Quality powerful Laptop? (must have within a day or two)
So I need a laptop, and mostly need it soon. It will be a portable dev station and some light multimedia. Gaming would be nice but not a must.
It seems my best bet is a Macbook Pro quality wise and so I am able to get it quickly (have an apple store nearby)
I'm not a fan of Apple or anything but they make great laptops.
So my question is: are there quality alternatives I could get from somewhere like BestBuy? I worry anything ordered over the internet will not arrive in time for my needs.
Alienware or the new Dell XPS line should be right up your alley. You acn always pay extra for expedite shipping which should get you the righ in a couple of days. The problem with buying off the shelf is that you rarely get the exact configuration you want or need (unless you're buying apple).
Alienware or the new Dell XPS line should be right up your alley. You acn always pay extra for expedite shipping which should get you the righ in a couple of days. The problem with buying off the shelf is that you rarely get the exact configuration you want or need (unless you're buying apple).
I dont think dell XPS have good graphics cards...
i would go with Alienware.
The Following User Says Thank You to BringItSon For This Useful Post:
The specs on those are awesome for the price.... almost too good to be true.
yeah, it's really surprising that more people haven't gotten them. I see Malibal as the new alienware, back when alienware was kewl and not owned by Dell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringItSon
I dont think dell XPS have good graphics cards...
i would go with Alienware.
One and the same, these days.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by meme405
Lenovo, i have a t410s and i love it.
The new X1 is really nice and its on par with a mac book air in terms of design. not to mention you can get an SSD and 2nd gen i7.
Hmm, interesting. I've heard lots of good about Lenovo's in general....
It's funny though when I configured the Malibal with a few nice option the price crept up back to almost normal.
I think one way they kept it down was that it doesnt include Windows(by default, which is nice in some ways too). Still in the end it was a good value for that amount of power. I'm certainly considering it. but I do like this MBP too. I have 12 days to decide if I want to keep it basically.
Thanks for the suggestions all, at this point I'm still leaning towards keeping the MBP -- partially because I already have a beast of a desktop Windows PC and having some variety to use different OSes is good.
You do realize that Dell owns Alienware, right? As for the comment about the XPS line not having good gfx cards, you are surely mistaken. I have 2 gigs of VRAM sitting in my XPS and it performs magnificently. It's not nice to pass along false information.
On a side note, those Malibal laptops look sweeeeeeeeet.
__________________
"When I wake up in the morning, I piss excellence."
You do realize that Dell owns Alienware, right? As for the comment about the XPS line not having good gfx cards, you are surely mistaken. I have 2 gigs of VRAM sitting in my XPS and it performs magnificently. It's not nice to pass along false information.
On a side note, those Malibal laptops look sweeeeeeeeet.
Speaking of false information... Having more VRAM doesn't always mean better, especially in a laptop with a low(er) resolution screen. VRAM is best used for higher resolution images and textures (using AA also utilizes VRAM, as well as a significant portion of the GPU's processing power). Manufacturers throw more VRAM into mobile GPUs so customers think they are getting a good card. RAM doesn't mean crap if there isn't anything behind it to feed it data.
Last edited by drdoom; August 23rd, 2011 at 08:54 PM.
You do realize that Dell owns Alienware, right? As for the comment about the XPS line not having good gfx cards, you are surely mistaken. I have 2 gigs of VRAM sitting in my XPS and it performs magnificently. It's not nice to pass along false information.
On a side note, those Malibal laptops look sweeeeeeeeet.
And *you* realize that I already said that way back when? *snicker*
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlgalt
One and the same, these days.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by drdoom
Speaking of false information... Having more VRAM doesn't always mean better, especially in a laptop with a low(er) resolution screen. VRAM is best used for higher resolution images and textures (using AA also utilizes VRAM, as well as a significant portion of the GPU's processing power). Manufacturers throw more VRAM into mobile GPUs so customers think they are getting a good card. RAM doesn't mean crap if there isn't anything behind it to feed it data.
IOW, a lappy with 2 GB of DDR3 on a GTX260M car ain't gonna do squat compared to a lappy with only 896 MB of DDR3 on a GTX560M....
So, you (meaning anyone that is not me) take the 2 GB card and I'll take the 896 - #winning
The Following User Says Thank You to johnlgalt For This Useful Post:
Speaking of false information... Having more VRAM doesn't always mean better, especially in a laptop with a low(er) resolution screen. VRAM is best used for higher resolution images and textures (using AA also utilizes VRAM, as well as a significant portion of the GPU's processing power). Manufacturers throw more VRAM into mobile GPUs so customers think they are getting a good card. RAM doesn't mean crap if there isn't anything behind it to feed it data.
It's sitting behind a top tier mobile-i7 cpu w/ 6 gigs of RAM and a monster HDD. Not to mention it's a 1080p LED monitor. I think that's more than enough to feed.
