Will a i5-2410m Dual core (2.3GHZ, turbo to 2.9GHZ) last me 3-4 years?

I just don't want to buy something that will become outdated in the next 3-4 years. General purpose usage, movies, and some medium gaming. Nothing Battlefront 3 intense....stuff like Starcraft 2, Splinter Cell (conviction), and maybe skyrim.

 

Definitely, as long as you're not doing CAD stuff.
You might have a problem running high end games at full graphics at the end of the 4 years, but your graphics card plays a role in that too.

 

Whats your graphics card? If it is the 6770m, then you will defiantly able be able to play games at 720p resolution on Low graphics for the next 4 years.

But i recommend upgrading to the quad core for the reason because PC games are getting less and less optimized so higher specs are necessary. The main reason for this is that most computer games nowadays are just bad ports of the console games. But Valve and Blizzard still support PC gaming to the fullest.

So in conclusion, you should be fine but i still highly reccomend the quad core upgrade.

 

You should be 100% fine.

 

Would I really need a quad core? Most games wouldn't need it right? I'm not going to be playing BF3 caliber games on my pc (that's what my console is for).

 

For gaming, barely. But for everyday task, yes. The next version of Windows (Windows 8) it optimized for tablets running ARM cpu's, so it should be less computationally demanding than Windows 7.

 

Get the 1920x1080 display. That's the one upgrade it's not worth sacrificing when it comes to the DV6. Be sure to use the coupon btw.

The 1366x768 display is sub-par in terms of quality and severely limits how much you can fit onscreen at once. The 1920x1080 display is excellent in terms of quality and lets you fit side by side windows.

Note, before you worry about this: No, the 1920x1080 display will not affect game performance at all. And the reason for this is that due to the significant difference in image quality, games will actually look better running in non-native 720p on the 1080p display than they'll look running in 720p on the 720p display. Running in a non-native resolution results in a little bit of blur, but the higher contrast and better color reproduction of the 1080p display far outweigh that. Plus, if you base your decision entirely on games, you're basically sacrificing the productive capability of your computer to slightly improve something that's not productive, when it doesn't actually improve anything anyway.

Also only get the 1GB 6770M. Get the 6770M but don't get the 2GB version because it makes no difference versus the 1GB version. It's a marketing scam and the core of the card will max out before even a gigabyte memory is used.

 

I'm trying to keep it below $900 after taxes. I live in NY, so that means around 830 before taxes, so I can't afford the quad with the 1080p screen.

What everyday program/usage needs a quad core?

EDIT: Is the A8-3500M any good? I heard AMD sucks...

 

Sacrifice the processor then. The 1080p screen makes 20 times more of a difference, and you probably won't even notice the processor upgrade. Don't buy without the 1080p screen, it literally makes the most difference.

No everyday program will need a quad core. In fact the i5-2410M should be all you need. Get the DV6t config above with 1080p, 6770M, and i5, for $822+tax.

the A8-3500M beats the i5-2410M in many cases. In multithreaded tasks the A8 wins, in single threaded tasks the i5 wins. The crossfire integrated + discrete GPU combo in the DV6z is supposed to beat the 6770M, especially when drivers improve.

 

Is the 1080p screen all that special? Edit seems obsessed on these boards about it, but it seems like a lot of people don't care...

 

If they had the 1080p option when I bought the laptop, I definitely would've done it. The 1366x768 display isn't the best, but it's certainly usable. Wish it were a bit brighter, though.

 

Wait, is it possible to upgrade the display later on? (switch out the 768 for a 1020)

 

Yes, but we would need to source the cable for it. The 1080p uses a different cable than the 768p. I'm sure eventually we'll figure it out.

 

It makes the most difference out of any of the upgrades if you think about it. And it's not that other people don't care, most of the people who understand the difference do care.

