Gaming Laptop Recommendation

[Tal]

I'm looking to buy a laptop as I begin to travel more for work. I need something that will pack a punch, but won't kill my budget. I'm interested in recommendations on processor (AMD vs Intel on the mobile line and 64-bit or not) as well as GPU recommendations. Would the Radeon 9700 mobility suffice? Do I need to check out the x800? 6600? 6800? Is a Pentium-M 1.8 or 2.0ghz going to be fast enough for gaming and still run VMware for some work related stuff? I would like to spend no more than $2000. Fire away, and THANKS!

EDIT: Almost bought the HP 8110US. Anyone have experience with that one? Or warning to stay away from it? Battery life? Warning on my health carrying a 10lb laptop?

 

[ssvegeta1010]

A Dothan-based processor would work well. Try the Dell Inspiron 9300. It comes with a X300 but can be upgraded to a 256MB Go 6800.

 

[Tal]

Doesn't look too bad! How about this one? http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16834115179

It's got an x700 and is a Pentium-M 1.86.

 

[manko]

What games do you play? If you want to play current and upcoming games, you should stick with the X700, Geforce 6600 or better (6800, X800).

If you're a gamer, I would only consider the 9700 or X600 if you're really trying to get the smallest, lightest machine possible and are willing to sacrifice gaming performance or if you're only playing older games.

Originally posted by: Tal
Doesn't look too bad! How about this one? http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16834115179

It's got an x700 and is a Pentium-M 1.86.

Yeah, that Acer is a good choice from what I've read. The Dell 9300 is the best bang-for-buck gaming machine and the 6800 outperforms the X700, but of course it's a 17."

I just picked up an XPS 2 myself and it's great. The Pentium-M 1.86 or 2.0 should be plenty fast enough for anything you'd want to do.

 

[imported_Kensai]

A Dothan and an x800 will the best for gaming. The Quadro model that Sager sells in their high end notebooks would be good for AutoCad.

 

[Mike01]

When someone says games, why do people always think first person shooters? Most games are not fps, and many gamers don't play fps.

Take a look at two laptops:

Dell 9300: 2.0Ghz Pentium M, 1GB of RAM, 80GB HD, DVD DL burner, GeForce 6800, widescreen, wireless. $2200 after dell coupons.

Gateway 7426GX: 2.4Ghz Athlon 64 3700, 1GB of RAM, 100GB HD, DVD DL burner, Radeon 9600, widescreen, wireless. $1400 at Best Buy.

For first person shooters, the dell will clearly outperform the gateway by a wide margin. In just about everything else, the Gateway will spank the Dell. Not by a lot, but spank it it will. The Athlon 64 3700 is probably the most powerfull mobile processor on the market. You can drop the price on that Dell by a couple of hundred dollars and settle for a 1.8Ghz Dothan, but that will only widen the performance gap.

So...if you're not a first person shooter junky...why spend $800 dollars more on a slower laptop that will give you more frames per second in Doom 3??

That said, the 9600 in that Gateway can play Half Life 2 at native screen resolution at over 40 frames per second average without antialiasing. It can play Doom 3 on medium quality with all effects except antialiasing at good frame rates...usually about 25 to 30 fps at 1024x768.

What this means is that the 9600 can handle modern games and future games for many years (though perhaps not future first person shooters), and the Athlon 64 3700 paired with a gig of RAM can handle future operating systems and applications for longer than the life expectancy of a laptop.

Unless first person shooters are what everyone plays, maybe laptop recommenders should consider machines with more going for them than the latest video card.

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: Mike01
When someone says games, why do people always think first person shooters? Most games are not fps, and many gamers don't play fps.
----------------------------------
Unless first person shooters are what everyone plays, maybe laptop recommenders should consider machines with more going for them than the latest video card.

