quad vs dual, 2 vs 3

Correct.

10char

 

The fact is his GPU will be powerful enough, he will be more future proof with a quad as games sink into the multi core program, and running more apps he is going to have alot more space to do that (the lorry thing is great by the way.)

Regardless if its single thread or not 2ghz is plenty, and the thing with all the quads adding together is funny, but just a bit inaccurate.

Basically if a game wants to leech around 6ghz (and multicore support) from the CPU, in the case of the cores, the Duo core will run at roughly 100% utilisation, where as the four quads would run at roughly 75% each, which would give some room to fluently run music, MSN, AIM, VENT so on so on if you get me,

So the quads would run at 1.5ghz out of 2
And the Duo would run 3ghz out of 3ghz (although ports like gta do suck this up badly, its rare that games have full CPU usage)

The quads are definately the suggested cores here.

 

care to recommend a computer?

 

Can't you outfit the sager with Q9000? the ddr3 most likely can be upgraded to 8gb at a later time and i believe the sager supports qx processors as well as gtx280, altho 15.4" is a very nice size.

Also whats the resolution of the ASUS?

 

17" WUXGA (1920x1200) Glossy Dual Lamp

battery life isn't much of an issue. i'll most likely always hgave it plugged in, or just get a bigger cell battery at some point, i mean both laptops have a live of 1-2 hours anyways. pfft.

 

Whichever gets the job done while consuming less battery.

Unless you're a gamer, or have some need for portable 3D rendering or workstation duties, the ability to stay off the grid longer is usually a bigger benefit than quad-core when it comes to a laptop.

Of course, at some point, we may see some advanced laptop CPUs that can turn cores on and off dynamically depending on AC/battery. At that point, it might get interesting.

P.S. Gaming laptops are often one of the biggest sinkholes for money. Limited upgradability (unlike a desktop) means selling and rebuying new at least every other year to stay on the leading edge of the curve. Even then, you'll get less graphics power than you could by building something like the Fragbox, which would still be fairly portable. And as for me, I couldn't deal with 1920x1200 on a 17" display, though it looks nice on my desktop's 24" LCD, and it'll be difficult to drive games at 1920x1200 with the GPUs that come packed inside a laptop.

 

i find your post completely unhelpful. if i wanted a barebone or fragbox, i would have asked for one. wth am i supposed to do, lug around a computer AND a screen? THINK before you post



Also, an i7 does battery management by shutting down cores that are not used. Learn your computers.

 

With this response....

/thread

 

You're quite rude. Perhaps some thinking on your part would be helpful as well, at least when it is combined with your speech.

Obviously, you don't need advice from others; you already have this all figured out. Good day.

 

i do appreciate the help actually, it did actually throw me off for a second until i realized WHY i need a laptop. i didn't mean to be rude


pacman- what do you mean /thread. that this whole thread is pointless? that i /thread (created) a pointless one?

 

Easy guys, lone laptop upgradability is increasing quite fast i must say, MXM is really becoming a matter of different sizes, so GPU heatsinks just need modifying for other cards to work (and bios flashes ofc)

Motherboards can support many different class of processor these days and x58 as well as x38? are starting to hit the notebook market. and the i series processor may become mainstream

Ram, although vendors specify limits, often can be passed greatly, HDD's are speeding up, SSD's will hopefully be lowering price down.

Although its alot more expensive then PC building, its affordable, and enjoyable at the same time So i would not rule laptops out of the picture just yet.

In the case for this thread, i believe that sager should be the selected laptop, the lower res should ease GPU a bit and give it a bit more leeway for the duo core (which will still be effective), the sager has a great deal of upgradability so look into that also, but for now it should be perfect for your needs.

 

get a quad core PERIOD

 

(think boypogi is happy? lol)

anywho catacylsm, i see that you're a big sager fan. I like the standard asus warranty, and how the computer looks , they both really have the same specs..... are you really only pointing me toward the upgradability? i don't really even know where to get the parts.






Asus specs=

Screen: 17" WUXGA "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen(1920x1200) Processor: Quad 2.0GHz w/6MB
Ram: 6.1GB DDR2-800MHz
Hard Drive (Raid): 320GB 7200RPM X2
Battery: 8-Cell
Optical: BR+DVD Multi
Features= Lit Keyboard/Touchpad/2.0MP cam

Warranty= 3 Year ASUS GLOBAL Warranty, 24/7 Support, 1 Year Accidental Coverage & 2-Way Pre-Paid Overnight Shipping for Repairs (N.A. Accidental Requires Registration w/ ASUS)
OS: Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit w/ Drivers & Utilities CD's


(Extra) USB 2.0 SATA Aluminum Enclosure + 250GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive

Asus= 2184.44
Sager=$2169.89

 

1) What gpu is the Asus using?

2) How are you getting $2169 for the price of the sager in your sig.

I built a 2.0ghz c2q, 260m gtx, 4gb ram, 500gb 7200 rpm np8662 for $1800.

