Best gaming laptop for under 600$

[HAMMAD1900]

My question is fairly simple can someone plz suggest me a good gaming laptop for 600$...with the best fps for games....
Thanks!

 

[IInuyasha74]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

 

[iculus]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

Can we revive this topic since the system you posted is no longer in stock at newegg. Additionally, is there a 17" version? I guess the question would be "What is the best 17" screen gaming laptop for under 600 dollars?"

Lord of the Rings Online is my favorite flavor.

 

[whyso]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

Edit: Removed because incorrect.

 

[IInuyasha74]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

Why on earth would you buy that turd?

First, if you want graphics you need an 10. 384 shader cores vs 256 in the A8.

Second, that will be a lot slower than HD 4600 and HD 4000 even. Even the a10-4600m generally loses to the HD 4600 now with intel's updated drivers. a10-4600m is on par to slightly ahead of the HD 4000. a10-5750m is slightly ahead of the HD 4600.

At $600 you should have no problem finding an a10 based laptop.

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312829

$550

Edit: its not 17"

Please actually know what you are saying before you say it. That laptop has a dedicated Radeon HD 8750GPU with 2GB GDDR5.

As for your second point, the HD 4000 graphics are vastly weaker than the A8 or A10 integrated graphics. Maybe the 4400 graphics can beat the A8's graphics but that doesn't really say much.

That simple fact is that Intel graphics do not compare to AMD's even in a dedicated capacity.

As for the laptop you linked, its more expensive for a 10% boost in CPU power, but you literally get like half of the GPU power if that.

Do not listen to "whyso". Based on these comments I feel very worried about those he helped in order to get that laptop expert badge.

 

[whyso]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

Why on earth would you buy that turd?

First, if you want graphics you need an 10. 384 shader cores vs 256 in the A8.

Second, that will be a lot slower than HD 4600 and HD 4000 even. Even the a10-4600m generally loses to the HD 4600 now with intel's updated drivers. a10-4600m is on par to slightly ahead of the HD 4000. a10-5750m is slightly ahead of the HD 4600.

At $600 you should have no problem finding an a10 based laptop.

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312829

$550

Edit: its not 17"

Please actually know what you are saying before you say it. That laptop has a dedicated Radeon HD 8750GPU with 2GB GDDR5.

As for your second point, the HD 4000 graphics are vastly weaker than the A8 or A10 integrated graphics. Maybe the 4400 graphics can beat the A8's graphics but that doesn't really say much.

That simple fact is that Intel graphics do not compare to AMD's even in a dedicated capacity.

As for the laptop you linked, its more expensive for a 10% boost in CPU power, but you literally get like half of the GPU power if that.

Do not listen to "whyso". Based on these comments I feel very worried about those he helped in order to get that laptop expert badge.

Sorry, did not see that dgpu. I apologize.

But HD 4000 is very close to if not outright better than a10.

Looking at a couple games.
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-Benchmarked.105693.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Batman-Arkham-Origins-Benchmarked.105492.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Battlefield-4-Benchmarked.105583.0.html

HD 4600 is better and HD 4000 is comparable (HD 4400 is weaker as it is the ULV gpu). You can look up other benchmarks too. Intel has largely made up ground from release with better drivers. Look at the toms DOTA, LOL, and neverwinter knights reivew also to see the HD 4000 vs 10-4600m. Again, comparable performance.

That's not to say that HD 4000/ 4600 is good, its not but intel isn't as much of a joke now as several years ago.

 

[IInuyasha74]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

Why on earth would you buy that turd?

First, if you want graphics you need an 10. 384 shader cores vs 256 in the A8.

Second, that will be a lot slower than HD 4600 and HD 4000 even. Even the a10-4600m generally loses to the HD 4600 now with intel's updated drivers. a10-4600m is on par to slightly ahead of the HD 4000. a10-5750m is slightly ahead of the HD 4600.

At $600 you should have no problem finding an a10 based laptop.