Very insightful! I would like to be able to play a few FPS games, but am also looking to start playing GuildWars. Half-life 2 would be fun... Doom 3. NO. I would like the machine I get to be fast at other things too. I'm looking at running a Windows Server 2003 VMware image on it running Remedy server... Probably Dual-boot to Fedora Core 3 also. Or maybe a 64-bit version if I get an AMD.



How is the battery life for the Gateway? Or how would you expect battery life to be on this one: http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16834224016

It's a: ABS G3 A45 NoteBook Athlon 64 AMD3400+ 15.4" WXGA 1GB DDR400 100GB 5400rpm DVD Dual 108Mbps Turbo 802.11 g/b/a (Mini-PCI) WLAN ATI Mobility RADEON 9700

My only concern is whether 1280x800 is a large enough resolution.


I really appreciate all the input everyone! You're helping out a lot!!

 

[Mike01]

That's a nice machine....but the processor isn't as powerful. As for GPU, the 9700 isn't that much better than the 9600, and the 9600 in the gateway, which runs at 300MHz stock (that's why they call it a 9550) can run at just over 400MHz indefinitely (the 9700 is only minorly overclockable)...and the gateway is two hundred bucks cheaper. You can use that money to get Best Buy's 3 year service plan...they even give you new batteries when your's start falling off.

However, that ABS is a great laptop and more bang for your buck than the dell (unless you're a heavy fps player).

In any case, the battery life on both of them is just over 3 hours (I'm making an educated guess on the ABS) with all power saving features enabled, or just under two hours with CPU and GPU at full clock.

I use laptops a lot, and the only time I ever run them off of battery power (besides in the house when being lazy) is on airplanes, watching DVDs, and then all laptops, even Pentium Ms, get just over 2 hours (dvd drive spinning, sound working, etc.) or less, depending on screen brightness.

btw...I'd just like to add that Doom 3 is one of the best looking and most boring games I have ever played. How many near identical corridors can you go through, shooting the same stuff over and over??

Half Life 2, ont he other hand...now that's a game.

 

[Mike01]

My only concern is whether 1280x800 is a large enough resolution.

Large enough for what? It's a very large resolution...very crisp, very sharp.

From a gaming perspective, it's very hard to tell the difference between WXGA and WUXGA.

Games look best on LCD displays when run at native resolutions. That Dell, for instance, has a native resolution of about 1900x1200 (or something close)...to run say Half Life 2 at that resolution smoothly, you'd need an X800 or 6800 to get decent performance. Running it at a lower resolution will look much worse than a game running in native res on a 1280x800 (for which a 9600/9700 will more than suffice...since the higher resolution has twice as many pixels to process per frame).

There is also the issue of dead pixels. I've read in numerous places that Dell laptops almost always come with dead pixels. The more pixels you try to cram in a small space, the higher the chance some will be dead.

This is also why I would never buy a laptop through the mail. It took me three laptops to get one with no dead pixels...but that took about a half an hour at Best Buy without leaving the store.

If the same thing happened with Dell or any other mail retailer, it would have taken months to get a laptop with a perfect display.

Maybe dead pixels don't bother you...but they kill me...I can't stand them. It's a big issue for me.

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: Mike01

My only concern is whether 1280x800 is a large enough resolution.

Large enough for what? It's a very large resolution...very crisp, very sharp.

From a gaming perspective, it's very hard to tell the difference between WXGA and WUXGA.

Games look best on LCD displays when run at native resolutions. That Dell, for instance, has a native resolution of about 1900x1200 (or something close)...to run say Half Life 2 at that resolution smoothly, you'd need an X800 or 6800 to get decent performance. Running it at a lower resolution will look much worse than a game running in native res on a 1280x800 (for which a 9600/9700 will more than suffice...since the higher resolution has twice as many pixels to process per frame).

I've got two laptops now... a Dell c400 that does 1024x768 but has a 8-10 hour extended battery, and a c800 that does 1400x1050. I really like the higher res screen when I'm working with multiple windows. Games probably aren't as big of a deal on screen resolution for me.

