- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,716
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 35
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- metalix.deviantart.com
- XP
- 1,904
- Country
There's a surprising level of misinformation here. Firstly, it's wrong to assume laptops are bad for gaming by default. I've seen a number of laptops that outperform many computers in games, but mainly it's important to consider the parts that make up the laptop/computer.
Firstly, the CPU. AMD Athlon Dual Core, 2Ghz. This is like the staple of cheap but efficient processors. It will have no trouble handling any non-intensive applications like office, music, and standard definition video (though that also depends on the graphics). When it comes to more intensive usage (like compressing/extracting, encoding/decoding, etc) or even moderate gaming, you'll find that AMD (except the more expensive ones) tend to under perform by up to 40% compared to equivalent Intel chips.
Secondly, the graphics. ATI HD 4200. Let's break down that number - HD4 series (designed for DX10), 200 model (i.e the lowest of the HD4 range). This is a very low power discreet graphics card. It will perform better than many Intel UMD and GMA integrated graphics, but it will certainly not be able to handle CRYSIS or any game that uses a significant level of 3D. Case in point, it'll struggle playing Team Fortress 2 in medium graphics, and even in lowest settings it will still feel choppy and sluggish at times. Don't expect to hit 50+ framerates in 3D games with it.
Thirdly (and not as importantly), RAM. DDR2 RAM, whilst good enough for that laptop, will not help it handle games that well. 4GB is a good amount, meaning that windows won't slow it down, but when it comes to high end games, you need the edge that DDR3 gives because data needs to travel quickly in more modern systems.
I won't bother going into detail about the rest of the laptop. In general, laptops aren't as great gaming machines as desktops because they tend to use cheaper parts (and mobile, low voltage versions of the same parts) in the name of shaving costs and making sure it doesn't burn up like calories in a gym. However, performance in either is directly linked to the money put into them.
If you want a decent gaming laptop, try to get one with a Core i series CPU, such as Core i3 or Core i5. They're 35-59% faster than Core 2 equivolents, according to stats I saw in PC World the other day, but generally they make for fast machines. The graphics is also important, so if you're getting ATI, look for HD 4600 or higher, or HD 5400 or higher. Never accept a HD x200. As for Nvidia, it's a lil more difficult. Geforce 8600s are infamous for dying (although I've got one on my media laptop that runs happily), but 9600 or 9800 used to be loved by gamers a couple years ago. These days it's either GTX 210, 310 or 330. The only difference between 310 and 330 is double the RAM, but that really does make a difference in the feel of games where lots of textures are used.
If that's too difficult to remember, go to a shop and try pressing window+pause (look in the top right corner of the keyboard) to bring up the system properties. It'll usually let you click the windows performance ratings so you can see how well the laptop fares in each of the key areas - CPU, RAM, HDD, Aero (windows) and Gaming. For example, the Acer Aspire 5740 my dad just got scores 6.7 in CPU (Core i5), 5.5 in RAM (3GB of DDR3), 3.9 in Aero and 5.0 in Gaming (integrated graphics - good for battery life, bad for games). In comparison, my media laptop scores 5.7 in Gaming (GeForce 8600M) and it can happily play Left 4 Dead in medium graphics at 40 fps.
EDIT: Just to throw in an example of a good gaming laptop, look for the Acer Aspire 5942 (15") or 8942 (18") series laptops. They both have either i3, i5 or i7 (with rising prices for each) but they both have very good graphics cards (HD5650 or HD5850). I love them to bits (because of the media bar on the side) but the problem with them is the price, going from £750 to £1400 for the best configuration possible with them. Then again, considering that for £1400, you get 18.4" screen, Core i7, HD 5850 (the only better gfx cards are 5870 and 5970, which is a dual core 5870) and BluRay, it's not surprising that it's a lil dire. Still better than Dell XPSs that I've seen...
Firstly, the CPU. AMD Athlon Dual Core, 2Ghz. This is like the staple of cheap but efficient processors. It will have no trouble handling any non-intensive applications like office, music, and standard definition video (though that also depends on the graphics). When it comes to more intensive usage (like compressing/extracting, encoding/decoding, etc) or even moderate gaming, you'll find that AMD (except the more expensive ones) tend to under perform by up to 40% compared to equivalent Intel chips.
Secondly, the graphics. ATI HD 4200. Let's break down that number - HD4 series (designed for DX10), 200 model (i.e the lowest of the HD4 range). This is a very low power discreet graphics card. It will perform better than many Intel UMD and GMA integrated graphics, but it will certainly not be able to handle CRYSIS or any game that uses a significant level of 3D. Case in point, it'll struggle playing Team Fortress 2 in medium graphics, and even in lowest settings it will still feel choppy and sluggish at times. Don't expect to hit 50+ framerates in 3D games with it.
Thirdly (and not as importantly), RAM. DDR2 RAM, whilst good enough for that laptop, will not help it handle games that well. 4GB is a good amount, meaning that windows won't slow it down, but when it comes to high end games, you need the edge that DDR3 gives because data needs to travel quickly in more modern systems.
I won't bother going into detail about the rest of the laptop. In general, laptops aren't as great gaming machines as desktops because they tend to use cheaper parts (and mobile, low voltage versions of the same parts) in the name of shaving costs and making sure it doesn't burn up like calories in a gym. However, performance in either is directly linked to the money put into them.
If you want a decent gaming laptop, try to get one with a Core i series CPU, such as Core i3 or Core i5. They're 35-59% faster than Core 2 equivolents, according to stats I saw in PC World the other day, but generally they make for fast machines. The graphics is also important, so if you're getting ATI, look for HD 4600 or higher, or HD 5400 or higher. Never accept a HD x200. As for Nvidia, it's a lil more difficult. Geforce 8600s are infamous for dying (although I've got one on my media laptop that runs happily), but 9600 or 9800 used to be loved by gamers a couple years ago. These days it's either GTX 210, 310 or 330. The only difference between 310 and 330 is double the RAM, but that really does make a difference in the feel of games where lots of textures are used.
If that's too difficult to remember, go to a shop and try pressing window+pause (look in the top right corner of the keyboard) to bring up the system properties. It'll usually let you click the windows performance ratings so you can see how well the laptop fares in each of the key areas - CPU, RAM, HDD, Aero (windows) and Gaming. For example, the Acer Aspire 5740 my dad just got scores 6.7 in CPU (Core i5), 5.5 in RAM (3GB of DDR3), 3.9 in Aero and 5.0 in Gaming (integrated graphics - good for battery life, bad for games). In comparison, my media laptop scores 5.7 in Gaming (GeForce 8600M) and it can happily play Left 4 Dead in medium graphics at 40 fps.
EDIT: Just to throw in an example of a good gaming laptop, look for the Acer Aspire 5942 (15") or 8942 (18") series laptops. They both have either i3, i5 or i7 (with rising prices for each) but they both have very good graphics cards (HD5650 or HD5850). I love them to bits (because of the media bar on the side) but the problem with them is the price, going from £750 to £1400 for the best configuration possible with them. Then again, considering that for £1400, you get 18.4" screen, Core i7, HD 5850 (the only better gfx cards are 5870 and 5970, which is a dual core 5870) and BluRay, it's not surprising that it's a lil dire. Still better than Dell XPSs that I've seen...