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312829

$550

Edit: its not 17"

Please actually know what you are saying before you say it. That laptop has a dedicated Radeon HD 8750GPU with 2GB GDDR5.

As for your second point, the HD 4000 graphics are vastly weaker than the A8 or A10 integrated graphics. Maybe the 4400 graphics can beat the A8's graphics but that doesn't really say much.

That simple fact is that Intel graphics do not compare to AMD's even in a dedicated capacity.

As for the laptop you linked, its more expensive for a 10% boost in CPU power, but you literally get like half of the GPU power if that.

Do not listen to "whyso". Based on these comments I feel very worried about those he helped in order to get that laptop expert badge.

Sorry, did not see that dgpu. I apologize.

But HD 4000 is very close to if not outright better than a10.

Looking at a couple games.
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-Benchmarked.105693.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Batman-Arkham-Origins-Benchmarked.105492.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Battlefield-4-Benchmarked.105583.0.html

HD 4600 is better and HD 4000 is comparable (HD 4400 is weaker as it is the ULV gpu). You can look up other benchmarks too. Intel has largely made up ground from release with better drivers. Look at the toms DOTA, LOL, and neverwinter knights reivew also to see the HD 4000 vs 10-4600m. Again, comparable performance.

That's not to say that HD 4000/ 4600 is good, its not but intel isn't as much of a joke now as several years ago.

I went and took a better look at the benchmarks from the GPUs, with the 7570M standing in for the a8's integrated GPU, because they are expected to perform similar and the a8's GPU has no good benchmarks.

http/www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7570M.70631.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-8650G.87916.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html

From this, it was easy to see that the Intel HD 4000 is only a small step behind the a8's GPU. The a10 has a considerable lead even comparing the best Intel HD 4000 score on medium gives the a10 a 38% higher performance score. The a8 scores a 24% boost on medium settings over the Intel HD 4000. I do not think this is with the latest driver updates however, so I think the numbers are a little askew. So I would believe up to a 10% variance in these numbers.

As for the 4600, it seems to compare about equal with the a10. In several benchmarks. I know Intel has made ground up with drivers, which is really astonishing how much they have improved with them, but the a10 is still better.

All this said, I know Intel still has some decent graphis with super low power use and can actually do a decent job.

I am sorry for my earlier comment, I was answering a little brash.

 

[whyso]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

Why on earth would you buy that turd?

First, if you want graphics you need an 10. 384 shader cores vs 256 in the A8.

Second, that will be a lot slower than HD 4600 and HD 4000 even. Even the a10-4600m generally loses to the HD 4600 now with intel's updated drivers. a10-4600m is on par to slightly ahead of the HD 4000. a10-5750m is slightly ahead of the HD 4600.

At $600 you should have no problem finding an a10 based laptop.

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312829

$550

Edit: its not 17"

Please actually know what you are saying before you say it. That laptop has a dedicated Radeon HD 8750GPU with 2GB GDDR5.

As for your second point, the HD 4000 graphics are vastly weaker than the A8 or A10 integrated graphics. Maybe the 4400 graphics can beat the A8's graphics but that doesn't really say much.

That simple fact is that Intel graphics do not compare to AMD's even in a dedicated capacity.

As for the laptop you linked, its more expensive for a 10% boost in CPU power, but you literally get like half of the GPU power if that.

Do not listen to "whyso". Based on these comments I feel very worried about those he helped in order to get that laptop expert badge.

Sorry, did not see that dgpu. I apologize.

But HD 4000 is very close to if not outright better than a10.

Looking at a couple games.
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-Benchmarked.105693.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Batman-Arkham-Origins-Benchmarked.105492.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Battlefield-4-Benchmarked.105583.0.html

HD 4600 is better and HD 4000 is comparable (HD 4400 is weaker as it is the ULV gpu). You can look up other benchmarks too. Intel has largely made up ground from release with better drivers. Look at the toms DOTA, LOL, and neverwinter knights reivew also to see the HD 4000 vs 10-4600m. Again, comparable performance.

