trying to make my own sager NP5796

i was trying to configure my NP5796 and got a bit lost regarding some of the stuffs

first off this is going to be mainly for games and some school work, budget is no more then $2500.

1) Display: 1680 x 1050 vs 1900 x 1200, what would be better for gaming? or does it really matter?

2) processor: im very confused, i dont know what numbers to look at?

For ex: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor E8500 / 6MB L2 Cache, 3.16GHz, 1333MHz FSB (is built in) should i look at 6mb? L2 cache? 3.16GHz, or 1333?

also to sum up what would be above average for a gaming laptop (hardcore, MMORPG's)

3) Memory - i wanted to get 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2 X 2048MB (Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista ) (would that be good) ?

4) Hard disk drive: i dont understand something:

250GB 5400rpm SATA 150 Hard Drive [+$30.00] AND

100GB 7200rpm SATA 150 Hard Drive [+$35.00]

why is that so? what difference would it make for 5400rpm and 7200rpm?

thanks in advance, also if you'll can answer questions in numeric order would be great!

 

1. 1680 x 1050 (this is the size of your screen) by pixels if i remeber
2. Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor E8500 / 6MB L2 Cache, 3.16GHz, 1333MHz is a good cpu
3. 4GB is good
4. You get higher RPM with the 100GB which is mostly for compressing videos or booting up, installing applications the higher the rpm the faster they will be completed. So i would go with the 100GB 72K unless you have a choice of a 250 @72k

What graphic card are you getting in there?

 

1) Depends. What games are you planning on running? Lower screen resolutions are less taxing on the GPU, but higher resolutions look better. Plus, if you want to play in resolutions below 1680 x 1050 (but aren't a divisible of that resolution) the 1920 x 1200 will look better. If you're going to be playing any kind of movie content in HD, you'll probably want the 1920 X 1200 because it will play 1080p, full screen, with some extra screen real estate for media controls.

2) Don't spend $100 on only on small improvements like +100Mhz clock speeds. You won't notice the difference. Spend the extra cash if you're going to get a big upgrade, like a 6MB cache over a 3MB cache. Read some reviews & comments and try to figure out the best bang for your buck.

3) Definitely. 4 GB of RAM will be more than enough for your needs, so far. Even with a 32-bit operating system 3.5 GB might be overkill.

4) If you want the best bang for your buck, I've heard good things about the 320 GB 5400 RPM drive. It should preform favorably compared to a 200 GB 7200 RPM drive. Remember, it's not only the speed of the motor that affects the speed of the disk, a high density disk doesn't need to spin as fast to transfer the same amount of information.

 

what are 3 of you doing? trying to config 5796 with 9262's spec?

 

1) Basically if you want to watch 1080p Blu Ray movies you need the higher res screen. Also, if you set the notebook to that res text might be hard to read. I went with 1680x1050 to save money though.

2) theyre all kind of important. i would upgrade to a higher processor than that so you dont bottleneck the GPU at all.

3) 64 bit edition is better for gaming as far as I have read. it definitely gives a boost in Crysis if set up correctly. go with the 4gb.

4) those numbers 5400 and 7200 are the speeds at which the computer will read from your harddrive so higher is faster which should mean faster load times. thats why it is more expensive with a lower amount of space.

I just bought an NP5796 with this config for $2300:

- Display: 17" Wide Viewing Angles WSXGA+ LCD with Super Glossy Surface (1680 x 1050)
- Processor: 45nm Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T9400 / 6MB L2 Cache, 2.53GHz, 1066MHz FSB
- Video & Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce 9800M GT Graphics with 512MB DDR3 Video Memory
- Operating System: Genuine MS Windows® VISTA Home Premium 32/64-Bit Edition
- Memory: 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 2 X 2048MB

This should work fine for you too but you could even upgrade a couple things to get closer to 2500.

 

No they aren't. 5400 RPM literally means the disk rotates 5400 times per minute. As stated often on the forum, the difference in performance between a 320 GB 5400 RPM drive and a 200 GB 7200 RPM is negligible. If you want solid performance for cheap, you might as well go with the option that gives you more memory.

XXX MB/s is the speed which your computer will read from the hard drive.

 

do you know 5400RPM 320GB is as fast as 7200RPM 200GB? guess not.

 

alright well what i mean is a 200gb @ 7200 is better than a 200gb @ 5400. we
can agree on that right? thats really my point

 

Considering the 320 GB 5400 RPM drive is $5 cheaper than the 200 GB 7200 RPM drive, does it really matter?

 

It also depends on which brand of 5400 vs which brand of 7200, as well as which area of performance.

 

Negligibly, I'd assume. I'd be interested in seeing benchmarks of similarly spec'd, but differently branded hard drives.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=260839&page=3

Decent thread on the discussion, also has links to benchmarks. Also check out Tom's hardware.

 

Nice find! Thanks.

Still, within the same brand, it's safe to say the 320 GB beats out a 'faster' 200 GB in terms of value.

 

Value is a very subjective term though. There may be a user who prizes the generally slightly improved speed of the 7200 over the rather substantial loss of available storage space.