There is also the issue of dead pixels. I've read in numerous places that Dell laptops almost always come with dead pixels. The more pixels you try to cram in a small space, the higher the chance some will be dead.

This is also why I would never buy a laptop through the mail. It took me three laptops to get one with no dead pixels...but that took about a half an hour at Best Buy without leaving the store.

If the same thing happened with Dell or any other mail retailer, it would have taken months to get a laptop with a perfect display.

Maybe dead pixels don't bother you...but they kill me...I can't stand them. It's a big issue for me.

They kill me too. I can't stand even one. That's why I've been thinking about checking out bestbuy. Newegg has a 7 or more dead pixel return policy.

 

[Mike01]

7?!?!?

You will almost never get 7 dead pixels...that's why that's the most common return policy.

The worst I've ever had was 3, towards the middle of the screen...drove me crazy for the day it took me to take it back to best buy (it was a 19" LCD).

Personally, I wouldn't care if a laptop had a GeForce 99000 Super Ultra and a 7GHz Athlon 128 processor...one dead pixel and I hate the damned thing and can't stand to look at it.

Maybe I'm nuts this way.


If you do go to best buy, get Dead Pixel Buddy and put it on a flash drive or a CD. When GeekSquad does their check, ask to see it and run DPB and look through all of the colors, carefully. Don't be shy about saying "this one has one dead pixel...I'm going to exchange it", then go right back to PC sales and tell them to get you another one.

Sometimes, that's what it takes. Also, contrary to popular belief, it's extremely rare for pixels to burn out unless you abuse the screen. Almost all dead pixels come that way from the factory. Sometimes it takes people months to notice them, that's why some believe they just appear out of the blue.

 

[Ethan2099]

Originally posted by: Mike01
When someone says games, why do people always think first person shooters? Most games are not fps, and many gamers don't play fps.


For first person shooters, the dell will clearly outperform the gateway by a wide margin. In just about everything else, the Gateway will spank the Dell. Not by a lot, but spank it it will.

And so what about more RTS games that are turning to 3d graphics? Last time i checked Age of Empires 3 wasn't a first person shooter but it's going to need some serious 3d hardware to look as pretty as those screenshots. I'm sure my Dell 9300 is going to run it better then your gateway, regardless of the cpu. 3d graphics aren't just for FPS's.

btw, Dell's policy is 6 or higher for dead pixels. there's my shameless plug for my company.

 

[Mike01]

Everyone's policy should be 1 dead pixel. There should be no excuse for dead pixels...a dead pixel is a major defect in a display...some people just can't live with them. 5 dead pixels, one shy of Dell's policy, is a nightmare...can you imagine five red or blue dots in the middle of your screen that never go away?? Hellish!

As for RTS....yes, they can be graphics intensive...but not nearly as much as a FPS. If a GPU can run Halflife 2 at 1280x800 with all high settings at 40 fps average (or 47 overclocked, based on Counter Strike Source video stress test, all high settings, no AA), then it can run any RTS game on the market with excellent framerates.

However...since you brought it up...RTS games are extremely CPU intensive...the more units you have at the same time, the more your CPU will bog down. The Athlon 64 3700 at 2.4GHz will do a better job of it than a 2GHz Pentium M, and a much better job of it than a 1.7 or 1.8Ghz (the most cost effective dell option) Pentium M.

I'm not knocking the Dell 9300...if you are majorly into FPS games, that's the best laptop you can get (except the XPS or whatever they call that thing). And, in all graphics intesnive games, the dell will give you much frames per second (though anything over 30 or 40 is lost to the eye). But for just about everything else, that Gateway is going to be just a little (or a lot ...depending on which CPU you get) faster.

 

[erwin1978]

How about the Acer Ferrari 3400. That's a beauty.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Wow, sorry I missed this thread!