That's not to say that HD 4000/ 4600 is good, its not but intel isn't as much of a joke now as several years ago.

I went and took a better look at the benchmarks from the GPUs, with the 7570M standing in for the a8's integrated GPU, because they are expected to perform similar and the a8's GPU has no good benchmarks.

http/www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7570M.70631.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-8650G.87916.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html

From this, it was easy to see that the Intel HD 4000 is only a small step behind the a8's GPU. The a10 has a considerable lead even comparing the best Intel HD 4000 score on medium gives the a10 a 38% higher performance score. The a8 scores a 24% boost on medium settings over the Intel HD 4000. I do not think this is with the latest driver updates however, so I think the numbers are a little askew. So I would believe up to a 10% variance in these numbers.

As for the 4600, it seems to compare about equal with the a10. In several benchmarks. I know Intel has made ground up with drivers, which is really astonishing how much they have improved with them, but the a10 is still better.

All this said, I know Intel still has some decent graphis with super low power use and can actually do a decent job.

I am sorry for my earlier comment, I was answering a little brash.

The problem with synthetic benchmarks is that they do not seem to be accurate at all with IGPs.

AMD tends to do well because the GPU can full turbo which it can't in games (it does better than a 630m which it almost never outperforms in games). HD 4000 performs very poorly in synthetics while HD 4600/Iris performs better than one would expect (beating out the 650m in the AT review while consistently losing in games). HD 4600 gets 1000+ 3dmark 11 while HD 4000 was around 650. Gaming performance did not improve that much.

Also remember that notebookcheck has all the ULV chips (actually primarily ULV) which perform quite a bit worse than SV 35W parts in their HD 4000 numbers.

In general intel performs very good on the CPU okay on the gpu. Amd performs mediocre on the GPU and pretty decent on the GPU (a10-5750m is quite a bit better than the a10-4600m). Intel tends to be expensive and turbo can suck tons of power. Neither has particularly good drivers and updates down the road may be problematic. If you can get a 640/740m/87xx series dgpu that would be preferable.

 

[IInuyasha74]

Without any doubt this one is.
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314119&RandomID=730312411219615120130819151013

You may want to add an extra 8GB of RAM for $60 but either way this is the all around best laptop for gaming under $600

Why on earth would you buy that turd?

First, if you want graphics you need an 10. 384 shader cores vs 256 in the A8.

Second, that will be a lot slower than HD 4600 and HD 4000 even. Even the a10-4600m generally loses to the HD 4600 now with intel's updated drivers. a10-4600m is on par to slightly ahead of the HD 4000. a10-5750m is slightly ahead of the HD 4600.

At $600 you should have no problem finding an a10 based laptop.

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312829

$550

Edit: its not 17"

Please actually know what you are saying before you say it. That laptop has a dedicated Radeon HD 8750GPU with 2GB GDDR5.

As for your second point, the HD 4000 graphics are vastly weaker than the A8 or A10 integrated graphics. Maybe the 4400 graphics can beat the A8's graphics but that doesn't really say much.

That simple fact is that Intel graphics do not compare to AMD's even in a dedicated capacity.

As for the laptop you linked, its more expensive for a 10% boost in CPU power, but you literally get like half of the GPU power if that.

Do not listen to "whyso". Based on these comments I feel very worried about those he helped in order to get that laptop expert badge.

Sorry, did not see that dgpu. I apologize.

But HD 4000 is very close to if not outright better than a10.

Looking at a couple games.
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-Benchmarked.105693.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Batman-Arkham-Origins-Benchmarked.105492.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Battlefield-4-Benchmarked.105583.0.html

HD 4600 is better and HD 4000 is comparable (HD 4400 is weaker as it is the ULV gpu). You can look up other benchmarks too. Intel has largely made up ground from release with better drivers. Look at the toms DOTA, LOL, and neverwinter knights reivew also to see the HD 4000 vs 10-4600m. Again, comparable performance.

