Hardware New Laptop

[Originality]

US based company, acquired by Acer. Originally they copied Dell's business model by producing low-end technology for lower prices, then went from there. That's about all there is to say really.

Read reviews for more information on what their current products are like.

 

[KingVamp]

Came to my final decision. It is in your hands now.
http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/product/compare/compareproducts.jsp?_DARGS=/m/e/product/pdpcomparebutton.jsp

 

[Originality]

Dead link. It's back in your hands now

 

[Randamin]

The current offering on woot right now http://www.woot.com/...dge-15-6-laptop

I have to say the best buy options look better

 

[KingVamp]

Dead link. It's back in your hands now

Gees...

http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/product/detail.jsp?skuId=5015961&pid=1218608973713
http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/product/detail.jsp?skuId=5290622&pid=1218631400987
http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/product/detail.jsp?skuId=4857006&pid=1218554264942
http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/product/detail.jsp?skuId=5031031&pid=1218600485177

 

[Randamin]

While the third and fourth links point to what looks like the same laptop, the third link has an Intel graphics while the fourth has a AMD Radeon HD 6480
The second link to the HP can also be scratched out due to having Intel graphics

 

[Originality]

Personally, of the four, I like the first. It has an A6 APU, so the graphics will be better than Intel HD 3000. However I think the Core i3 is a bit stronger (not sure on this, too lazy to look up the benchmarks) when it comes to emulation.

EDIT: The fourth link has Intel HD graphics too, not HD 6480.
EDIT2: It's the third link that has a HD 6480G coupled with the A4 APU. The first link has a HD 6520G coupled with the A6 APU, so it's actually better.

 

[KingVamp]

Hmmm... Going to need Foxi4 and exangel
secondary advice. :/

Are there other factors? Heat output, battery life, um..., etc

 

[Originality]

In all 4 cases, heat output is strictly dependant on the CPU. How well the laptops cope with that heat depends on how HP and Toshiba have handled the cooling (heatsinks and fans). Battery life is mentioned in the specs, so if it matters to you (I always run off the wall since I have a tablet for light, portable usage) then you can compare yourself.

 

[Foxi4]

Okay, my opinion is:

1. I wouldn't go for an AMD CPU in a laptop. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I'd only consider the i3-equipped ones from the laptops you listed. As it was mentioned, Intel processors are the default choice for emulation. Emulation aside though, the CPU is not all that important in "gaming" nowadays, so games should work just fine.
2. The two i3-equipped choices have an Intel HD graphics chips though... which is... uhm... undesirable.
3. This basically means that none of the choices will support your needs 100% - you should look for a laptop equipped with an Intel processor and an NVidia GPU.

Out of the four laptops shown, my choice would be:

http://m.bestbuy.com...d=1218608973713

I'm not big on HP laptops, however if reviews online are favourable, the A6 Quad-Core processor and the Radeon graphics chip are a combo designed to work together, 4GB DDR3 RAM are more than enough, and there is a slot for expansion up to 8GB if you ever choose to upgrade. It's the best out of the lot.

Perhaps I'm unfair when it comes to Intel HD graphics but past experiences with them taught me that it's ATi/AMD, NVidia or nothing. The CPU is Quad-Core, which will make up for the differences in performance compared to an Intel CPU provided the emulator used will support a multicore setup.

It's a good choice. I'd carry on looking, but it's good. Now, your job is googling some results about this exact model to figure out whether it has some inheritent issues or not.

 

[Originality]

I'll summarise and correct Foxi's post:

For emulation, Intel CPUs are king and graphics don't matter. For normal gaming, graphics matter most and CPU not so much, so AMD APUs (A4 and A6) are better than Intel due to the integrated graphics being much stronger than Intel HD 3000 graphics.

And the correction: There is no "Radeon graphics chip" in the AMD APUs. As with the Intel HD 3000 graphics, it's integrated into the CPU die. That's why there's a G at the end of the model number (HD 6520G). Naturally they're much better for gaming than Intel due to being stronger and compatibility issues with Intel graphics drivers.

