like shadowrun, and games like FSX are almost toally cpu dependant aswell.

As for screen realistate... Well again true to most extent that more res = more too see.

But since the screen size is the same, the only reason your seeing more is because your making everything smaller with a smaller dot pitch.

You can achieve the same effect with the lower resolution just by doing things like using a smaller dispaly setting for font, or a zoom feature in your browser.

In photoshop wich is the big thing always mentioned, you almost always work under a zoom, so the actual area you see is limited and not that important anyways.

Definitly convienent, but over rated I think.

When you can really see more, is when you have a bigger screen.

The 37" I use allows me to have so many things going on at once on screen that trying to do the same on a 15" screen even with the same res would be impossible because it would be too small to see.

 

I'm buying a customized Dell Inspiron 1520. 8400M GT; 2 GB RAM; Core 2 Duo T7100/7300; WXGA+/WSXGA+ screen; Windows Vista Premium; 5400 rpm HDD. You won't understand the price since it's in my native currency, which is not dollars or pounds.

 

I made a mistake here - it's a 8600M GT actually (256 MB dedicated DDR2).

 

Out of curiousity, does that mean games like Shadowrun & FSX aren't GPU limited on laptops? Assuming we're using 8600m equivalent, not the really high end, ie 7950GTX or so.

I was under the impression that 8600m was perhaps similar in performance to 7600 line, just DX10. With that in mind, I don't think it'll be that easy to hit that bottleneck on a laptop when all details are set to maximum and features are turned on in the game.

I understand about hitting the CPU bottleneck with low resolution and details set to low, but I was talking about maximum detail and all.

Oh haha, and when you are talking about Photoshop, of course use zoom. When I was referring to object size, I was meaning when playing a game... if you saw say a small bottle lying on the floor, with the 1680x1050 screen, may have a harder time trying to distinguish what exactly it is versus seeing it on a 1440x900 screen.

 

I dont belive FSX will be GPU limited, Shadowrun will be tho. No reason for it to be... If you see the game its visuals are not very impressive at all, but yet its recomended specs call for a 7800GTX!!! Its a consol port that should have never seen light of day on a PC because they didnt take the time to do it right... Dont even bother going to there tech support forums...

I didn't say you would get a cpu bottlneck I was mearly pointing out tho the nature of a cpu bottleneck. The stronger the card, OR the lower the settings (thus making it easier for the card, wich as the same effect as having a stronger card) will bring you closer to the point of a cpu bottleneck. You know you have reached it when fps wont go higher even if you overclock the video card or make the game easier to render.


As for objects... again I semi agree. It makes sense that logically the more pixels that make up an object the more detialed it will be, but inreality if you go into a ultra high zoom you fill find chances are even on the higher resolution the object itself is not so detialed and if you cut the number of pixels down it would look the same.

Much as the same effect of drawing a square out of just 1 big block (effectivly a pixel) or 4 blocks.. it will look the same.

When your already in such a small dot pich, and often times game textures dont even come close to a single pixel level of detail you will find yourself looking at the same screen no matter the resolution and only feeling the performance penalties associated with the higher resolution.

 

Thanks a lot, man.

 

Thanks a lot, man.

 

Doesnt matter what currency its in, i can just convert it

 

If you have to know, 75000 Indian Rupees excluding taxes. All electronic goods are more expensive here than in the US because of various duties, taxes, customs, et cetera.

 

That's still a buy.. 1300euros..
Lyshen post +1
get the faster cpu.

 

The WSXGA+ screen boasts of not only higher resolution but a technology called UltraSharp(TM). Does that amount to a higher quality screen? And does it then mean I should get the better screen instead? Please help. I have to order the laptop either tomorrow or day after at the latest!

 

i don't know how the ram deals are there, but it might be better to downgrade the dell ram and buy it separate. In the U.S. you can save ~$70, but I'm not sure if those prices and savings would be the same for you. This may allow you to upgrade both if you needed just a little more money, but it may not make any difference at all.

 

I can see that you have both! I'm going for the midnight blue, ruby red is a bit too showy for me! The RAM thing won't help, I'm afraid. Things are different here and it just won't work out monetarily. Still, thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

I don't know if having less stream processors makes it slower, but yeah GT will perform better than a GS. The only thing I don't agree with is the comment about 1.8 being slow. I definitely don't think it's slow for todays standards. In fact the difference in speeds between the lowest and highest santa rosa processors isn't extremely noticeable and a t7100 will not bottleneck the notebook. If the upgrade to 2.0 is cheap then he should go for it. The t7100 is fine and won't disappoint at all. Go for the better screen

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

Go for the better screen. When I am gaming the processor load never goes above 70%. This is with the processor listed in my sig. You can always upgrade the processor later on if you feel it is no longer up to par. The Santa Rosa processors are a lot cheaper than the previous generation. The T7300 is $250 from NewEgg minus the amount of money you could get from selling the original processor.

