Sager NP9377 vs MSI GT72 Dominator Pro 444

I am at a loss which one to pick. They both cost around 4.5k fully upgraded. With the Sager, I get Dual 980 GTX's in Sli mode, 90% color gamut display screen, and an extreme Core Processor. With the MSI, I get an awesome 1080p webcam, an HD capture card, and a much nicer built in keyboard along with the Quad SSD in Raid 1 mode. Which one should I get if I am generally going to use it for gaming and movies. I also never use an external keyboard or display, so assume I will be typing on the built in keyboard and using the laptop's original display. Which one should I go for to get the most bang for my buck?

Sager:


17.3" FHD (1920x1080) LED backlit LCD (Glossy, 90% NTSC Gamut)

Video Graphics & Memory

Dual nVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX 980M 256bit w/ 8.0GB GDDR5 - DX11 (16GB VRAM)


Processor Support Intel® 4th Generation Core™ i7 Processor 4940MX (3.1 GHz) 8MB smart cache

Operating System Genuine Windows 8.1, 64 bit Pro

Chipset Mobile Intel® HM87
System Memory (RAM) DDR3/1600MHz System Memory - 4 Memory Slots (32GB DDR3/1600 Kingston Hyper)

256GB SSD Boot Drive and 1 TB Harddrive


Blu-Ray Read-Write/8x Super Multi Combo Drive

Card Reader SD (XC/HC)
Video Camera Built-in HD (720p) Web Camera
LAN/WLAN Bigfoot Networks Killer Gigabit LAN
Integrated 802.11 a/b/g/n + Bluetooth V4.0 Combo Card

MSI:

17.3" Full HD (1920x1080) IPS LED backlit LCD (Antiglare Matte)

Video Graphics & Memory
Single nVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX 980M 256bit w/ 8.0GB GDDR5 - DX11

Processor Support and Heat Management
Intel® 4th Generation Core™ i7-4980HQ Quad Core Processor, 2.8 GHz (Max Turbo Frequency 4.0GHz), 6MB Smart Cache


Operating System Genuine Windows 8.1, 64 bit Pro

System Memory (RAM) 32GB DDR3/1866MHz System Memory (4 x 8GB) - 4 Memory Slots Kingston Hyper


Hard Drive 1024GB "Super RAID 3" Quad SSD (4 x MSI Specified 256GB M.2 SATA3 6Gb/s SSD) + 1TB 7200 RPM Hard Drive (SSD's will be in RAID 1 Array)


Optical Drive Tray Load Dual Layer Blu-ray Burner (BR-R, DVD+-RW, CD-RW)


Card Reader SD (XC/HC)
Video Camera Built-in Full HD (1080p) Web Camera
LAN/WLAN Killer DoubleShot Pro (Killer E2200 Gigabit LAN + Killer N1525 Wireless-AC)

Thanks

 

Honestly, I never use my webcam.

Based on your using it for gaming and movies, I'd recommend the Sager.

 

The MSI is not RAID1, it is RAID0.

If you never use an external screen, the MSI should be sufficient to play any game at decent enough settings.

The heat and noise from the Sager will be brutal, second gpu and an additional 10W TDP on the cpu... Also note that the 16GB VRAM is false, it is still only 8GB for both cards.


Both are configured with 32GB RAM? (Nice!)


The 1TB of SSD storage (even in a RAID0 configuration...) is worth more to me than a second gpu and the power and heat requirements of such.

Also, the raw performance between the cpu's favors the Sager build, but it is small enough that the other points above more than negate its meaning.

After all, with only ~2.4% less (raw) performance, even I would trade that for the better balanced MSI.


See:
ARK | Compare Intel® Products

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7-4940MX @ 3.10GHz - Price performance comparison

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i7-4980HQ @ 2.80GHz - Price performance comparison

 

Ordinarily it is, but in this case I will be putting the SSD array into RAID 1 because I will have sensitive files on the comp and don't want to lose them. So ya, minus the RAID 0 benefits from the MSI, the total amount of space I would have on the MSI would be 1.5TB (1TB HDD plus 4 SSD in Raid 1 array) vs Sager 1.5 TB (1 TB HDD plus 500GB HDD plus 256 SDD boot drive). What is your opinion now?