That's not to say that HD 4000/ 4600 is good, its not but intel isn't as much of a joke now as several years ago.

I went and took a better look at the benchmarks from the GPUs, with the 7570M standing in for the a8's integrated GPU, because they are expected to perform similar and the a8's GPU has no good benchmarks.

http/www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7570M.70631.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-8650G.87916.0.html
http/www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html

From this, it was easy to see that the Intel HD 4000 is only a small step behind the a8's GPU. The a10 has a considerable lead even comparing the best Intel HD 4000 score on medium gives the a10 a 38% higher performance score. The a8 scores a 24% boost on medium settings over the Intel HD 4000. I do not think this is with the latest driver updates however, so I think the numbers are a little askew. So I would believe up to a 10% variance in these numbers.

As for the 4600, it seems to compare about equal with the a10. In several benchmarks. I know Intel has made ground up with drivers, which is really astonishing how much they have improved with them, but the a10 is still better.

All this said, I know Intel still has some decent graphis with super low power use and can actually do a decent job.

I am sorry for my earlier comment, I was answering a little brash.

The problem with synthetic benchmarks is that they do not seem to be accurate at all with IGPs.

AMD tends to do well because the GPU can full turbo which it can't in games (it does better than a 630m which it almost never outperforms in games). HD 4000 performs very poorly in synthetics while HD 4600/Iris performs better than one would expect (beating out the 650m in the AT review while consistently losing in games). HD 4600 gets 1000+ 3dmark 11 while HD 4000 was around 650. Gaming performance did not improve that much.

Also remember that notebookcheck has all the ULV chips (actually primarily ULV) which perform quite a bit worse than SV 35W parts in their HD 4000 numbers.

In general intel performs very good on the CPU okay on the gpu. Amd performs mediocre on the GPU and pretty decent on the GPU (a10-5750m is quite a bit better than the a10-4600m). Intel tends to be expensive and turbo can suck tons of power. Neither has particularly good drivers and updates down the road may be problematic. If you can get a 640/740m/87xx series dgpu that would be preferable.

Yea that is a bit of a problem with synthetics, which is why I am basing the comparison of the GPUs completely off of how well they performed in games in terms of FPS. Mostly looking at Bioshock Infinity, but also others you see the percentage of difference I said before.

I know they have various models and frequencies of the cards, but AMD doesn't vary between models on their laptops, and for Intel I only used the absolute highest FPS listed it was able to achieve.

It would be better if the new person asking can get a better GPU than integrated, but for the laptop I suggested much earlier with the dedicated 8750, it should perform almost identical to a desktop 7730, and thus should give great performance for a laptop. CPU will be a little mid range, but the graphics should be pretty great.

 

[whyso]

[snip]

Agree (sorry that I forgot the dgpu in newegg lappy- it wasn't in the heading, it was underneath and I didn't see). The 8750m is pretty good, especially if you can get it with GDDR5; solid competitor to the 640m/650m/740m type cards. (And unfortunately nvidia, shame on you, you replaced your very nice 128 bit 650m GDDR5 with the GK208 chip with only a 64 bit bus and many OEMs are using DDR3 resulting in minimal bandwidth. Amd mars (the 384 core chip) also has a number of SKUs with only a 64 bit bus).

However, having owned both a nvidia solution and an amd notebook (7730m and 660m) I can say that the nvidia drivers are better (+ optimus vs enduro). Still can't get tomb raider to work on the 7730m (its a dell and dell has locked down drivers which is a major problem). If they are the same price a model with a 740m/640m will be preferable but nvidia tends to be more expensive.

 

[IInuyasha74]

[snip]

Agree (sorry that I forgot the dgpu in newegg lappy- it wasn't in the heading, it was underneath and I didn't see). The 8750m is pretty good, especially if you can get it with GDDR5; solid competitor to the 640m/650m/740m type cards. (And unfortunately nvidia, shame on you, you replaced your very nice 128 bit 650m GDDR5 with the GK208 chip with only a 64 bit bus and many OEMs are using DDR3 resulting in minimal bandwidth. Amd mars (the 384 core chip) also has a number of SKUs with only a 64 bit bus).

