Thinking about buying new laptop

SlaughtrPope · 2012-07-24, 08:52 AM

I am thinking about buying a new laptop. My current one is almost 5 years old so it's about time for a replacement. How do you think a laptop with specs like these would perform in ps2?

CPU: Intel Core i7 3610QM, 4x 2,30 GHz
RAM: 8192 MB DDR3 SDRAM, PC3 12800 (1600 MHz)
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M, 2048 MB GDDR5
750 GB HDD + 128 GB SSD

not sure what I will be buying, yet. Laptops like the one described are in an affordable price range right now (~ € 1200).

thx!

Goku · 2012-07-24, 10:03 AM

That will likely have a playable experience probably. No idea on potential settings however. I probably wouldn't go below the card you are looking at now however. The 7850M may not be a bad choice either. From what I found its a stronger performer verse the 660M.

Mutant · 2012-07-24, 10:42 AM

660M is GK107 based (GT640) (~1/5th a GK104 (GTX680) and likely the lowest end chip Nvidia will make this gen)
Should be OK on lowish/med settings at 1280x720 It will struggle at 1080p
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3214-3.html

SlaughtrPope any chance a laptop + desktop combo would work for you, for 1200 euro it might work out better.

SlaughtrPope · 2012-07-24, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Mutant

SlaughtrPope any chance a laptop + desktop combo would work for you, for 1200 euro it might work out better.

sadly, no.
I am on the move often, especially during the weekends. I switch between different houses a lot (my own apartment@college, family, friends). So if I want to be playing games (which I mostly do during the weekends) I need a laptop.

My current laptop (Asus G71V with a 9700M GT) fulfilled just that purpose perfectly for more than 4 years. What I am actually looking for is a laptop that would do the same thing: 4 years of reliable performance for my (moderate) gaming needs. I have no problem with turning down resolution and settings, but it would be nice if at least current games run fine on it.

So it basically comes down to this question:
Do I need to go higher than the GTX 660M for my needs? It's not that I am fixed on a € 1200 budget, I am just trying to get the best price/performance ratio.

I used this ranking list as reference:
http://www.pc-erfahrung.de/grafikkar...-notebook.html
shows pretty much all mobile GPUs in order of benchmarked (sometimes approximately) order.

thx for your advice!

Goku · 2012-07-24, 11:46 AM

My only concern about the 660M is the release of the upcoming consoles in over the coming year. That will likely increase the requirements of all upcoming PC games. If you really want to keep this for as long as you are talking about I would seriously consider a laptop with the GTX 675M like this one. Its a far stronger card verse the 660M. Not too shabby that one has a SSD with it too.

SlaughtrPope · 2012-07-24, 02:43 PM

thanks for your thoughts so far.
I didn't even know ChilliGreen until now! I will take them into my short list.

Ok, so you suggest the 660M is the absolute minimum for my needs?
Again, as a person who is basically forced to use laptops, I am not expecting to play most games on FullHD for years to come. Sure the 670M is the stronger GPU, but

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.71859.0.html

and

http://www.gaminglaptopsjunky.com/gt...m-vs-gtx-660m/

made the 660M look good enough.

Do you think the OP exaggerated the 660M's performance here?
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=44497

Goku · 2012-07-24, 03:15 PM

Alright taking notebookcheck numbers from demanding games on there list for average FPS.

Crysis 2:
GTX 675M - High: 97.8 - Ultra: 36.3
GTX 660M - High: 69 - Ultra: 23
Percent difference - High: 41% - Ultra: 57%

BF3:
GTX 675M - High: 54 - Ultra: 24
GTX 660M - High: 40 - Ultra: 18
Percent difference - High: 35% - Ultra: 33%

Metro 2033:
GTX 675M - High: 48.9 - Ultra: 17.4
GTX 660M - High: 35 - Ultra: 12
Percent difference - High: 39% - Ultra: 45%

Max Payne 3:
GTX 675M - High: 30.8 - Ultra: 25
GTX 660M - High: 24 - Ultra: 19
Percent difference - High: 28% - Ultra: 31%

Anno 2070:
GTX 675M - High: 66 - Ultra: 33
GTX 660M - High: 44 - Ultra: 21
Percent difference - High: 50% - Ultra: 57%

On average percent difference in high setting is 36% and ultra is 42%.

So yes I would say going for a higher end card is worthwhile. Games will only be getting more demanding and even if its only 30% faster in some cases can mean the difference between playable and not playable.

keep in mind that review you looked at was the 670M not 675M. Even the reviewer notes the 675M is considerably faster verse the 670M never mind the 660M.