 

In RAID1 with 4 256GB SSD's? You will only have 256GB capacity (nominal).

Or are you doing 2x RAID1 and 2x RAID1?


Either way, the total excessiveness of the Sager turns me off. The MSI is what I would still be leaning towards.

 

RAID 1 with 4 256 SSD's....so only 256 capacity I guess (with 1 TB harddrive). As far as the Sager goes, the idea of it overheating and making a ton of noise turns me off, the reseller assured me it wouldn't, and I am getting extra copper heatsinks and thermal pasting to take care of it also, so I'm hopeful that will do the trick. Still like a second opinion though...

I guess what I am thinking is, why get the MSI when I could get the Sager with an extra GPU and more powerful CPU for the same price?

 

RAID-0 will give you 1TB SSD storage.

RAID-0 with two M550 512GB in the P377SM-A will give you a similar experience. I suggest the Clevo wholeheartedly for the two GPUs. It'll do FAR better in gaming, and the webcam isn't a slouch for most tasks really.

 

The Sager isn't that loud, I have the 780M model but the same fans are used. When idling or doing light activity the noise is about 34dB. Yeah GPU can get a bit hot (up to 85C in summer with no mods), but still nothing to be concerned about.

The 4940MX will run hot either way, but personally I'd get the 4910MQ and save another $500. The 4910MQ can be overclocked to 4.3GHz on all 4 cores and 4.5GHz on a single core. Trust me when I say at those speeds you'll already be running into cooling issues, so unless you mod your heatsink a 4940MX will be a waste of money.

I would not get the MSI on the basis of the soldered HQ CPU alone. If the CPU dies you have to change out the entire motherboard.

 

From my perspective;

there is no way the system will be anywhere near 'quiet' with 2x gpu's and a even hotter cpu in a same sized chassis.

Gaming is not what computers are for (in my world); two gpu's is two gpu's too many (the igpu is sufficient to run 3x displays - I'm happy).

Storage capacity and speed is more 'real world' applicable than any extra 'potential' firepower that two gpu's offer. Sure, in games that is the only thing (gpus) that you seem to need. But when you're considering RAID1 because of 'sensitive files', this greatly contradicts the focus of these two systems.


RAID1 is not a backup solution. Run the drives in RAID0 for 1TB capacity and speed - then copy that data either to the 1TB HDD 'ALSO', AND to at least one more external drive... OR; copy that data to at least two other external drives and keep one of them off site on a rotating basis.

 

I can agree to get a slightly slower (less than 1% slower) 4910MQ.

But I've never worried about a cpu dying... That scenario ended sometime in 1982 for me. Doesn't seem anything to be concerned about (except, of course, for upgradability - and even then, not worth it, ime).

 

Under load (ie gaming) yes the Sager makes quite a bit of noise, but nothing the game can't drown out. 34dB may not be absolute silence but it is far from annoying, and when doing light tasks such as browsing and watching movies the Sager is more than OK in the noise department. But of course noise sensititivty varies from individual to individual.

Since the OP mentioned the laptop will generally be used for gaming and movies, it makes no sense to me to get a single GPU machine, especially when a dual GPU machine could be had for the same price, or even $500 cheaper if he went with the 4910MQ CPU.

 

n=1,

Thanks for the additional thoughts.

From my viewpoint it just shows that the real value of the dual gpu setup is only for bragging purposes, not better performance (overall).

 

Gaming was specifically listed by the OP as a factor that will influence his purchase. The system with two GPUs clearly offers superior gaming performance and according to someone who has a dual-GPU Sager, the system "isn't that loud."

Your opinion on this aspect of the OP's purchase is irrelevant.

Now this, on the other hand, is good advice.

 

If you don't game at all then yes I agree dual GPU is a waste of money and heat. In fact in that case I wouldn't even bother with a discrete GPU. But for gaming, two GPUs offer very tangible benefits over a single GPU.

 

saturnotaku, no not irrelevant: I am just showing my bias/perspective as clearly as possible for the OP to know why I'm answering as I am.

n=1, curious what game limited to 1080p resolution would benefit from 2x GTX 980M's?

