Need recommendation: Sager NP8268-S $1499 (970M 6GB, i7-4710MQ, SSD for OS) vs NP8651 $1349 (970M 3GB, i7-4720HQ, no SSD for OS)

As you can see from the heading, I'm trying to figure out which is the better deal for a purchase now. The NP8268-S is a few months older, but it seems to provide more bang for the buck.

The options, with differences highlighted in bold:

NP8268-S Notebook for $1499
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970M 6GB
Intel® Core™ i7- 4710MQ
120GB 840 EVO mSATA SSD + 1TB 7200rpm HDD

NP8651 Notebook for $1349
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970M 3GB
Intel® Core™ i7- 4720HQ
1TB 7200rpm HDD

I have some specific questions:

1. How much of a difference will the extra 3GB make for the GPU?

2. How much of a difference will the newer CPU make?

3. If I go with the NP8651, would you pay extra to have an SSD for the O/S?

I'm leaning towards yes for #3 as I got an SSD for my NP8130 after the original hard drive crapped out (due to my fault) and the laptop is noticeably faster with the SSD.

 

1.really no difference if you are not playing beyond QHD+
2.Around 5% at best
3.I would for sure, always have a SSD in all my systems at least as primary and boot drive and use mechanical drive for storage.

Go with first if you want to upgrade CPU and GPU in the future. you can buy parts online and do it yourself
Go with 2nd if you don';t want to upgrade anything other than storage in the future. You can buy newer laptop with full new spec instead if it became slow

 

Also to note, yes the 8268 has been out longer than the thinner 8651 but that doesn't make it older in that sense. They both use the same hardware. Just so happens that one came out first. Won't affect anything other than being a larger machine and able to offer more configuration options as a result.

 

When I add in the cost of adding an SSD for the OS to the NP8651, the costs of both laptops is within $30 ($1499 vs $1469), so the gap is pretty negligible.

OK, so future upgradeability points in favor of the NP8268-S. And I think I'd rather have the 3GB of extra GPU memory as well, given that games are moving past 1080P HD resolution to even higher resolutions.

Do you have any perspective on whether the GPU or CPU is likely to be the bottleneck when playing games in Ultra-High settings?

 

Personally I have a gaming tower so laptop wise my main concern is lighter weight, smaller size and still good enough work power, thus I picked the NP8651. It is considerably thinner than the older Sager models although the power brick is still not small or light.
If you wanted to play on 4K or even 1600p+ screens I highly suggest you go with GTX 970m SLI or GTX 980/sli because yes 6GB of VRAM is good but GTX970m will not give you a good fps under ultra or extreme settings. Even high settings in some games it will not be powerful enough.
Most definitely the GPU will be the #1 bottleneck for high res gaming.

 

I can only tell you my MSI lighning GTX 780 SLI and my EGVA GTX 780 classified SLI both combo with OC can't even max out(60fps) crysis 3 on 1600p and GTX 980m is around the same performance as a desktop GTX 780

 

Incorrect

I suggest the Crucial M550 instead of the 840 evo. They should be very similar in price.

1 - It will make exactly none unless playing a game that crosses 3GB of vRAM. Evolve is one such game you will notice a benefit in. Middle Earth: Shadows of Mordor is another. Texture resolution is the main deciding factor in vRAM usage of games, and it has very little to do with in-game performance, unlike what everybody else on the internet thinks. It also has fairly little to do with resolution; in general (including using AA) bumping from 1080p to 4K resolution nets you ~600-800MB vRAM usage over 1080p. Forcing say... 8x MSAA on a 1080p game with decently large textures would arguably bump the vRAM drain even more than a simple resolution bump. There are not a whole lot of games that, on their own, fullscreened with only one screen plugged in, at 1080p, will surpass a 3GB vRAM buffer... but if you add a second screen and/or prefer borderless windowed or windowed mode gaming, you ARE going to love the extra vRAM in unoptimized AAA titles like Watch Dogs/Titanfall/Shadows of Mordor/Evolve/etc which demand FAR more vRAM than they ever should need. If you want to learn more, read the vRAM guide in my signature.

2 - The newer CPU is +100MHz faster at 4 core turbo boost at stock. The 4710MQ will OC properly to 3.5GHz, but the 4720HQ might do the same. What I don't know is how locked down the TDP is on the HQ series, but in general, it will be JUST SLIGHTLY faster (most games won't even notice) and the bigger differences will come down to overclocking. That being said, a 4810MQ (if you can afford it) would blow the two out of the water and you'll satisfy those silly games that say "you need a 3.5GHz i7 CPU for recommended specs" or whatever (even if they don't actually need it). Otherwise it won't be much of a benefit strictly gaming-wise.

3 - I would definitely say you should. In fact, if you could afford it as well, I would suggest getting a 256GB SSD to fit your OS and a couple games which REALLY need it (like BF4). Otherwise, a 128GB for your OS is what I'd even consider a minimum for a machine of that strength right now.

Usually you'll run into a GPU bottleneck, unless a game is HEAVILY single-threaded and CPU overclocks yield high benefits.

 

I don;t play those 2 games so I wouldn't know, and those are 2 relatively new games, watch dog is poorly utilized anyway hardly any card will max it. I didn't suffer from GTX 780 SLI with 3GB vRam on a lot of games in 1440p so I think most likely 3GB is sufficient for most games.

 

Yes, with most games, no doubt. However lots of new games are using uncompressed textures and generally love vRAM. Even at 1080p. What I explained was indeed correct.

 

and in durability ??, becouse the gpu in one is mxm and the other is in the matherboard and they get really hot. Im also gonna go for a new laptop but with the GTX 980m.

I have the same optins.

PS Sorry about my english.

 

They're both quite durable. Maxwell GPUs do not get hot. The CPU is the hardest thing to cool.

 

Thanks D2 Ultima, zrz1993, and Derek@XoticPC for the helpful responses.

I went ahead and ordered the NP8268-S with the stock configuration.

Looking forward to trying it out

 

Congrats, you won't be disappointed!

 

I can vouch for this. I've owned my system for a year now.

I have the sister system, 8258-S with the 880M and 4810 CPU.

For all the hype on the 880's running hot and problematic, in a single-GPU form factor, they don't run unreasonably hot.

On most games, I run between 69-84c (84c hit playing Dead Island Riptide all max, and that was without max fan. With max fan it dropped to 76).

The most I've cranked the CPU was at about 86 (again without max fan) and that was after 2 hours of burning video to bluray. Max fan dropped it down to 72c.

Most of the time I can play games fine without max fan and average 72-82c for GPU and 65-78c for CPU. More than fine.

Of note, my room temperature is about 23c.

My CPU averages between 39-44c while idle.

Been absolutely happy with the system. Only thing I wish I could do is upgrade to the 980M, and only because of the 30% performance gain and cooler run as well as the lower power requirements.

 

Your 880M is the exception rather than the rule, unless you play with vsync on all the time.

You could simply put a 980M in it if you wished. It would work better with Prema's BIOS, but your machine should be plug and play for it. All the SM-A models were.

 

I don't think it's worth it for someone with 880M.. Honestly, your'e better off waiting for the 1080M or whatever the new GPU will be called.. The price of the upgrade will be more worth it then..