Last edited by NYCHitman1; August 24th, 2011 at 09:37 AM.
It's sitting behind a top tier mobile-i7 cpu w/ 6 gigs of RAM and a monster HDD. Not to mention it's a 1080p LED monitor. I think that's more than enough to feed.
I think you missed my point. Let's use a desktop GPU as an example. Say you have a 3Gb GTX 550 and a 896Mb GTX 560. Those model numbers don't seem that far apart, so they can't be that big of a difference in performance, right? (wrong, but for this example, we are an uninformed customer) But those VRAM numbers, that is a 342% increase! That must mean the 550 is faster than the 560 because it has more vRAM! Wrong. I don't care how much AA, high quality textures, and screen resolution you throw at both the 550 and the 560; all of the damn RAM in the world won't make the 550 faster than a 896Mb GTX 560. The 550 has significantly fewer shader (CUDA thanks to Nvidia's stupid naming scheme) cores (I think it is roughly 50% fewer shaders compared to a GTX 560). Even though its shaders and core are clocked higher than a 560's, it won't perform nearly as well without those extra shaders.
In case you didn't feel like reading that wall of text, basically VRAM on a video card doesn't make the card (sure it helps, but not as much as additional shaders and a good core). Having more VRAM without a good core and shaders is like having a maxed out muscle car with a lawnmower engine; it might look great from the outside, but when you open the hood or start it up, you realize that it isn't going anywhere or doing anything while being held back by that weak engine.
You have yet to list what video card you actually have; it could have potentially avoided this whole debate, but I'll leave that for another post/topic.
Last edited by drdoom; August 24th, 2011 at 11:34 AM.
I think you missed my point. Let's use a desktop GPU as an example. Say you have a 3Gb GTX 550 and a 896Mb GTX 560. Those model numbers don't seem that far apart, so they can't be that big of a difference in performance, right? (wrong, but for this example, we are an uninformed customer) But those VRAM numbers, that is a 342% increase! That must mean the 550 is faster than the 560 because it has more vRAM! Wrong. I don't care how much AA, high quality textures, and screen resolution you throw at both the 550 and the 560; all of the damn RAM in the world won't make the 550 faster than a 896Mb GTX 560. The 550 has significantly fewer shader (CUDA thanks to Nvidia's stupid naming scheme) cores (I think it is roughly 50% fewer shaders compared to a GTX 560). Even though its shaders and core are clocked higher than a 560's, it won't perform nearly as well without those extra shaders.
In case you didn't feel like reading that wall of text, basically VRAM on a video card doesn't make the card (sure it helps, but not as much as additional shaders and a good core). Having more VRAM without a good core and shaders is like having a maxed out muscle car with a lawnmower engine; it might look great from the outside, but when you open the hood or start it up, you realize that it isn't going anywhere or doing anything while being held back by that weak engine.
You have yet to list what video card you actually have; it could have potentially avoided this whole debate, but I'll leave that for another post/topic.
I understood what you meant, I just stated that it does quite well in real world performance. I would never expect a mobile GPU to compare to a desktop GPU, in terms of power. That's just stupid.
I understood what you meant, I just stated that it does quite well in real world performance. I would never expect a mobile GPU to compare to a desktop GPU, in terms of power. That's just stupid.
It's the Nvidia GT 435M.
My point was that (regardless of the platform) more VRAM doesn't mean it is a better card. Your GT 435M is a good example of what isn't a good card to shove more VRAM into. Even being considered a mid-range card for laptops, there is no way that card is going to be able to utilize 2Gb of VRAM without falling well below playable framerates. The card itself simply cannot process that much that fast.
My point was that (regardless of the platform) more VRAM doesn't mean it is a better card. Your GT 435M is a good example of what isn't a good card to shove more VRAM into. Even being considered a mid-range card for laptops, there is no way that card is going to be able to utilize 2Gb of VRAM without falling well below playable framerates. The card itself simply cannot process that much that fast.
All I know is that beyond the specifications that it contains, it performs very well. I've been playing various F2P MMOs on it, Starcraft 2 (on high settings), some Counter Strike: Source (high settings), and Mass Effect 2 (high settings) and it plays them all without a hiccup. If that's not good enough mobile processing for you, I don't know what is.
All I know is that beyond the specifications that it contains, it performs very well. I've been playing various F2P MMOs on it, Starcraft 2 (on high settings), some Counter Strike: Source (high settings), and Mass Effect 2 (high settings) and it plays them all without a hiccup. If that's not good enough mobile processing for you, I don't know what is.
I'm glad that it works great for you; I really am. I hate to see when people buy a card expecting it to perform great and it sucks. But none of those games are really pushing the video card to the max(although Mass Effect 2 looks great for a console port). I think we have taken this topic far enough off course, so truce.
