As far as I’m concerned, an “upgrade to another, more powerful laptop” expense every 3 years or so is well worth the portability a laptop has. It’s a PITA to be stuck in one place.
Um. I just went and had a look-see at Evolve’s system requirements.
I got a gently-used, non-gaming laptop early last year (the machine I’m typing this on right now, in fact), which is just a couple months after your specified time point. I have no interest in Evolve, but if I wanted to play it when it came out, it’d be able to handle it on at least Medium. If I had gotten a used ROG model at that time, for around $700-900, it’d be able to handle that game on High.
GTA V is coming out soon, and it sure as silk is an AAA release.
I looked at R*'s system requirements post. This year-and-a-few-months-old laptop I’m on right now, which is not even a gaming one, will be able to run GTA V on medium-high settings. The one in the OP’s link will run it on low-medium. It won’t look as “shiny and pretty”, but it’ll still look good.
He’ll just need a good cooling pad while he’s playing.
I stand corrected on GTA V – it has some extremely modest specs (min 9800 GT, rec. GTX 660) in comparison to many new releases coming out. That said, the broader point about most new games holds (as evidenced by the benchmark testing I linked earlier).
I would recommend that FriarTed see what graphics processor any laptop he’s planning on buying is using and doing a search on it to see how it’s held up in testing.
Clearly I’m twirling my mustaches and plotting my next dastardly scheme.
I should probably have been more clear about Evolve; I meant play it with the recommended specs, not the minimums. With the exception of my video card, my system far exceeds the recommended ones.
I guess what I’m getting at is that “gaming” laptops are fundamentally a big compromise for getting you whatever portability you crave. They may be performance oriented laptops, but they’re usually not even in the same league as say… Alienware or other gaming desktops.
And for me, the inability to replace components as necessary is a dealbreaker, and I suspect for most serious gamers, it would be as well. I kind of doubt there are that many people who have played PC games since 1989 who really think that “gaming” laptops are anything but a cute marketing term put on performance laptops, or who would really consider them for playing FPSes or other hardware intensive games.
I wouldn’t imagine you have a scheme. But you keep taking actions designed to frame the issue in terms of, for example, seriousness of gamerhood and cuteness-avoidance, which is not really relevant to the actual topic of the thread.
A true sentence! And it brings the thread back to the fundamental question: What is it that FriarTed wants to play, and what does he think about graphics settings?
Crysis was not poorly optimized, it was just ambitious. It did a lot of stuff under the hood that games still aren’t doing 7 years later. Similarly with Metro, probably not quite as well made as Crysis, but had a really advanced lighting model. You seem to be confusing “runs slowly without really high end hardware” with “poorly optimized” - some games simply aim higher. Crysis was actually pretty amazing in that it’s the only game I’ve ever played, or at least FPS, where playing at 30 FPS actually felt good. I don’t know what the technical explanation of that is, whether it’s some sort of input lag correction, or low variance in frame to frame times, or a different way of reporting frame rate, or a different way of drawing to the screen, or something else, but it’s a technical marvel.
GTA 4, on the other hand, is a classic example of poor optimization. We can only hope GTA 5 won’t be such a piece of crap when it comes out. But still, check out what modders have gotten out of GTA 4
As far as the rest of the thread, people saying gaming laptops are an oxymoron and such, all nonsense. You can’t match a high end desktop experience no matter what you do, nor can you come close to matching even close in terms of dollar for dollar, but if a gaming laptop is a good fit for you, there are definitely some capable options. Not in the $600 price range, though. More in the $900-1400 range, depending on just how good you want it to be.
The model you linked to has a weak video card. Here’s a big chart of laptop GPU performance. Keep in mind that laptop GPUs of the same model number (for example, a geforce 860 vs 860m) are not equal, and in fact the laptop part probably offers half the performance or less - it’s basically meant to indicate where the card sits relative to other cards, but you can’t use it to compare to game requirements.
