I'm getting a laptop, and I'm too stupid to tell if the one I like is any good

[Husar]

Either buy the one Lemur chose, or the one Furunculus suggested.

A Macbook doesn't eat Crysis for breakfast at all, there are few if any desktops capable of that.
Of course Fragony's definition of "eats for breakfast" might be "runs fine on low/medium".

[Lemur]

The Acer looks nice as well, and I've had slightly better experiences with ATI graphics cards than Nvidia, but your mileage may vary. Certainly the 5650 mobile is probably going to have a little more oomph than the 280M, but I couldn't say how noticeable the difference may be.*

For a laptop, I would also prefer the i5 to the i7 for reasons of heat, battery life, longevity, etc., so yeah, the Acer looks a bit better.

As for Mac, I don't really understand the love or the hate. Ignore their marketing. Ignore whatever "status" they attempt to attach to their products. Just look at the machines and the OS on their own merits, and go from there.

My thinking is simple to the point of stupidity: They make a very nice laptop, and a fully supported, easy-to-use variant of BSD Unix is nothing to sneeze at. Being able to put my computer-idiot aunt on a laptop that is relatively secure out of the box is a good thing. And as a my database geek buddy said, "You have no idea what it's like to get a Unix laptop that just works."

As for the Mac price premium, (a) it isn't so terrible, depending on how smart you are about model, make, etc., and (b) commercial OS development has to get subsidized somehow. Microsoft has the Office line which subsidizes their OS, and Apple has the hardware. Somebody pays somewhere at some point to subsidize several thousand code monkeys maintaining and updating the OS. That's just how the world works right now, unless you're ready to commit to Linux.

-edit-

*I was as wrong as a wrong person could be, mixing up my model numbers. The 5650 is slower than the 280M, by a very measurable margin. Chart here. I was thinking of the Radeon 5850 mobile, which should be on the market shortly.

[Furunculus]

ati are being cheeky.

what is a 58xx on desktop is a 1600 shader part (2.10B transistors)
what is a 58xx on mobile is a 800 shader part (1.07B transistors)

what is a 57/6xx on desktop is a 800 shader part (1.07B transistors)
what is a 57/6xx on mobile is a 400 shader part (0.67B transistors)

what is a 54/5xx on desktop is a 400 shader part (0.67B transistors)
what is a 54/5xx on mobile is a 80 shader part (0.24B transistors)

still a £500 laptop with a 400 shader GPU with a 128bit DDR5 bus is good value.

[Subotan]

The Acer looks nice as well, and I've had slightly better experiences with ATI graphics cards than Nvidia, but your mileage may vary. Certainly the 5650 mobile is probably going to have a little more oomph than the 280M, but I couldn't say how noticeable the difference may be.*

For a laptop, I would also prefer the i5 to the i7 for reasons of heat, battery life, longevity, etc., so yeah, the Acer looks a bit better

Battery wouldn't be a huge problem, as it's mostly going to be a replacement desktop, than can move from Point A (My house) to Point B (Oxford).
Besides, according to this ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=382561 ), it has a silent mode, which extends battery life to about three hours, which is fine for me.

As for Mac, I don't really understand the love or the hate. Ignore their marketing. Ignore whatever "status" they attempt to attach to their products. Just look at the machines and the OS on their own merits, and go from there.

Personally, I think they're overrated for the kind of stuff I'd do on it (Word processing/Internet/Gamez). But that's just my opinion. I won't be doing anything like graphic design or composition on it, so all the neat features it has aren't that relevant.

ati are being cheeky.

what is a 58xx on desktop is a 1600 shader part (2.10B transistors)
what is a 58xx on mobile is a 800 shader part (1.07B transistors)

what is a 57/6xx on desktop is a 800 shader part (1.07B transistors)
what is a 57/6xx on mobile is a 400 shader part (0.67B transistors)

what is a 54/5xx on desktop is a 400 shader part (0.67B transistors)
what is a 54/5xx on mobile is a 80 shader part (0.24B transistors)

Huh? I don't understand

still a £500 laptop with a 400 shader GPU with a 128bit DDR5 bus is good value.