Just so you know the cuda cores between the 675M and 660M are not the same entirely. The 675M has a hot clock that enables the cuda cores to operate at roughly 1200MHz while the 660M is stuck at 800MHz or so. The 660M also only has a 128-bit bus verse the 256-bit on the 675M for bandwidth. These are two very different cards.

SlaughtrPope · 2012-07-25, 04:47 PM

Hmmm this gives me a lot to think about. You are right Goku, my budget is kind of flexible. (referring to the other thread)

Anyhow, I will probably include laptops with the 670M and even the 675M into my selection... for me, it's all about a well balanced deal:
if I spend that kind of money, the laptop has to come with SSD and Blu-Ray and it definately has to be a 17" display. I am not paying € 1300+ for a machine that has a fast CPU and a good GPU but is kind of "naked" in all the other aspects.

I will try to bring it down to 2 or 3 laptops for the final choice... also, the (hopefilly soon-ish) start of beta will reveal better info about ps2's requirements. probably a good idea to wait for that before I purchase!

NumbaOneStunna · 2012-07-25, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by SlaughtrPope

Hmmm this gives me a lot to think about. You are right Goku, my budget is kind of flexible. (referring to the other thread)

Anyhow, I will probably include laptops with the 670M and even the 675M into my selection... for me, it's all about a well balanced deal:
if I spend that kind of money, the laptop has to come with SSD and Blu-Ray and it definately has to be a 17" display. I am not paying € 1300+ for a machine that has a fast CPU and a good GPU but is kind of "naked" in all the other aspects.

I will try to bring it down to 2 or 3 laptops for the final choice... also, the (hopefilly soon-ish) start of beta will reveal better info about ps2's requirements. probably a good idea to wait for that before I purchase!

You can always buy an SSD and BluRay drive at a later date, same with ram. On the other hand, its almost impossible to upgrade the GPU/CPU/Screen on most laptops.

I would rather get a laptop with the best GPU/CPU/Screen possible and then upgrade to an SSD/BluRay drive later when funds are available.

Most laptops only take a few screws to change the drives.

But to each his own.

Ailos · 2012-07-26, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by NumbaOneStunna

You can always buy an SSD and BluRay drive at a later date, same with ram. On the other hand, its almost impossible to upgrade the GPU/CPU/Screen on most laptops.

I would rather get a laptop with the best GPU/CPU/Screen possible and then upgrade to an SSD/BluRay drive later when funds are available.

Most laptops only take a few screws to change the drives.

But to each his own.

When it comes to tradeoffs, you're always better off sacrificin an SSD for a higher-end CPU/GPU combo. An SSD will not improve your framerates in any way; all it does is make things load faster.

Furthermore, SSDs prices are steadily going down, while the price for graphics muscle relative to the demand stays fairly constant, so it's more worthwhile to buy a more powerful GPU to enjoy games at higher settings than to buy a drive that enables to you have a shitty experience quicker.

This is doubly true for laptops, where once you buy a specific CPU/GPU you're pretty much stuck with that for the rest of the machine's useful lifetime. I mean, true, in a laptop situation, where you carry things, there are shocks and vibrations, an SSD is probably also more reliable, but modern HDDs aren't exactly pushovers either.

SlaughtrPope · 2012-07-27, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Ailos

When it comes to tradeoffs, you're always better off sacrificin an SSD for a higher-end CPU/GPU combo. An SSD will not improve your framerates in any way; all it does is make things load faster.

Furthermore, SSDs prices are steadily going down, while the price for graphics muscle relative to the demand stays fairly constant, so it's more worthwhile to buy a more powerful GPU to enjoy games at higher settings than to buy a drive that enables to you have a shitty experience quicker.

This is doubly true for laptops, where once you buy a specific CPU/GPU you're pretty much stuck with that for the rest of the machine's useful lifetime. I mean, true, in a laptop situation, where you carry things, there are shocks and vibrations, an SSD is probably also more reliable, but modern HDDs aren't exactly pushovers either.

well said. makes sense.

Well, I've been working some extra hours over the last 2 weeks (which is surprisingly diverting when you do it with a concrete goal in mind) to further broaden my budget.

Will probably bring it down to a final selection of 2/3 laptops until next week. If I am indecisive I will post them here to get your thoughts on them... but yeah, I will probably go for models with the 670M or 675M - thanks to you ppl's feedback!