The first number in a series is generally the generation number and the second number is the relative power within that generation. The second number is more important. A geforce 620 is 600-generation card that’s less powerful by a huge margin than a 680. They belong to the same generation, but the 620 is a very low end card, whereas the 680 is a high end card. This unfortunately is a shitty naming practice because it leads novice to conclude things like “a 720 must be better than a 680”, when in reality the 680 is many times more powerful.
Basically, you want to look something with a x6 minimum. Geforce 660/760/960 (they skipped 8 for some odd marketing reason) or radeon 260 or higher. Anything with a number lower than that is not really going to cut it except on old or casual games, or newer games at pretty low settings.
I’ve had good experience with Asus gaming laptops. Lots of people like the Lenovo y50 series. It’s worth investing a little extra and getting a higher end laptop if it’s something you’ll use a lot. I would recommend an SSD, it’s one of the biggest performance increases you’ll see.
Even though he still says expensive is better then cheap (obviously), he still says that gaming laptop is an oxymoronic term and explains his reasoning. The tone of this thread is unnecessarily elitist.
Crysis not only required a high end system but it didn’t scale well to it. It was probably worse in some ways on those because you weren’t getting the performance you “should” have been getting. At least playing it on Low on a more modest system, you knew what you were getting into.
Metro 2033 performed worse than the more advanced Metro: Last Light. For the Redux version, they moved 2033 to use Last Light’s engine which resulted in better lighting effects (and better textures, etc).
That said, this is nothing I’m all that invested in so if you want to say I’m terribly wrong, I won’t bother arguing from here. My point was merely that every generation or wave of games has those couple titles that make even relatively up-to-date and competent modern system cry. So buying a system that handles 95% of recent titles just fine can still resulting in it choking up on a few without the reason being “your computer is junk”.
I’m not saying they couldn’t have been optimized better, but you picked one game that demonstrated your point - GTA 4 should’ve ran way better than it did, and wasn’t particularly technically ambitious, and didn’t look particularly good versus the competitors - it was just a poor effort on Rockstar’s part. And you’re comparing it to games that were demanding because they were cutting edge and required a lot of horsepower because they did a whole lot more than their contemporaries.
I’m reposting this from my horribly redundant thread:
My sister-in-law is looking for a new gaming computer. She has a hard budget of $600 for everything. I’d build her a mid-range desktop but she also needs a laptop that she can take to school to write papers.
I haven’t bought a laptop in years so I’m a bit out of the loop. Luckily she isn’t trying to play the new Assassin’s Creed or anything. She just wants to play WoW and Rift (I’ve never heard of the latter).
The 830M video can play WoW on high, though I believe Rift is a little more demanding and I wouldn’t assume that “WoW on high” refers to raid situations where you have 24 people blazing away at once. Still, it’s a good place to start if she only has $600 to spend. Lenovo is currently offering a pretty nice computer for the money on their website. Be capable of the games she plays (though, again, not well suited for many/most recent AAA titles) and a good all around computer for school/work.
Not the best screen and the processor is a low voltage type so not as beefy but a good deal if you only have six hundred bucks, hard capped.
Ok, so I sent her the suggested laptop but I explained to her that with the budget she’s offering she’s not going to get much. She then bumped the budget up to a little over a thousand. She’s thinking between these two:
The specs aren’t too different between the models. The 15" model has a noticible bump in CPU. Does she want something more compact, or something with a larger screen? There’s a two pound difference between the units which isn’t too big a deal. Does she need an optical drive? The 15" doesn’t have one.
If she can stretch the budget a bit, and doesn’t need more than 256GB of space, the $1200 Y70 with the i7 and SSD might be worth considering. An SSD is an even greater upgrade over a slow laptop drive than it is in a desktop drive, and it’s very dramatic even there. It also improves the durability of the unit.
Either would be fine. If I had to pick between the two you listed, I’d go with the greater CPU power in the 15" model.
