Will the Sager NP7338 GPU hold up well in the future?

I been choosing between these two laptops Sager NP7338 vs GIGABYTE P34Wv3-CF2 (Released in Dec).
The thing that sets them apart is the GPU.
Will the 2GB GTX 860M be able to handle upcoming games such as Rainbow 6 Siege?
We all know the 6GB GTX 970M will be good in the future.
But there's a $350+ price difference.

Thanks

 

well the 860M is quite the overclocking monster, as long as were talking maxwell and not the kepler version. u might be able to squeeze 970M performance out of it
altho im not sure how far u can go with that card...

 

The 2GB versions are Maxwell so that does help with its lifespan. Just the pure performance difference to the 970M is what you want to look at and the 970M benchmarks around 80-85% better. Its going to last quite a bit longer.

 

I hope Sager releases that 13.3" with a GTX970m.
i would get that 100%!

 

That would be nice, but since they never offered it with an 870M, the 970M isnt very likely.

 

I agree it would require quite the redesign and the 970M is MUCH more power hungry. I'd like a a new 240SS class machine with no 2.5" bay and larger fans though along with a higher GPU

 

i might just pull the trigger on Clevo P650Sx, but will wait for black friday

 

As a gaming machine it will last a fair bit longer.

 

I'll throw in my 2 cents from my experience. I picked up a Sager NP8130 with a 1.5GB GTX 560M in June 2011. When I replaced it with my NP7338 a few weeks ago I was still playing Diablo III on all max settings in 1080p and still getting a great frame rate. I would expect that you'd be able to get 4-5 years out of the 860M before you aren't able to run games with the highest performance. Is it the highest end system? no. IMO is it the best bang for your buck? Yes.

 

As a side note, the overclocking and later upgrading of your processor and RAM will extend your "enjoyment" of the 860M. I would expect that in a few years you'd be able to pick up 16GB of 2133MHz and a i7-4910MQ for $350-ish and that will give your gaming experience a swift kick in the pants. Yes, the bigger factor is the GPU but it's not the only factor.

 

For gaming as time goes on the CPU and ram will matter less and less and it will be the GPU that is the primary bottleneck.

 

Yes, you are completely right. I will matter less, but it isn't irrelevant. Playing Bioshock Infinite on 2GB of 1600MHz DDR3 and an i3-4000M won't go as smooth as playing on 16GB of 2133Mhz DDR3 and an i7-4910MQ. But your point is taken that if one has a Matrox MX 440 none of that matters since the GPU is the bottleneck (That's right, I just referenced a 12-year old GPU).

 

If you had the two playing side by side it would be hard to tell one from the other at 1080p. The only difference would be a game like Battlefield 4 that is multithreaded and even then the 4710MQ would be more than enough, especially at +200mhz.

If your aim is to get this model with a dual core CPU and slower memory and then upgrade both of these in the future for a significant return on investment/improvement you will be disappointed.

 

Perhaps, assuming that gaming is the only reason for getting the system. Adding in there photo manipulation, CAD work or other high calculation projects, then return on investment becomes greater. Since the op asked about gaming, that point is moot though.

These guys disagree with the notion that CPU/RAM has little impact on overall GPU performance though: Measuring the impact of CPU choice on gaming performance | ExtremeTech

 

If you look, anything with a Sandy Bridge quad core or newer is within a few % of each other. I do agree CPU is important, but GPU performance is even more so. I did some similar evaluation here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/763237-gtx-980m-limited-cpu.html

But even with a top end 'X' CPU, you're only a few FPS faster than a base level quad core. I think Intel does need to step up their A-game when it comes to performance for gaming purposes, but they have no reason to, because there's no competition. You can't "vote with your wallet" because if you want a gaming machine you have no other choice but Intel.

 

Yeah, I've definitely noticed the greatest leaps in processor technology are when AMD and Intel (and Cyrix back in the day) are in hard competition. It sounds like we don't disagree. Within the range of fairly comparable CPU's the biggest factor by far is the GPU. as the difference in CPU capability grows, the bigger the factor of the CPU. Alas, the difference between an i7-4710MQ and i7-4910MQ on the same graphics card will be less than 10fps (and in at least some cases less than 5fps). Agreed.