First of all, I believe Tal was asking about the Acer 8103 above. We have one in the LaptopLogic labs right now and it is a pretty sweet little rig. We will have a full review posted in the next few coming weeks.
In regards to the dead pixel issue, Asus is now offering a NO DEAD PIXEL policy on a few of their models. I know the Asus V6V is one of them, maybe the W3V too. All the info on Asus you could ever want

Mike01 has made some excellent suggestions. The Gateway 7426 is without a doubt the best bang for the buck gaming laptop out there. The Radeon 9550 is sufficient for most games, provided you don't mind dropping the resolution. I have played games at the lower resolutions on my T42 since the native res is 1400x1050, and let me tell you its not that horrible. You absolutely don't want to look at text that way, but games you get used to. It is a laptop after all.

In regards to the higher resolution screen issue, it really is a personal preference. Mike01 says 1280x800 is plenty of resolution, but I disagree. I've got a Fujitsu N3510 (15.4" 1280x800), T42 (15" 1400x1050), and T43 (14" 1400x1050) on hand right now and I wouldn't want to use the N3510 permanently. The widescreen is nice for web pages and multiple windows open, but you have to do a lot of vertical scrolling. The best way to decide is to find a store has high resolution wide screen displays and see how it is for you. I can tell you if your eyesight is going, you probably won't want to go above SXGA+. UXGA will make you go blind if you already have eyesight issues

The X600 isn't a bad card at all. Check out the benchmarks on the Asus V6V at the site in my sig, it does decently. From what I can tell, the X600 is about the equivalent of the 9700, and the X700 = 9800. Roughly anyway. The Acer 8103 we have in our labs has the X700 and you'll see the benchies on it as soon we can get it posted.

I believe someone also mentioned that dropping from 2.0 to 1.8 on the P-M, and I have to say the performance decrease isn't a big deal. In my opinion, I wouldn't let the difference between a 1.8 & 2.0 decide a purchase. If anything, use it to save money.

Last note: If anything, skimp on the hard drive. Not too many machines come with 7200RPM drives (i.e. Gateway 7426) and that is the best money you can put in to increase your performance. We will have an "RPM" article (as we call it) that will give you a quantifiable idea of how much performance you really gain going from 4200RPM-->7200 or 5400-->7200. Also, if you're concerned about capacity, the Hitachi 60GB 7200RPM's are no longer the only high speed drives available, Seagate has launched their line of high capacity 7200RPM drives (80-100GB) and those should be available in May. Also, RAM is dirt cheap right now; so if you can, I would go down to 256MB on a model and add your own from there. 1GB of RAM will help gaming performance if your video card has less than 128MB RAM on it.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.
And great suggestions Mike01, welcome to AT!

 

[Mike01]

Thanks fbrdphreak.

All excellent points...except perhaps someone should mention that the faster harddrives use up a significant amount of battery power and cause increased heat, for a marginal overall performance gain.

About resolution...I'm a bit confused...are you advocating a non-widesccreen laptop display?

My gateway is my first long term experience with widescreen displays, and I find the resolution to be perfect. I work a lot with Photoshop and haven't come accross any problems. I mostly use a 19" LCD (deskto) that's 1280x1024, and I don't have any issues going from one to the other. I've seen high res widescreens, and everything is tiny...like you have to strain to see it or be real close to the screen.

I believe someone also mentioned that dropping from 2.0 to 1.8 on the P-M, and I have to say the performance decrease isn't a big deal. In my opinion, I wouldn't let the difference between a 1.8 & 2.0 decide a purchase. If anything, use it to save money.

This too is a matter of personal preference. The higher the clockspeed of your processor, the faster your ram works (read, write, allocate, etc.) If you're an overclocker, you can see that raising the CPU clock speed gives you a bigger increase in RAM performance than raising memory clock (at least in my experience - tests done with a P4). It really all depends on what you use the laptop for...if you do a lot of video editing, or other CPU intensive work, then a 2.0 is much better than a 1.8 (but the A64 3700 kicks butt! - shameless plug).