And even if there was a benefit, would it even be noticeable in game play on a small notebook screen?


Best description of (mobile) gpu's I have seen to date:

"Mobile graphics cards were created to punish people who bragged about their laptops."

 

Genius advice, just noticed I could get the 4910MQ which has near identical performance for 500 bucks less. Then I cold use that money to swap out my 1 TB Hardrive for a 1TB SSD since SSD's are supposed to be superior. Any other recommendations?

 

Yeah ditch that Killer wireless card and get the Intel AC7260 or N-6235 if you don't have an AC router. Or the N-6300 if you don't need Bluetooth. Also I'd get the least amount of ram possible from Sager and install my own. IIRC Sager charges way too much for those Kingston 1600 ram, and you can buy 2133 ram for the same or even cheaper.

The 90% gamut glossy screen is a great choice and it is simply too awesome for words, but make sure you get it color calibrated it otherwise certain colors will appear too saturated.

I'd say a lot of the post-2012 DX11 games would benefit from 2 980Ms when you want to max out every single setting, particularly AA (and to be specific MSAA or if you enjoy punishing your cards, SSAA). The main benefit being high framerates, which is what makes a game feel fluid. People like to shoot for 60 FPS and personally any time a game drops below 45 FPS I notice stuttering.

The other thing is a dual GPU machine will give it a much longer service life compared to a single GPU machine. Games are only going to get more demanding (in part due to bad optimzation sadly), and a second GPU could mean the difference between playing at 40 FPS vs 60 FPS for example. Both are "playable" but one gives a much smoother and more enjoyable experience.

 

Be aware the ips panel in the gt72 is much nicer than the 90% gamut tn panel in the 370.

 

Ditch it, really? From what I heard, Killer wireless chips are top of the line and Intel are generally sh**.... I'll probably just end up buying the RAM anyway, since I am lazy and would rather pay an extra 100 bucks than do it myself. :/

Darn, the company I am buying from (HIDevolution) doesn't offer screen calibration, can I do it myself?

Anyway I could get a side-by-side comparison?

 

IIRC the Killer cards do indeed have better throughput and latency compared to Intel, but consistency seemed to be hit or miss (as in you may get a sudden lag spike out of nowhere), and dropped connections seemed to be a real problem. I can at the least say though that the N-6235 is far from ****, haven't had a single issue or dropped connection since the day I got my laptop.

I would NOT buy from HIDevolution, especially not after they pulled the "Alienware 18 with 980M SLI in stock and ready to ship!" BS when in fact nobody has gotten 980M SLI to work in the AW18 yet. That reeks of dishonesty and intent to deceive, so I'd avoid them like the plague. XoticPC seems to get a lot of good rep around here, so if you wanted to buy that Sager I'd go through them. Just don't buy Sager direct whatever you do unless you're a glutton for punishment.

RAM installation is literally a 5 minute job.

 

You'll find there are folks on both sides. Personally I have had nothing but troubles from every single 7260AC card I've had. I just bought a Killer 1202 to replace my 7260. The killer cards have always given me stable connections.

You can calibrate your own screen but I think you need a proper calibration device? I've never done it myself.

 

HIDevolution is the only place I can find that offers the 90% gamut color display....if you can find another retailer that does I'll go with them.
a
Can you recommend where I can buy a set of 32GB of Kingston Hyperx RAM at a higher MHZ for cheaper? Also what are the pros and cons of a higher Mhz?

 

My SLI information guide can quite literally prove that aside from raw performance, there are tons of other beneficial things one can do with a second GPU... but raw performance is also fantastic and should be considered.

BF4 will benefit; set that to ultra and start bumping the resolution scale and see how far you crash from 60fps.

Dragon Age Inquisition cannot maintain 60fps on max on a single 980M at 1080p (hell it can't do it on two 980s, you'll go below 60 in towns).

Games like CoD: Advanced Warfare also have supersampling in game and can be turned up quite nicely if you have the power to back it. Enjoy =3.

Titanfall is best run on a single GPU but will not maintain 60fps on a single 780M at max graphics, so a single 980M will definitely do it.