Most likely your gaming time will just be a small portion of the time you spend on your laptop. Also, you will probably be running the same resolution while gaming regardless of what screen you choose. With this in mind, do you really want to be stuck with the low-end screen quality a majority of the time you are on your computer?

Josh

 

me??

Asus C90S

specs..

Intel C2D E6700
4 OCZ DDR2 667 Ram
250gb WD HDD 5400rpm
Geforce 8600gt 512mb

thats the main specs, then there is all the other stuff like finger print reader, esata, hdmi 1.3, web cam, dvd burner, express card slot ect..

Total cost, ran me just at ~1600$

 

e6700=no fair

I didn't know until recently that notebooks are carrying desktop processors. Too bad you can't OC to 3 ghz+ easy.

 

2.93ghz on the c90 its an auto overclock feature

 

Thanks, man.

 

Get the faster CPU. A bigger screen adds weight to the notebook.

 

uhhh dude...the screen is the same physical size.

 

lol those pixels are heavy


I'd go w/better screen, even if it was just higher resolution. If it higher res and higher quality, absolutely.

 

I'd like to thank everybody who's replied to this thread. I never expected this kind of response from those who really don't stand anything to gain from advising me, unlike those daft Dell salesmen. I've ordered my laptop. I've gone with the inferior screen; better processor. There are several reasons for my taking this decision.

1) I really don't need the higher res. on a 15.4" screen. Even a 8600GT is not good enough to run Oblivion maxed out at 1680*1050, so I'll have to turn down the res. anyway, possibly inducing blurring.
2) I prefer glossy screens. The 1680*1050 is matte.
3) Apparently Ultrasharp(TM) just denotes increase in resolution and matte. There no difference in the actual LCD quality. At least that's what the Dell guy told me on the phone.
4) I won't be using the high res. on my desktop. I don't want to go blind - I already have poor eyesight.
5) I might do a bit of encoding now and then, so the processor might come in handy.

Basically, it's more 'I don't need the screen; rather it's bad for me' than 'I need the processor'. Again, thanks to everyone who's answered. I've added to all your reputations. The next time you'll be hearing from me is when my laptop starts giving me trouble!

 

I believe you have points 2 and 3 backwards. The higher resolution is UltraSharp, which is glossy, not matte.

 

1) You will not be playing games 100% of the time therefore a majority of the time you will be looking at an inferior screen.

2) The 1680x1050 screen is definitely glossy no matter what the Dell idiot says.

When you get the laptop compare your screen to someone who has a 15.4" WSXGA+ glossy screen. Then tell us what you think.

Also, tell us if you ever max out that processor in gaming. I am interested to know.

 

Where is my reputation love?

Josh

 

I think you made the right choice, you will get more FPS with lower res on max. Also you can buy a external monitor someday and game away at home, give you somthing to look forward to.

 

Personally... I'd go for the Screen, but that's personal preference (I use that size screen right now and LOVE it) and also because my Core Duo CPU runs most things very well, so your far faster and more uptodate CPU should fly with most things.

 

In the Dell USA website, it is written: 'UltraSharp WSXGA+ 1680*1050 screen with TrueLife'. It is the TrueLife technology which makes the screen glossy, not the UltraSharp. I'm 100% sure on this. I'm not an American. On the Dell website for my country, TrueLife is removed. The WXGA+ screen is TrueLife, but not the WSXGA+. This was probably done because a WXSGA+ TrueLife screen would be too expensive to sell here. I have also confirmed the 'matteness' of the WSXGA+ screen three times with three different Dell representatives, one of them the sales manager in my region. So, until I stare at a WSXGA+ laptop screen and see my reflection staring back at me, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you.

 

Wow this poll is actually pretty evenly balanced between the two options. I say get the better processor since the screen is already 1440x900. The 8600m GT is a fast card, but probably not fast enough to handle the newest games at 1680x1050 unless you turn a load of eyecandies off, so you'll end up playing at a lower resolution anyways.

 

Thanks. I've already gone for the better processor.

 

A big thanks to everybody who's helped me out in this thread. I've FINALLY received my new laptop. Somebody was ordering it for me, and he actually ordered it months after he claimed to have done it. So now i've a T7300 processor and a 1440x900 glossy screen, and I must say I'm pretty happy with the choice I made. Thanks, everyone!

 

If gaming interests you, i'd appreciate some help on a question about Crysis posted at the very end of the 'can my notebook run this game' thread in the gaming section.

Once again, thanks.

Note to the moderator: you can close this thread now if you want. No point in it sticking around.