Getting nVidia graphics in a laptop with a low budget may prove difficult, and even then you'd probably only manage a GT 520M, which is only marginally better than Intel HD 3000.

 

[Foxi4]

I'll summarise and correct Foxi's post:

For emulation, Intel CPUs are king and graphics don't matter. For normal gaming, graphics matter most and CPU not so much, so AMD APUs (A4 and A6) are better than Intel due to the integrated graphics being much stronger than Intel HD 3000 graphics.

And the correction: There is no "Radeon graphics chip" in the AMD APUs. As with the Intel HD 3000 graphics, it's integrated into the CPU die. That's why there's a G at the end of the model number (HD 6520G). Naturally they're much better for gaming than Intel due to being stronger and compatibility issues with Intel graphics drivers.

Getting nVidia graphics in a laptop with a low budget may prove difficult, and even then you'd probably only manage a GT 520M, which is only marginally better than Intel HD 3000.

Pretty much what I wanted to say, thanks for the correction.

I bolded out the most important parts. I said "graphics chip" simply because in the case of AMD APU's it really doesn't make much of a difference - the Radeon has dedicated memory anyways. The only real difference is that it's on one die rather than two, which paradoxically may actually improve the communications between the two to some extent.

Also, not sure what are your experiences with 520M, but I own a laptop with one (Well, 520MX) and I gotta say, it's miles ahead of the Intel chip, not just "narrowly better", at least from experience rather than from benchmarks.

 

[KingVamp]

So, I'm stuck between normal gaming and emulation?
Well, I'll go towards the i3 intel 3000 for emulation then.
Is that Toshiba hd 3000? I'm not completely sure.

That knots it down to two laptops.

 

[Foxi4]

Remember that the HP I suggested is Quad-Core while the i3 is Dual-Core. Next generation gaming will slowly start relying more and more on multicore setups, I'd re-examine that choice, in my opinion, it's really ill-advised.

 

[KingVamp]

Remember that the HP I suggested is Quad-Core while the i3 is Dual-Core. Next generation gaming will slowly start relying more and more on multicore setups, I'd re-examine that choice, in my opinion, it's really ill-advised.

>: )

How do you think that non intel will run the ps2 emulator?
How bout ones under ps2 emulation?

 

[Foxi4]

Remember that the HP I suggested is Quad-Core while the i3 is Dual-Core. Next generation gaming will slowly start relying more and more on multicore setups, I'd re-examine that choice, in my opinion, it's really ill-advised.

>: )

How do you think that non intel will run the ps2 emulator?
How bout ones under ps2 emulation?

The fact that it's a Quad-Core more than makes up for the fact that it's not an Intel chip. I only mentioned Intel chips because they perform better on lower frequencies on a per-core basis - this one has twice the cores though. If the emulator will support a multicore setup, it will work far better than on an Intel one.

 

[KingVamp]

Well I thought I was getting a laptop today, but nope. Back to searching untilled Saturday. If you
find anything for me let me know.

 

[exangel]

I don't have much to add at the moment (although I wrote a lot after editing, it's just elaborating on the same thing) and I was too exhausted yesterday afternoon to check in..

My remark on PS2 emulation is that they are improving PCSX2's multi-core capabilities and game compatibility CONSTANTLY, so if PS2 emulation isn't the centerpoint of your computing/gaming on a low end machine, go with the AMD. Its possible that within a few months, contributors to the project will find a way to make the primary PS2 emulation plugin work better with AMD, or work better altogether. The main reason that low end AMD's suck so bad, at least in my knowledge regarding this particular emulator, is that they are not known to work with the better versions of this plugin, and Core series Intels can use all types (SSE 4.1 being the ideal, as it includes the most recent instruction sets).
I have one of the best AMD CPUs from 2011 in my desktop, which is a 6-core, but it only works using the basic version of that main plugin (SSE2). But also note, my ASUS AMD-Turion 64 x2 2.0GHz laptop from fall of 2007 was able to run KH & FFX at playable/realtime speed using that same plugin after some tweaking (I think frameskip was a big factor) at the lowest resolution. In fact, at least one of the screenshots on that guide toward the end (showing the opening sequence of FFX) were taken with that computer.
It sometimes looked crap on my laptop screen compared to the way the games looked on a tube TV with composite RCA video cables (video + l/r stereo audio). It takes so much horsepower to increase resolution and graphical effects to compensate for high pixel pitch on digital displays.