Tomb Raider 2013 with TressFX is quite a GPU killer, and with two 980Ms (and maybe even SSAA 2x instead of FXAA) it won't ever think about going below 60fps.

Also, more importantly, we must remember that the OP could easily connect to a 120Hz or 144Hz external display (The ASUS ROG Swift 1440p Gsync 144Hz display is a good monitor he/she could use) and would heavily benefit from two 980Ms more than I could account for.

And Crysis 3 would benefit a lot too =D.

Games like Ryse, Son of Rome would also benefit, as well as Evolve which could not maintain 60fps constant on single or dual 780Ms for some reason, will surely do it on a 980M SLI setup

Then we got The Witcher 2 and its Ubersampling options, which while too much for two 780Ms will happily run on two 980Ms.

Basically, I'm trying to say there's a lot of pre-existing games where two 980Ms benefit greatly. And more importantly than that, many MANY new (usually AAA) games are coming out so unoptimized for the PC that we're needing 3-5 times (or more) the power of the consoles to maintain equivalent graphics, especially above 30fps. 980M SLI isn't overkill. No dual-GPU setup is overkill. If you've got a lot of excess power, it's time to make your game look better =D.

 

D2 Ultima, okay.

But, the OP will 'never' run an external monitor or keyboard (as stated) and the resolution of the screen is 1080p.

What did what you type relate to my question and specifically that resolution. And, will it even be noticeable to run at 'ultra' settings at that size/resolution?


I know more hardware = more performance. But when the limits are firm for the resolution and screen size, I think that more hardware is closer to what I stated rather than what you're trying to show.

 

You can notice the difference on 1080p screens. Mine is 120Hz, sure, but it doesn't make it any less noticeable when I bump graphics. The higher you go in graphics the more subtle it gets, but it doesn't mean it's not notice-able. Low versus medium is a lot, medium versus high is a lot, high versus very high is a bit less, very high versus max is pretty subtle sometimes. But it's up to the user to decide what's important or not.

The point I was making though, is that there's things that can be done (downsampling is the primary one) where you can get better, sharper, less-shimmery graphics while still outputting at 1080p. Hell, I'd LOVE to put BF4 on mostly ultra and toss the resolution scale up to 200%. It's the sharpest, crispest, most beautiful looking thing I've ever seen... I just get about 38-50 fps in it, with overclocks, and it's not really worth it. I could probably get away with it with two 980Ms though, for a good example.

So yes, there is a difference. Up to you to determine the difference and whether or not it's worth it.

 

As mentioned downsampling can allow 4K like clarity on 1080p screens, so you're not entirely bound by that 1080p limit. And downsampling needs a ridiculous amount of GPU power. You're not even going to come close to 60 FPS if you did 4K downsampling to 1080p on a single 980M (even with 2 980Ms you still won't be able to push 60 frames consistently in most games fully maxed out). Hell even my desktop struggles with 60 FPS in most post-2012 AAA titles when using 4K downsampling.

And also do consider that 2 GPUs will be more future proof than a single GPU, especially since games are only going to get more demanding/less optimized.

 

LOL let's not get ahead of ourselves. 4K downsampling =! 4K resolution. It's very, very effective antialiasing, but it can't compare to a real 4K screen.

 

No but the point being there exist ways to make the image look much nicer on a 1080p screen, which will in turn require (a lot) more GPU power.

 

Thanks everyone.

I will take your word for this. As I really don't know.

Just to be sure though, the question I want answered is will the added detail be noticeable during game play?

In a static comparison between low/high/ultra settings yeah; there better be a difference. But if a player is 'in the game', is it noticeable and is it beneficial to the game in question?


Sorry, I didn't know how to ask this (specifically) from the beginning. Gaming really is not my thing.

 

The detail is most definitely visible

 

Detail is something you notice at any little boring time or during a cutscene. Even in the most fast-paced of FPS games and the most action-packed games, there MUST be a break in the action. A time when you're just running around or whatever, and you can notice things. That's when you'll really take stock of the detail. So yeah, in game you can notice, and do notice. It's all noticeable most of the time; definitely more often than not. People say "in the heat of a gunfight you don't care how your game looks" but gunfights aren't 90% of the playing time .

 

I'm kinda stuck on these 2 options as well!