Choosing a computer

[flyinghobo888]

Hi guys,

I am in the market for a new computer, and have 3 general starting idea's, of computers I am looking for. I am primarily a gamer so that is generally what I will be using it for. My price range is 800$ and lower. Here are the 3, this is just after a brief period of searching. I am hopefully trying to find a medium between ultra expensive and fast running. I honestly don't care about running the highest graphics setting I care about being able to run games at a decent speed without lag. So here are the 3 choices, if you have any better ideas please post them.

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834214870

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215410

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215404

 

[flyinghobo888]

Bump

 

[edit1754]

They all have quite poor displays: 15.6" 1366x768 and 17.3" 1600x900. Such displays make things onscreen large, and tend to have very poor image quality due to low contrast. It is a good idea to avoid this type of display when you can, unless you need large text for eyesight.

This has the best GPU and best display available within your budget:

HP DV6t (i3-3110M, NVIDIA GT 650M, 15.6" 1920x1080 matte IPS display) - $724 + tax ($769 + tax w/ i5-3210M)
- http/www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/load_configuration.do?destination=review&config_id=7367534
- Use coupon code: NBY8552
- Don't: Downgrade to the 1366x768 display, unless you need the large text. You generally shouldn't buy the HP DV6 in any configuration that includes the 1366x768 display. 15.6" 1366x768 displays make things onscreen large, and tend to be low-tier LCD panels with very poor image quality due to low contrast.
- Don't: Downgrade the GPU to the GT 630M unless you only plan on doing light / moderate gaming. The GT 650M is considerably faster.
- Don't: Downgrade the GPU to integrated graphics unless you only plan on doing very light / no gaming. Integrated graphics will probably provide disappointing game performance in the majority of modern titles.
- Consider: Backlit keyboard, Larger/faster HDD.

 

[chad2625]

Of the 3 laptops you posted the best for gaming would be the Acer V3-771G-9875, as it has the best video card of the 3. The most imporant bottle neck when it comes to gaming is your graphics, so best video card, while balcing a decent CPU. I have heard really bad things about the I3's so for $45 more the I5 might be worth it IDK its up to you.

My general oppion is this tho unless your running a very high end mobile video card 1080P (1900 by 1080) displays are not worth it, as mobile video cards are the power to run full HD screens at

I had two laptops with the same video cards amount of ram and everything. The only difference where the screen size and resolutions. The first one was 1386 by 786 (15.6), the other was 1600 by 900 (17.3), when I went the larger and higher resolution I had to lower the settings on my games to get playable Frame Rates. Look at it like this it was a increase of screen resolution by about 32%, so there is 32% more for my video card to render. The increase from 1600 by 900 to 1900 by 1080 is about 44% increase in pixels or 44% more work for your video card to run. So to say that you wouldn’t notice the performance I would have to disagree. I ran A 3dmark11 tests for 720, 1600 by 900 1080 and here are the results look at the FPS I know Im running 6620G, wich is the previous generation of the A10, and substantially less powerful than any of the options your looking at but the performance hits should be pretty comparable . The of all four test for 720 is 3.355 while 1080 is only 1.855 so by running my 6620G at 1080 vs 720 I see a 45% performance hit. Going from 1600 by 900 (average fps of 2.5) 1080 I saw a hit of 27% when 720p is considered base.


I personally I don’t see the FHD screen on a 17in laptop being necessary, this is a personal opinion. Here is my reasoning, the smaller the screen the fewer pixels needed to make it look “HD”. In fact most tablets that say there “HD” actually sub HD resolutions, but screens so small you would never notice.
Looking at the specs you would have a 15.6 in laptop running a FHD witch in my opinion is overkill. I would go for the larger screen over the high resolution. At that size you could always run games at 1600 by 900 and it would still look good, and you would get better performance.

One thing that I would suggest any laptop you get should have number pad, a lot of games, and game tools require one, and I missed it when I had a smaller laptop.

 

[edit1754]

My general oppion is this tho unless your running a very high end mobile video card 1080P (1900 by 1080) displays are not worth it, as mobile video cards are the power to run full HD screens at

If running at 1920x1080 resolution ever becomes an issue, then you can always run at a non-native resolution. But you can't as easily make up for the smaller screen realestate outside of multitasking. Plus, due to the significant quality difference between low-end and higher-end displays, you might find that games look better running in non-native resolution on a higher resolution display that also has higher contrast, than they would look running in native resolution on a lower resolution display that also has lower contrast.

The issue with 17.3" 1600x900 displays and 15.6" 1366x768 displays, aside from how large onscreen they cause things to appear, is how bad of image quality they usually have.

 

[chad2625]

This is true I think I said he could also run games and lower resolutions, and probably look good. My best advice for him is to go to a store and see if he can find a computer with a 1080P screen and see if he likes it better or not. Since it probably more boils down to opinion than anything. One fact that would be better for benchmarks is the 2GB of ram on the 650M. One thing that may have schewed my results is 512mb of ram on my 6620G. The higher the res the more video ram that is required, so maybe with more video ram the effect would be less serve

 

[WR2]

One thing that may have schewed my results is 512mb of ram on my 6620G. The higher the res the more video ram that is required, so maybe with more video ram the effect would be less serve

The Llano GPU doesn't have it's own VRAM - they 'borrow' or share system RAM and that amount can be adjusted. 1024MB is the amount I remember reading.

 

[edit1754]

Since it probably more boils down to opinion than anything

Opinion and personal preference are part of it, but that isn't all of it. Nobody prefers a bad quality display over a good quality display, or a cramped workspace over a spacious workspace, but sometimes downfalls associated with eyesight and small text overpower the better image quality and multitasking capability.

 

[chad2625]

The Llano GPU doesn't have it's own VRAM - they 'borrow' or share system RAM and that amount can be adjusted. 1024MB is the amount I remember reading.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/llano/review/die_sm.jpg

Technically no, it does share with system ram. But for me my video card has 512mb of ram to store textures, that is system memory. I know Vram is faster than system ram, and there might be a technical difference, But close enough

 

[flyinghobo888]

Thank you so much!