However, having owned both a nvidia solution and an amd notebook (7730m and 660m) I can say that the nvidia drivers are better (+ optimus vs enduro). Still can't get tomb raider to work on the 7730m (its a dell and dell has locked down drivers which is a major problem). If they are the same price a model with a 740m/640m will be preferable but nvidia tends to be more expensive.

Yea its a very good mobile piece. I had considered to buy one, but was lacking financially so I got a cheaper system.

I agree so strongly with your comments about Nvidia its not even funny. Honestly, I have like 3 reasons why I like AMD better than Nvidia, and one of them is that Nvidia always makes me feel that my system is being held back so much because of bandwidth limitations. For example, my Nvidia 620M is the same exact chip as the 640M. Except they decided to cheap out and not put two 64-bit memory chips in to add up to 128-bit. So my system uses like literally the same amount of power but performs much worse because of bandwidth limitations.

They shouldn't allow companies to cheap out with their graphics like that. AMD seems to more appropriately give out bandwidth. 128-bit seems pretty good and they put it on everything below the 7790 except maybe the 7730, which I am not sure about. I haven't seen any with 64-bit for the 384-bit cards but I would see it as possible.

the 8750M and 640M should be fairly close. A 740M would be better, but Nvidia does tend to cost a bit more, and the 740M has both a 128-bit and a 64-bit varient and if you get the 64-bit you would be hurting. For that reason I would look closer at 640M's.
Nvidia's drivers to install a lot easier, but there are trade-offs. I love AMD Overdrive, but on a laptop its not so important. Thats the only big advantage AMD Driver's have, so Nvidia sometimes is better for the mobile platforms.

 

[iculus]

Trusted advisors -

Please advise on thoughts/suggestions for this solution

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834231381

 

[IInuyasha74]

Trusted advisors -

Please advise on thoughts/suggestions for this solution

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834231381

Given the specs its certainly not bad. I cannot tell for sure if its the absolute best buy at that price, but it is still good I would think. The graphics card has a few different types it could be, but all of them are pretty good midrange graphics for a laptop.

 

[whyso]

Trusted advisors -

Please advise on thoughts/suggestions for this solution

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834231381

The 635m is a fermi card and thus pretty weak and power hungry. The 8750m is going to be much faster.

Even the fastest 635m model tops out at ~1300 3dmark 11 points. The 8750m is around 1800-1900 points.

 

[IInuyasha74]

I agree the 8750m will probably do better but the other is still not bad.
Found a good laptop very similar to the one I posted originally in this thread since Newegg doesn't carry it anymore. http/www.amazon.com/Acer-Aspire-V5-552G-X414-15-6-inch-Laptop/dp/B00DKFFLMY/ref=pd_sim_sbs_pc_1

Same laptop pretty much but with faster A10 CPU.

Or there is this cheap little beast but with a larger price jump.
http/www.gaminglaptopsjunky.com/eurocom-shark-2-0-15-6-gaming-laptop-i5-4200m-cpu-gtx-765m-gpu-8gb-ddr3-matte-1080p-screen-for-680/

 

[iculus]

Very appealing. Thank You.

I love both the options you recommended. I'm still very drawn to the newegg variant because I have a 50 dollar credit and there is also the 20 dollar off promo code. My favorite game to play is an MMO called Lord of the Rings Online. It's comparable to WOW. Plus it is 17". I'm very conflicted. I struggle understanding the benchmarks between the different graphic cards so I'm hoping someone can clarify what a 3dmark 11 point means and dumb it down for me a bit.

 

[IInuyasha74]

I'll let my friend over there take this one.
Honestly with either system you should be able to play those games without much issue though. We are more pointing out which is best for the longest time.