I agree, but as I said at the start, money isn't a problem (Compensation for a car accident that happened when I was 10, but I don't get access to it until I'm 18 ). I should probably be responsible, but I need a new gaming computer anyway, and I deserve a treat after my A Levels

[Furunculus]

Huh? I don't understand

I agree, but as I said at the start, money isn't a problem (Compensation for a car accident that happened when I was 10, but I don't get access to it until I'm 18 ). I should probably be responsible, but I need a new gaming computer anyway, and I deserve a treat after my A Levels

basically you would presume that the codename, i.e. 58xx or 57xx would refer to the GPU, and you know the desktop 58xx comes with 1600 shaders which is rockin, so you assume that the mobile 58xx would also come with 1600 shaders.
but it doesn't, the mobile 58xx is the same GPU as the desktop 57xx, and thus only has 800 shaders, not the 1600 you assume given the model name.

that said, the new ATI mobile 58xx card (with 800 shaders & DDR5) is in my opinion the best mobile GPU you can get, and if money is not an object i would find a laptop that has one of them inside (probably a 17" chassis).

[Subotan]

basically you would presume that the codename, i.e. 58xx or 57xx would refer to the GPU, and you know the desktop 58xx comes with 1600 shaders which is rockin, so you assume that the mobile 58xx would also come with 1600 shaders.
but it doesn't, the mobile 58xx is the same GPU as the desktop 57xx, and thus only has 800 shaders, not the 1600 you assume given the model name

Ah! Sneaky!

that said, the new ATI mobile 58xx card (with 800 shaders & DDR5) is in my opinion the best mobile GPU you can get, and if money is not an object i would find a laptop that has one of them inside (probably a 17" chassis).

Any suggestions?

[Furunculus]

Any suggestions?

there were a few announced at CES, but i cannot recall them right now, i did check before but without luck (i was supposed to be working). :p

but they'll turn up in the next month or two, and be easy to find.

p.s. i wouldn't get a gaming laptop with a 1080p screen unless the graphic card was a 800 shader AMD one or a 96 shader nVidia one (different ways of calculating shaders).

1600x900 is the biggest native res i would consider for a mid-range GPU like an AMD 320-400 shader GPU or a Nvidia 48-64 shader GPU.

i run 1920x1200 and have a nVidia 9800GX2 with 256 shaders, and even that struggles on some newer games.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Note. Lemur's assessment of screen size is not correct. It is not physical size but resolution that matters as far as FPS go; and it should be noted that the Novatech sports a 1080* resolution (1080p or 1080i) even though it has only a 15.6" screen. Furthermore its 17" alternative has the exact same resolution.

Why Lemur's rule of thumb works in practice is that bigger screens (usually) have larger resolutions to keep the pictures sharp and clear. But as mentioned the Novatech has a same high resolution as your average 22inch monitor so you should compare it to a typical 22inch monitor. The real issue with these monitors are: power draw (bigger monitors draw more power; and it is worsened by the fact that most power-saving strategies do not work as well with monitors), price (are they worth it to you?), and portability.

As for processor speeds the Corei have this ‘turbo boost’ feature which alters the clock speed on demand. This means you should get about 2.2-2.5Ghz when running only 2 cores, 1.9-2.2.Ghz when running 3, and 2.8Ghz when running 1. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43122

Because the TW games are not heavily multi threaded you will likely not run all 4 or 3 cores when playing which means you should get performance similar to a 2.2-2.5Ghz dual core processor [but which dual core heavily depends on (relative) cache size]. In more day-to-day tasks (especially number crunching tasks) you may see some benefit from using a 64bit OS as well.

[Lemur]

Note. Lemur's assessment of screen size is not correct. It is not physical size but resolution that matters as far as FPS go; and it should be noted that the Novatech sports a 1080* resolution (1080p or 1080i) even though it has only a 15.6" screen. Furthermore its 17" alternative has the exact same resolution.

My bad, entirely my bad, I was assuming that the bigger screen meant a higher resolution. I will now flog myself in penance, and upload the results to geekspankings.com.

[Fragony]

As for Mac, I don't really understand the love or the hate. Ignore their marketing. Ignore whatever "status" they attempt to attach to their products. Just look at the machines and the OS on their own merits, and go from there.