I know I must come accross as a 7426gx junkie, but I can't help it...I can't believe what you get for 1400 bucks!

 

[Tal]

I wish I could get one locally. I went and almost purchased the HP 8110US laptop yesterday. In fact, had CompUSA not been staffed with slow idiots, I would have purchased it. They just took too long and I got bored waiting. What kinda battery life would I get on that laptop (3.0 P4) and does anyone have insight or experience with that laptop?

 

[GimpyOne]

Originally posted by: Mike01

I use laptops a lot, and the only time I ever run them off of battery power (besides in the house when being lazy) is on airplanes, watching DVDs, and then all laptops, even Pentium Ms, get just over 2 hours (dvd drive spinning, sound working, etc.) or less, depending on screen brightness.

Not to nitpick too much, but I purchased a Dell 8600 with a Dothan 1.5 and a 9600pro128 card. I have been getting 4-6 hours when watching DVDs while traveling.(depending on screen brightness mostly) I usually get 2-3 if I'm gaming on the battery; in my case this is mostly things like EE or AoE type games.

Also, you commented about dead pixels, and mine came perfect. As has everyone elses here I've seen here at school, which is in the neighborhood of 40-50 right now.(the morons running the place signed an excusive purchase contract with dell)

 

[Mike01]

Not to nitpick too much, but I purchased a Dell 8600 with a Dothan 1.5 and a 9600pro128 card. I have been getting 4-6 hours when watching DVDs while traveling.(depending on screen brightness mostly) I usually get 2-3 if I'm gaming on the battery; in my case this is mostly things like EE or AoE type games.

4 - 6 hours of watching DVDs? That's amazing! How do you do that? The processor can't make that much of a difference for DVD watching, can it? What do you have your screen brightness set to?

I actually get about 3 hours with DVD watching after playing around with screen brightness...but 4 to 6 is amazing.

Also, you commented about dead pixels, and mine came perfect. As has everyone elses here I've seen here at school, which is in the neighborhood of 40-50 right now.(the morons running the place signed an excusive purchase contract with dell)

With all due respect...how thoroughly did you check?

Before I discovered dead pixel buddy, I used to miss them a lot. For example, I bought a 19" samsung LCD and thought it was perfect, then discovered 3 dead pixels a day later. Same thing on my first laptop (first gateway)...took me a week to find one. Once you see them, you can never unsee them...but they're hard to find. And, they almost never burn out...if you have a dead pixel, strong odds are it came that way.

Dead pixel buddy is a program that turns your screen a series of colors...first black, then white, then red, etc. What you do is, for each color, scan the screen carefully, under low external light conditions (so every detail of the screen is visible).

When I went back to Best Buy to return the monitor and laptop, I checked both replacements using DPB. The monitor was perfect (and still is), but the first two laptops they gave me had dead pixels. Finally, the third was perfect.

The point is...without being thorough and using DPB, I never would have caught the pixels in those two laptops...maybe not until it was too late.

A casual examination of your screen just doesn't cut it when trying to find these damned things.

 

[CptTripps]

Originally posted by: Mike01
That's a nice machine....but the processor isn't as powerful. As for GPU, the 9700 isn't that much better than the 9600, and the 9600 in the gateway, which runs at 300MHz stock (that's why they call it a 9550) can run at just over 400MHz indefinitely (the 9700 is only minorly overclockable)...and the gateway is two hundred bucks cheaper. You can use that money to get Best Buy's 3 year service plan...they even give you new batteries when your's start falling off.

However, that ABS is a great laptop and more bang for your buck than the dell (unless you're a heavy fps player).

In any case, the battery life on both of them is just over 3 hours (I'm making an educated guess on the ABS) with all power saving features enabled, or just under two hours with CPU and GPU at full clock.