I think ,ultimately, that your performance on AMD with this emulator will depend on how much time you're willing to research games you have trouble with on the PCSX2 forums, and how much time you are willing to spend tweaking the emulator's settings.

The difference in emulation on PS2 may be quite noticeable at present, but there's plenty of other things the AMD A-series will do better than the i3 w/HD3000 graphics (which, although I did say was okay, just as Originality said, it's only okay for emulation; and for all other gaming purposes in the past couple generations of PC games, it's sub-par).

At the time of my post here, Best Buy's website is down and I can't look at any of the links. If I have time, I will return later to verify their recommendations.

edit: left out a detail i meant to touch on

 

[KingVamp]

I don't have much to add at the moment (although I wrote a lot after editing, it's just elaborating on the same thing) and I was too exhausted yesterday afternoon to check in..

My remark on PS2 emulation is that they are improving PCSX2's multi-core capabilities and game compatibility CONSTANTLY, so if PS2 emulation isn't the centerpoint of your computing/gaming on a low end machine, go with the AMD. Its possible that within a few months, contributors to the project will find a way to make the primary PS2 emulation plugin work better with AMD, or work better altogether. The main reason that low end AMD's suck so bad, at least in my knowledge regarding this particular emulator, is that they are not known to work with the better versions of this plugin, and Core series Intels can use all types (SSE 4.1 being the ideal, as it includes the most recent instruction sets).
I have one of the best AMD CPUs from 2011 in my desktop, which is a 6-core, but it only works using the basic version of that main plugin (SSE2). But also note, my ASUS AMD-Turion 64 x2 2.0GHz laptop from fall of 2007 was able to run KH & FFX at playable/realtime speed using that same plugin after some tweaking (I think frameskip was a big factor) at the lowest resolution. In fact, at least one of the screenshots on that guide toward the end (showing the opening sequence of FFX) were taken with that computer.
It sometimes looked crap on my laptop screen compared to the way the games looked on a tube TV with composite RCA video cables (video + l/r stereo audio). It takes so much horsepower to increase resolution and graphical effects to compensate for high pixel pitch on digital displays.

I think ,ultimately, that your performance on AMD with this emulator will depend on how much time you're willing to research games you have trouble with on the PCSX2 forums, and how much time you are willing to spend tweaking the emulator's settings.

The difference in emulation on PS2 may be quite noticeable at present, but there's plenty of other things the AMD A-series will do better than the i3 w/HD3000 graphics (which, although I did say was okay, just as Originality said, it's only okay for emulation; and for all other gaming purposes in the past couple generations of PC games, it's sub-par).

At the time of my post here, Best Buy's website is down and I can't look at any of the links. If I have time, I will return later to verify their recommendations.

The i3 w/hd3000 performs better in the other areas not gaming right? I think im willing to tweak. Can I get a, idk, a requirments or base to look for
with AMD. At least if I get a AMD lasting computer, I can replace the grapics card, right?
When you come back, these were the computers I was looking at before.
http://www.bestbuy.c...aptop&cp=1&lp=3
http://www.bestbuy.c...aptop&cp=1&lp=5
http://www.bestbuy.c...aptop&cp=1&lp=1
http://www.bestbuy.c...aptop&cp=1&lp=3

Haven't had a chnace to look any farther.

 

[Originality]

Again, it's a laptop and the graphics is located on the die of the CPU. Upgrading the graphics alone is just about impossible. You'd have to replace the entire CPU and that's assuming the cooling is capable of handling a stronger CPU and graphics core.

There are no graphics cards in laptops, so you can't upgrade.