My thinking is simple to the point of stupidity: They make a very nice laptop

Amen to that. That whole metromen-purple pants-odd glasses marketing is so goddamn annoying and Apple lovers are annoying people and Apple is an annoying company runned by annoying people, and they annoy me. But they make a great laptop indeed.

And Hussy, the latest line is much faster, ok eating for breakfast is a bit much bit it runs pretty damn good.

[Crandaeolon]

Maybe I didn't get something (just skimmed the discussion), but why do you need a laptop, exactly? If they have computer rooms for students at Oxford, you'll probably do most of your work in those with proper keyboards, screens and mice. You should check what computer facilities are available and, if possible, ask older students and/or staff if it's practical to use such facilities.

Really, the only reason to buy a laptop is portability. A desktop is obviously superior at everything else, and citing "replacement desktop" as a reason to buy one is not very convincing. This comes from the mouth (fingers?) of someone who made that mistake a few years ago - I bought a semi-powerful laptop just for those reasons, to replace my aged desktop and to write notes during lectures. It ended up a disaster; the laptop was too bulky to carry around all day, it didn't have the battery power to last a day's lectures, let alone a six-hour train ride across the country whenever I visited my parents. At home it barely matched the power of my old desktop, but with far inferior I/O devices.

After half a year I sold the piece of crap and upgraded my desktop. This computer (core2duo @ 3GHz, 4GB 1066 MHz RAM, NVidia 9600GT) is still powerful enough to run today's games at decent details. Getting the new parts cost me less than $500, which is less than what I got from the used laptop.

So, I guess the moral of the story is this: Think hard if you really need a portable computer.

[Subotan]

Maybe I didn't get something (just skimmed the discussion), but why do you need a laptop, exactly? If they have computer rooms for students at Oxford, you'll probably do most of your work in those with proper keyboards, screens and mice. You should check what computer facilities are available and, if possible, ask older students and/or staff if it's practical to use such facilities.

I've been around my College a few times, and there doesn't seem to be many. Besides, I like to work alone, so I can play my music and type

Really, the only reason to buy a laptop is portability. A desktop is obviously superior at everything else, and citing "replacement desktop" as a reason to buy one is not very convincing. This comes from the mouth (fingers?) of someone who made that mistake a few years ago - I bought a semi-powerful laptop just for those reasons, to replace my aged desktop and to write notes during lectures. It ended up a disaster; the laptop was too bulky to carry around all day, it didn't have the battery power to last a day's lectures, let alone a six-hour train ride across the country whenever I visited my parents. At home it barely matched the power of my old desktop, but with far inferior I/O devices.

The laptop mentioned above has about 3 hour's worth, which seems to be enough, and I can always buy some spare batteries. Besides, I'll have it plugged in a lot of the time. And I'm a strong lad

So, I guess the moral of the story is this: Think hard if you really need a portable computer.

I may as well. I have to clear out my room ever term, so something portable is nessecary.

[Furunculus]

before you go all gung-ho for a laptop i'd encourage you to have a look at Small Form Factor systems.

I have been building them for years, and they really are pretty portable.

examples include:

Shuttle SFF PCs:
http://uk.shuttle.com/product_type.jsp?PCI=19
about the size of a shoe-box and available with a travel bag little bigger.
I bought a SN25P about five years ago, and its still playing L4D2 to this day.

Silverstone Sugo cases:
http://www.silverstonetek.com/produc...sure.php?area=
about the size of two shoe-boxes and available with a travel bag little bigger.
I have both a Sugo SG01e and an Sugo 03, the latter of which has 9800GX2 graphics cards and quad-core CPU in it!

the point being; you can still achieve portable without a laptop, and you can do so whilst getting literally twice as much power for your money.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Maybe I didn't get something (just skimmed the discussion), but why do you need a laptop, exactly? If they have computer rooms for students at Oxford, you'll probably do most of your work in those with proper keyboards, screens and mice. You should check what computer facilities are available and, if possible, ask older students and/or staff if it's practical to use such facilities.

Computer rooms for students are always singularly disappointing. Either hand-me-down desktops that do not agree with even Windows 2000; or some incomprehensible account system; or general lack tools/configuration suitable for heavy duty users plus a restrictive environment. Also there will always be too few computers and too many users. IOW: if you need to get real work done and it involves a computer, make sure you have a laptop set up to your liking and make sure you have something like a VPN client set up. Much faster, much less error prone, more storage, and much much more convenient (it also works during weekends for instance).