I use laptops a lot, and the only time I ever run them off of battery power (besides in the house when being lazy) is on airplanes, watching DVDs, and then all laptops, even Pentium Ms, get just over 2 hours (dvd drive spinning, sound working, etc.) or less, depending on screen brightness.

btw...I'd just like to add that Doom 3 is one of the best looking and most boring games I have ever played. How many near identical corridors can you go through, shooting the same stuff over and over??

Half Life 2, ont he other hand...now that's a game.

I have owned and 8100, 8200, 9100 and now the XPS2. Not a one had a dead pixel nor did one ever die. I'm not saying you didn't read that, but all my laptops have kicked ass. BTW, with the WUXGA on the XPS2, I can dumb down to 1600x1050, 1440x900, or 1280x800 and the interpolation is quite unoticable. Just food for thought.

 

[uOpt]

I would go with an Asus Z71V.

However, while it has a GeForce Go 6x00 chip (good), it only has a low clocked 6600 (not so good). It is still a great chip but not in the same league as the full-clock 6800 in the Inspiron 9300. The 9300 is a monster, though, I would use that as a travel doomstation. The Asus also has some serious battery life, the 9300 about half as much.

Overall the Z71V seems to be great, people on other forums really like it. Just make sure the graphics are fast enough. They certainly beat a 9600 or 9700 speed-wise, not to speak of drivers.

 

[Mike01]

Dead pixels are supposed to be uncommon, but that hasn't been my experience. I'm not saying that's the definitive answer on the subject...just my own experience.

Besides...it's not a Dell issue....it's not like Dell makes their own panels. It's a problem with all LCD displays.

BTW, with the WUXGA on the XPS2, I can dumb down to 1600x1050, 1440x900, or 1280x800 and the interpolation is quite unoticable. Just food for thought.

I used to think that when playing Doom 3 on my desktop...I had to play it in 1152x864 to get good frame rates in high quality. I got bored of the game, but a couple of months later when I got a new video card I loaded it up again. Looked fine, played great. Then I remembered it wasn't in native resolution, and switched it. Wow...what a difference...everything sharper, crisper, etc. Switching from 1152x864 to 1280x1024 on a CRT you wouldn't see much of a difference, if you saw one at all...but the native res thing on an LCD is a big deal. But then, I guess not everyone is as picky.

 

[CptTripps]

Nah, I'm pretty picky actually, I'm just saying the interpolation is very minimal on the WUXGA Truelife screens, it handles it really really well and just plain looks good, I own one and will vouch for it. On the other hand my desktop LCD is 1280x1024 native and I indeed notice the difference on that screen when running anything but native resolution.

P.S. Even on a CRT 1280x1024 vs 1152x864 is quite noticable imo.

 

[Mike01]

While it is true that some LCDs interpolate better than others, it is an undeniable fact that native resolution on an LCD screen is significantly higher quality than any interpolated resoltion, even on the best unit. The pixels on an LCD screen are fixed...there isn't much you can do to make interpolation better.

It may look good...but it doesn't look as good as native. And with a native resolution that high, the only games that will look their best will be 3D games, and then you'd better enjoy playing them while you can...the GeForce 6800 isn't going to be able to do 1900x1200 (or whatever it is) at decent framerates for very long. Hell...I don't even know if it can do it now!

However, if iterpolated is good enough for you...that's cool. We just have different standards. It may be a character flaw, but I can't stand looking at something that's not the full capability of the hardware I'm using...in other words, knowing how much better native resolution looks, I can't stand to look at interpolated. When I was looking at ordering the Dell, the higher res screen was never a consideration.

 

[Tal]

Well. Thanks for all the input guys! I said the hell with Batteyr life and Bought an HP d8120US from Sam's Club. I'm loving it. $1598 + sale tax for me. Very heavy, and very fast. Seems like it will be a runner for me. Only complaint is the power brick. HUGE. HEAVY! But, if I can get the performance I want, it's worth it I guess. I may change my mind after I start the new travel job.