You're probably never going to take full advantage of a quad-core processor, or 8GB of RAM, because SandyBridge chips (i5+) are more than powerful enough for moderate gaming (due to the fact that the GPU reaches 100% load before the processor) and certainly about twice as fast as you'd need for everyday tasks.

The screen is a huge limiting factor though. You can have all the "multi-tasking" processing power in the world (a setup with an i3 and 4GB of RAM is good enough for multitasking btw), but if you can't fit more than one window onscreen at a time, what's the use?

Yes but it's difficult. The cable part number is hard to track down (1080p cable is dual-channel, 720p cable is single-channel and won't work), and it's quite a bit more difficult to upgrade than RAM. The thing is, in the future, the price of the processors will drop dramatically - if that's something you want to upgrade, but the screens will just become harder and harder to find. And RAM is basically always cheaper to upgrade yourself.

 

If I update the processor, won't I have to update the the graphics card too? Why not just buy a new laptop then?

 

I laughed at that because I've been thinking the same thing...
Unless we're specifically working on photo or video editing I think the 1080p is overkill in all but 15.6" and up and even the 15.6" is questionable...

Thanks for confirming my thoughts Blizzblaze. As a side note what laptop are you getting/ do you have?

 

No, just go with the 1GB 6770M and the i5-2410M, or the 1GB 6770M and the i7-2630QM. I don't think HP uses any marketing tactics to force unnecessary upgrades. (edit: click the link I posted earlier for the DV6zSE in case the 1GB option is somehow absent on HP's website, because it's disappeared before)

Yes photo editing benefits from 1080p. But general usage benefits too. If you're a heavy photo editor and use a lot of CPU-intensive filters, get 1080p and quad-core. If you're a general user or a casual gamer you won't benefit from quad-core but you will benefit from the extra screen realestate provided by 1080p and you will benefit from a better looking screen because it's more eye-appealing to use.

And no, 1080p isn't overkill for a 15.6" screen just like 1366x768 isn't overkill for an 11.6" screen (example: Macbook Air 11"). It all depends on your eyesight what you deem "overkill", but 1366x768 is definitely well below what a 15.6" screen should be. Think about it this way: All screen sizes ranging from 11.6"-12.1"-12.5"-13.3"-14.0"-14.5"-15.6" come standard with 1366x768. 15.6" is at the big end of that list, so ideally 12.5" and 13.3" are where 1366x768 belongs in my opinion. 1600x900 is the sweet spot, but few 15.6" laptops seem to offer this resolution aside from business laptops and the Sager NP5160.

Note: if you pay attention to the forums, Most of the people who don't fully understand the difference resolution makes have fewer than 100 posts. Not saying people with <100 posts don't know anything, and I'm not saying people with >=100 posts know everything, but that's just the correlation I've noticed regarding whether or not people realize the benefit of a screen resolution upgrade.

And just because I give similar advice to everybody does not mean it's not legitimate. What do you expect me to do, be inconsistent with my advice?

 

I'm planning on getting the i5-2410/1gb 6770m. See, my budget allows for quad vs upgrade resolution. I won't need a quad anytime soon, so I think I'm getting the 1080. Not like I need the 1080 screen, but it's just slightly more useful t me personally then getting a quad that won't fully get used anyways. I'd be happy with the 768 though, no doubt there.

 

I hear a matte screen has less vibrant colors than a glossy screen. Is that the case for this HP?

 

A matte screen with good color reproduction, good contrast, and good viewing angles will trump a glossy screen with subpar color reproduction, low contrast, and narrow viewing angles.

The matte layer doesn't actually do anything to the colors. All it does is make the contrast appear lower, though the difference in contrast rating outweighs that.

 

Hm...so how come your typical LCD monitor has both vibrant colors, good viewing angles, good color reproduction, and no reflection, but laptop screens can't do that?

 

I would prefer the 1080 screen but I got my DV6 during the mass delay riot. But if screen resolution/quality ever becomes a major necessity for me, I can always buy an external monitor. EXTERNAL MONITOR ftw.