3) the difference between 4gb of ram and 6 gb of ram isn't worth $400. You might see a 1% difference while gaming.

4) the Asus is using ddr2 ram which makes it less future proof. while the difference between 800mhz ram and 1066mhz ram isn't much, the new 1333mhz ram might prove different, and if that is the case it'd be nice to have that option to upgrade to later.

 

its that much because you have to add the warranty and OS extra, and i added the blu-ray. the ram wasn't 400 bucks, and they both run on 260.

i have teh 2/2+accidental LCD

 

so.... hm..... you are REALLY reccomending this sager aren't you? where do you get the upgrade parts from, like the GPU? i can't find them on newegg or ebay

 

you can get them by contacting your vendor (powernotebooks, xotic pc) or ebay. There aren't many (if any) businesses dedicated to strictly selling laptop processors/gpus.

 

Get whatever you need and can afford.

 

see, i'd really like a 17 inch. even better, i'd like to know where to get a g70 instead of g71, i like those side buttons

 

Sorry guys, this is what I got for 3 of my answers on yahoo answers, so I just assumed that was right.

 

Also keep in mind the progress of technology. By the time you get a lot of quad core optimized games on the market your GPU will increasingly bottleneck performance. GTA4 is better with quad cores because of how incredibly inefficient the ported code is. Only a few RTSs legitimately use the multiple cores. One thing I am curious about is the expected life of the machine. Are you planning on a 5 year future proof model or you aiming at a 2-3 year life? If its the former then I might lean quad core a bit more but if the latter I would pass if there's a cost savings and wait for 2-3 years of what I expect to be much more efficient quads in the future.

 

Hell, I plan on a 12-18 month life and always try to spend less than $1000-.

This keeps me confortably within the default warranty period (and the tic-toc cpu release/refresh cycle) without worrying about spending an extra $500 for 3 years of coverage and then worrying about whether or not the company will actually be around for the full term of the extended warranty.

With Intel and AMD on a 8-12 month release cycle anything else is kind of silly.

 

I just believe a 17in single GPU will strugle faster then the 15.4? in because of the resolutions (is this for gaming? lol) And i would kit the sager with the quad either way but a duo core with that machine is plenty to be honest, quad will benefit more but full hd notebooks tend to favour SLI setups to run fluent games in most recent scenarios so i would choose a lower res because of the fewer millions of pixels it has to render

As stated, vendor can supply you with parts which is well....great Sager have no issues (occasionally a hdd heat issue would come up but i hear there new batches have this sorted out so thats great)

I know ASUS are great also, but in terms of how long it will last you, i would say that the lower res as well as the upgradability of the sager, you cant go wrong.

 

His analogy is actually correct, while directly the statement is false in respect to capable performance let me tell you this.

If i take a job that can be divided into more than one thread and execute that, 4 threads on a 4 core cpu will out perform a dual core of the same speed. A dual core of greater speed can of course perform a 2 threaded op faster than a quad core will. An 4Ghz Dual core would likley NOT perform as well as a 2.0 Ghz Dual Core in a multithreaded computation assuming I can do it with 3 or 4 threads, not everything is suited to this.

CiniBench R10 is great for measuring the efficiency of the one core at that frequency to having multiple cores take over the same job. However a single thread will not benefit from multiple cores, I will acknowledge the exception someone is bound to bring to that.... lol

 

i hope the laptop is bound to keep for as long as i can, i need assistance to buy this one as is, i have 1.1k to spend on my own, and 1k (presumably) of my aunt's money... I can't keep replacing it on a one-day-a-week job + college (boss hates me -.-) i know in the future i might have a better job, but still i can't guarantee that i will be able to replace it.

I'd say 5 years is an appropriate timeline, yes. Used for Heavy gaming.... I doubt it will last that long, but i'd sure like to TRY and make it last that long. Plus, i need the computer for college within the next two months.

 

Get the Q9000. Here's how this works. When your doing whatever on your computer, Vista/W7 is automatically allocating threads to cores behind the scenes, you in return get seamless speed (besides an HDD or network bandwith bottleneck).

Most games these days do utilize 3 or more cores, and that's enough reason the quad will keep up or surpass the 2.8 duo in any game released in the past 2 years and for the future. Clock speed is overrated, it's only effect will come in at low resolution and low details going for 120+ FPS, which is well, pointless. You don't need more than 60 frames, and no one likes playing at low details or low res so you push the settings, the GPU works harder, and stress is lifted off the CPU. If you compared the same computer with the different processors playing crysis, you wouldn't see a frames difference. If it were GTA4, the quad would easily be faster. If it were Unreal 3, or GRID, or whatever, they'd still be very close.

A quad has what the duo has, the duo does not have what the quad has. Get the quad.

 

correct. i have established this much and will be getting the quad. the question now is which computer i should get. the ASUS or the SAGER?