Last edited by drdoom; August 24th, 2011 at 08:48 PM.
Actually, this topic is a lot more on topic than you think. Since the OP want(ed) a new laptop with performance in mind, this discussion about video cards and some of the sensationalism behind the advertising is quite appropriate.
I'm glad that it works great for you; I really am. I hate to see when people buy a card expecting it to perform great and it sucks. But none of those games are really pushing the video card to the max(although Mass Effect 2 looks great for a console port). I think we have taken this topic far enough off course, so truce.
I didn't even think we were arguing, honestly. I think it was just a misunderstanding. What games should I test on it to see if it can handle the upper echelon of things? Crysis 2?
The Following User Says Thank You to NYCHitman1 For This Useful Post:
I didn't even think we were arguing, honestly. I think it was just a misunderstanding. What games should I test on it to see if it can handle the upper echelon of things? Crysis 2?
As much as I hate that game and the company behind it, I think it would be a good enough test. Many people say 30fps is a fluid game, but I can't stand anything under 60, so my standards for what is playable framerates are going to be higher than average. Textures, shadows and AA are what will use the most VRAM; they will also stress the GPU the most.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to drdoom For This Useful Post:
I have Apple everything but just couldnt justify spending $2500 on a laptop I wasnt going to use all that often, so I picked up this HP $700. Its now $750. Its loaded up with specs and chews thru intensive things like rendering 1080p HD video files, burning thousands of huge photo files, burning DVDs, Photoshop 5, everything I have thrown at it. Does it fast too. Only downside is it doesnt have Blu Ray but that wasnt a big deal to me.
I didn't even think we were arguing, honestly. I think it was just a misunderstanding. What games should I test on it to see if it can handle the upper echelon of things? Crysis 2?
I found Crysis 1 to stress my desktop rig more that C2
My desktop is:
2 (almost 3?) yr old custom built rig
- Core i7 920 2.6 Ghz OC'd to 3.6Ghz
- 6GB DDR3 RAM @ 1066 -- OC'd to I dunno what
- 2x Nvidia GTX 260 in SLI (896MB each 1792MB total)
- Win 7 x64
- Creative X-fi PCI-e
- 3TB (3x Samsung Spinpoint F1 @7200 RPMs) <- need to replace one with an SSD
- Coolermaster case and some high end air-colling fan for the cpu
- 1000W powersupply
- EVGA motherboard
- 24" dell ultrasharp (1920x1200)
When I got my rig Crysis had already been out a year or two. My system could not run it on max @ 1920x1200. Still cant.
However it really depends what your are testing. Games with beautiful graphics may not really need AA/AF. But Crysis had so many plants with leaves (and hence edges) AA would bring the fps to it's knees on even the best rigs. But something like TheWitcher 2 I never bothered even using AA or maybe only a bit.
I'm thinking the effects that make a rig work the hardest in games are SSAO, Soft shadows, HDR lighting, AA, and AF.
Speaking of which, can someone recommend a good "system info" type app?
I feel like I had a nice free one at some point but cant find it atm.
Last edited by alostpacket; August 29th, 2011 at 12:53 PM.
Your rig is not too far off from mine that I recently put together, scrapping old parts from the old build and mixing them with a new mobo, CPU, RAM and PSU:
Quote:
System Manufacturer/Model Number
The Beast Model V OS
Windows 7 Enterprise x64 SP1 | Windows 8 build 7989 CPU
Core i7 965 EE @3.6 GHz Motherboard
eVGA x58 Classified3 Memory
3 * 4GB Mushkin Enhanced Redline CL7 DDR3 Graphics Card(s)
eVGA GTX 260 SLI'd w/ eVGA GTX260 SSC + GTS250 (PhysX) Sound Card
Realtek HD Audio (onboard) Monitor(s) Displays
2 * Acer X213Wbd Screen Resolution
2 * 1680 x 1050 Hard Drives
1 * Intel X-25M G2 80 GB SSD Sata II |
2 * Seagate 1 TB 32MB Cache 7200.12 SATA II PSU
ThermalTake BlackWidow TX TR2 850 W Case
ThermalTake Level 10 GT (Black) Cooling
Corsair H60 CPU Liquid Cooler | 3 * ThermalTake 240 mm Fans Keyboard
Logitech G15 Keyboard Mouse
Logitech MX Revolution '06 Internet Speed
Cable - 12Mbit down / 1 Mbit up advertised (28+ / 3+ actual) Other Info
Optimus STAV-3400 AV Receiver |
Bose 301 Series III Speakers (Main channel) |
Bose 161 Speakers (Surround) |
Optimus 3 way 100-W speaker (Center) |
Logitech Clearchat PC Wireless Headset
Microsoft LifeCam Studio
I haven't tried either, the build is still quite new. I need to add my Antec TriCool 120mm LED fans to the case (backside blowing out and bottom blowing in) and then I think I'm going ot OC and then test.