Really, the only reason to buy a laptop is portability. A desktop is obviously superior at everything else, and citing "replacement desktop" as a reason to buy one is not very convincing. This comes from the mouth (fingers?) of someone who made that mistake a few years ago - I bought a semi-powerful laptop just for those reasons, to replace my aged desktop and to write notes during lectures. It ended up a disaster; the laptop was too bulky to carry around all day, it didn't have the battery power to last a day's lectures, let alone a six-hour train ride across the country whenever I visited my parents. At home it barely matched the power of my old desktop, but with far inferior I/O devices.

After half a year I sold the piece of crap and upgraded my desktop. This computer (core2duo @ 3GHz, 4GB 1066 MHz RAM, NVidia 9600GT) is still powerful enough to run today's games at decent details. Getting the new parts cost me less than $500, which is less than what I got from the used laptop.

So, I guess the moral of the story is this: Think hard if you really need a portable computer.

An interesting thing as far as spending $1500,- or so on laptops/desktops go would be to combine a $400,- or so low end notebook with a $99,- 40GB SSD and say <Linux flavour of the month>. Then get yourself a $1000,- machine for playing games, and main storage. That gives you a machine designed for battery life and productivity (office etc.) with decent performance (courtesy of SSD plus lighter environment) as well as a nice budget for a machine to play moderately hardware intensive games such as M2TW equivalents.

[Lemur]

An interesting thing as far as spending $1500,- or so on laptops/desktops go would be to combine a $400,- or so low end notebook with a $99,- 40GB SSD and say <Linux flavour of the month>. Then get yourself a $1000,- machine for playing games, and main storage. That gives you a machine designed for battery life and productivity (office etc.) with decent performance (courtesy of SSD plus lighter environment) as well as a nice budget for a machine to play moderately hardware intensive games such as M2TW equivalents.

This is an outstanding idea. SFF computers are much better suited for gaming than laptops. And if you can't be bothered to build your own, there's always the delightful Fragbox.

[Crandaeolon]

Computer rooms for students are always singularly disappointing.

Good thing I live in Finland, then, and not in whatever barbarous country your ghetto Oxford universities reside. Here the machine base is relatively modern - currently Dell dualcores with Windows XP. Software base is okay - you get to choose between OpenOffice and M$ Office, GIMP or Photoshop and so forth. Basically all the same stuff I use at home for writing text, desktop publishing and editing pictures, sound or video. Computer science majors get even more tools.

There are around 450 workstations available during the day. Another 80 are available 24/7 with a passcard. I practically never had to wait to get to a computer, so it's not surprising I ditched the laptop.

An interesting thing as far as spending $1500,- or so on laptops/desktops go would be to combine a $400,- or so low end notebook with a $99,- 40GB SSD and say <Linux flavour of the month>. Then get yourself a $1000,- machine for playing games, and main storage.

That's a good idea and much more sensible than buying an expensive laptop alone. For last Christmas I actually did buy a Samsung N510 to get a machine that could double up as a HTPC and a travel entertainment system with 6+ hours of battery life. Wouldn't necessarily have been my first choice, but I got it cheap. It works reasonably well with Windows 7 (had to upgrade to 2 GB of memory and purge most of the pre-installed crap and redundancy functions of the OS, though) and it can decode HD video, with a reasonably large 250 GB hard disk. No SSD though, so snooze and hibernate will probably see a lot of use.

[Furunculus]

An interesting thing as far as spending $1500,- or so on laptops/desktops go would be to combine a $400,- or so low end notebook with a $99,- 40GB SSD and say <Linux flavour of the month>. Then get yourself a $1000,- machine for playing games, and main storage. That gives you a machine designed for battery life and productivity (office etc.) with decent performance (courtesy of SSD plus lighter environment) as well as a nice budget for a machine to play moderately hardware intensive games such as M2TW equivalents.

good idea.

you can get a decent AMD 2nd Gen Ultrathin with a DX10 GPU and HD screen for £375, and still get a decent gaming PC for £825.