I like the way the asus looks, and how it has the 8 second load and OC features similar to what an MSI has, but i don't know how upgradable it is compared to the sager, nor do I think anyone else does (yet) i'll be getting either one from XoticPC, and they cost about the same, and i can put the same parts in both for the same cost.

in the end, it comes down to upgradability, and brand

 

Neither will have much upgradeability. You can swap the CPU, HDD, and RAM on your own in the Sager, but the GPU is probably end of the line and the best it will have, besides a 280M.

The Sager is sturdy and reliable, more than enough reason to choose it. As far as customization goes, I'd take 4GB DDR3, Q9000, WSXGA+, DVD RW, 320GB 7200 RPM, and Vista HP 64.

 

what is HP 64?

 

i know what vista 64 is, but what is HP 64?

anywho, who else reccomends the sager over the asus? i looked at processors and they push 500 bucks (i'd just put down for a new computer) and the ram/HD $ shouldn't be a huge issue. Now, the Asus can OC to 2.5, while the sager can't. shouldnt i logically get that one? (last longer can change Ram/HD without spending a fortune)

 

I believe vista HP 64 = Home Premium.

 

FAIL. i should have known that

 

Yea, that link screws me up all the time.

 

no, it was just sheer stupidity lol..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
major problem is i want a 17 inch, ruled out the 8662 unfortunately..looked at my brothers screen (15.4") this morning and went ".................No. Not for gaming. At all. Must have a 17." the 5797 is a little too expensive.


I think the new Asus' are just .....



i like the G71, and the G70 is awesome (SLI in the 70- looks bad compared to the 260) The dual HDD looks nice... this is about the only option i'm looking at right now. Any other computer suggestions? i mean compared ASUS past history, should this be a solid build?

 

The upcoming mobile Core i5 have option of quad core with 4 threads (1 thread for each core) and dual core with 4 threads (2 threads for each core).

I wonder which is better

 

Fixed

And it is my stance that i7-m > C2Q, but I we can all only wait for real proof of which is actually better.

 

Firstly I don't know about the CPU but for the RAM I believe the 4GB DDR3 will be better.

My reasons: Once you go over 4GB regardless of DDR2 or DDR3 there will be a tiny difference in speed.

 

6GB of DDR2 is better than 4GB of DDR3. More is better for memory, though unless you utilize it, you probably won't notice a difference.

 

negative.

bro, it's mobile Core i5 that has max 4 threads for both dual core and quad core.

AnandTech: Intel Quietly Announces Core i5 and Core i3 Branding

 

In mobile, you'll see both Core i7 and Core i5 for dual core Arrandale...

Clarksfield quad core top SKU:

2.0GHz base/2.4GHz Turbo quad core(assuming)/2.8GHz Turbo dual core(assuming)/3.2GHz single core

Arrandale dual core top SKU:

2.66GHz base/2.93GHz Turbo dual core(assumption)/3.33GHz Turbo single core

Do you see what I see? Clarksfield will be able to be on par with Arrandale even on lightly threaded applications and beat it on multi-thread.

 

When will the i7's be out? or i5s? Basically, if I don't NEED a laptop right at the moment but WANT a new one in the near future (current one is 4 years old)...will I be rewarded by waiting a few months?

 

You can keep waiting then. Every few months something new will come out... I doubt you will get the next gen notebook i7/i5's in your hand until Feb/Mar 2010 at the earliest.

 

Well, I've been waiting for the past 3 or 4 months, and between dell, hp, and sony, there's really no difference between a laptop I would've configured then, and one that I'd configure today. I'm hoping for at least a price drop on the 2ghz quad core, or something that'll make my wait worthwhile.

 

I doubt the current CPUs themselves will ever drop in price. Just check out the history... T7800, T9500, etc. They're still fairly expensive. The Q9000 is already pretty cheap though, if you consider that now.

 

September 8th, desktop Core i5/i7 Lynnfield launch.

I suspect the mobile variant, Clarksfield will release in similar timeframe.

BTW, there are no mobile quad cores that has Hyperthreading disabled.

 

Lenovo isn't planning on releasing their Clarksfield notebooks until Q1 2010.

 

A good piece of advice for newcomers. Please "lurk" around the Forums and find if there are any other threads with the same topic.

I can honestly say that this is the 10th time this question is raised on a different thread on this week! Counting the Sunday, Monday and Tuesday!
Please, dont start the same topic on a new thread, if the exact same question was asked before. Thanks!

 

I have the new G72Gx and it runs everything I have thrown at it so far. I was thinking of getting the quad core version but I really wouldn't utilize it.

 

The quad core would only be faster if the program was designed to take advantage of multiple cores. Sadly, most games are not yet. The newer multicore processors are mainly faster because they get more done per clock cycle than the older processors. Hence, a E2160 at 1.6ghz, is faster than an old Pentium 4 or D @ 3ghz. It is not necessarily due to the dual cores.

The way things are going, you will most likely build another new system before quad core becomes all the rage. The only real reason to go quad core right now is for things like video editing, 3D modeling, etc., or, one of the few games that can do 4cores. Some of the RTS games can do this I believe. I do not play those though. Another reason would be heavy multitasking where you could assign specific tasks to their "own" core.