As far as System Info, hae you tried Gabriel Ponti's System Info for Windows (aka SIW)? And since you're running Win7, there also the native apps, like System Info, Resource Monitor, etc.
The Following User Says Thank You to johnlgalt For This Useful Post:
For system info, I would recommend two programs: GPU-Z and CPU-Z. Names should explain the programs fairly well. I don't use it, but I have heard that Everest has a good free version.
My poor old desktop is still chugging along:
Q6600 @ 3.15Ghz
EVGA 680i LT (damn thing has two dead RAM slots; I'd rather put money into guns than replacing it.)
4GB G.Skill Pi Black
3TB (WD Black, 2 Seagate Barracudas)
HAF-X with every fan mount filled
EVGA 560Ti (my old 8800GTS 512's worked great for everything but The Witcher 2)
Coolermaster 1200W Silent Pro Gold (free is good, right? )
EVGA Superclock or Coolermaster V6 (both were free to me and are roughly equal).
Last edited by drdoom; August 29th, 2011 at 11:13 PM.
Reason: minor grammar changes & additional info
For system info, I would recommend two programs: GPU-Z and CPU-Z. Names should explain the programs fairly well. I don't use it, but I have heard that Everest has a good free version.
My poor old desktop is still chugging along:
Q6600 @ 3.15Ghz
EVGA 680i LT (damn thing has two dead RAM slots; I'd rather put money into guns than replacing it.)
4GB G.Skill Pi Black
3TB (WD Black, 2 Seagate Barracudas)
HAF-X with every fan mount filled
EVGA 560Ti (my old 8800GTS 512's worked great for everything but The Witcher 2)
Coolermaster 1200W Silent Pro Gold (free is good, right? )
EVGA Superclock or Coolermaster V6 (both were free to me and are roughly equal).
My last rig was a 780i running the Q2C6600 @ 3.15 also - I could easily get to 3.2 but it wasn't as stable as I wanted it to be.
Going to turn that board into a Server since it supports (albeit a bit flakily) on-board RAID
lol is raid worth it if it's flakey though? Or are your striping for performance?
Good point - I think the RAID on this board is better than most of the other ones out there, and since I have 6 SATA ports to choose from I can do dual RAIDS, one for OS and one for DATA, 3 drives each, and since it is gonna be a WHS, I kinda need it....
I may look into a PCI RAID card to handle the data RAID....
Quote:
Originally Posted by alostpacket
Why the Velociraptor? Go SSD
That's not a resolution!
Quote:
Originally Posted by karandpr
1920×1080 is commonly known as 1080p or the other way around
I think he knows that judging by the he put on at the end.
Also for the mobo, worth looking at EVGA -- I have become such a fanboy since I bought my mobo+gfx cards from them. They really have nice stuff and have a rep for amazing customer support, though I never needed it.
Yer, I was just kidding around. But it's a bit annoying the way monitors shifted from 16:10 to 16:9 to accommodate 1080p/movie marketing.
Anyways a 42" monitor should be like 2560x1800ish(?) or some such? Though u might want 2 gfx cards for that.
Speaking of which, what's the max dual DVI can push? Does HDMI have the bandwith to push more?
OK sorry I'm getting side tracked and dreaming of my ultimate setup haha. Your's is a very nice rig NYCHitman, was just kidding with ya
I use my Panasonic Viera TV as my monitor. I don't have an office set up, so when I need to do some power processing I jump on my PC. As for the rig, the parts that said (upgrade) are the parts that I will upgrade to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alostpacket
Also for the mobo, worth looking at EVGA -- I have become such a fanboy since I bought my mobo+gfx cards from them. They really have nice stuff and have a rep for amazing customer support, though I never needed it.
I love their gfx cards. Not once have I had a problem with any of their gfx cards either. Never owned any of their mobo's though. I've only had Gigabyte, ASUS, and MSi mobo's.
Last edited by NYCHitman1; August 30th, 2011 at 01:15 PM.
I never tried gigabyte but I hated ASUS support /driver downloads and whatnot. though it may have improved.
But i LOVE EVGA.....
<- fanboy
I agree. ASUS sucks for support. Two of my RAM slots died and I contacted them to get a replacement, they basically told me to go eff myself. Never again will I purchase an ASUS product (except the Transformer tablet )
I'd personally go for ThinkPad, and in your case the X series. It has build quality, small, lightweight, rigid casing, one of the best keyboard & excellent warranty.
And the latest models now have sandy bridge processors. Also be sure to get it with an SSD drive, if not provided with, you can easily replace-add the SSD by yourself.
Quality powerful Laptop? (must have within a day or two)
And *you* realize that I already said that way back when? *snicker*
