MSI GT70 Lasting power?

[mark0210]

Hi everyone, my name is Mark, and I'm relatively new to the community (I've done a lot of reading, no posting).

I'm looking to get myself my first gaming laptop, and had my eye on the model listed above.

Now, I plan on being able to keep it for at least 3 years. The models I've been looking at are equipped with a 4GB GT675M card, and an i7 with a speed of up to 3.3Ghz with 16GB ram.

I understand that the GT680M is now out, and that as the computer ages I will need to turn down settings to keep up with advancing game tech, but what can I expect in terms of performance at the start of the system's life? Is keeping it 3 to 4 years and expecting decent performance unrealistic?

Thanks!

PS: I should note that this will be the first computer I own that will even be capable of running modern games. Never in my life have I owned a very powerful machine, so my expectations of what is passable are rather low, if you understand.

 

[WR2]

Is keeping it 3 to 4 years and expecting decent performance unrealistic?

It's very realistic to have it last 4 years and still keep decent performance. In fact it will have the EXACT same performance 3 years from now.

What it probably won't have is the ability to run 2016 games at the same high quality graphics settings that would be able to run Battlefield 3 on the GTX 675M graphics card now.

For example 3 years ago the GTX 260M was 'the' card to have in a notebook. COD:MW2 on Ultra for example.
And it still does fine with 2008/2009 games. In face it's still quite good with many 2011/2012 games.
Like medium graphics on Battlefield 3 and Max Payne 3.

 

[kajabla]

If you don't have a good reason to get a laptop, go for a gaming desktop. You can get far better performance at a far lower price. Assuming you do have a good reason, and the budget for a high-end gaming laptop, we can move on.

It's pretty hard to find good benchmarks for the 675M, but the Tom's GPU Hierarchy Chart places it around the level of the GTX 460 (the proper 256-bit, 1gb model) and the Radeon 6850. Those cards have tons of benchmarks available, so do some Googling and see how they fare in modern games. They're decent, but I wouldn't trust them to last me three years. I'm about to upgrade my own 460.

Unlike the desktop versions of the 670 and 680, which are quite close to each other in performance, the 680M is a significant step above the 675M (based on the hierarchy chart). It's actually got pretty great performance, comparable to the desktop 570. If you feel like you can afford it, go for the 680M.

 

[mark0210]

Thanks everyone! I do move around a lot and do audio work in addition, so I would prefer a laptop. As I said, I don't expect to keep up with 2016+ games as far as setting them on high goes, but I'd like to be able to at least run them on low. Again, never had a gaming rig before, so I have PLENTY of older titles in addition to keep myself happy.

Also, regarding the 675m further, is the 4gb model a hug improvement performance wise over the 2GB model? I understand it was recently upgraded, but I'm hard pressed to find any performance evaluations for the 4GB model. Due to the memory increase, could i assume that the 4GB would last somewhat longer?

 

[WR2]

I would not pay extra for the 4GB version of the video card.

2GB VRAM model on the 1920x1080 LCD screen would be plenty.
The only reason I'd consider 4GB of VRAM is for some dual or triple monitor display.

Does your model offer the Radeon HD 7970M video card as option?

 

[mark0210]

I havent sen any models offering the Radeon, but if I look around, I'm sure I could find a model that offers the 680m as an option.

 

[WR2]

Look around over @ XoticPC. Includes Asus, MSI and Sager/Clevo options.

 

[kajabla]

Yeah, 4gb is definitely not worth any extra money. It's a gimmick.