laptop for gaming < 2000

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Corporate Thug

Lifer
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Originally posted by: shady06
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Second the eMachines......

By the way, I am sure that the person who said that that nothing in the $1400 range can "even remotely compete" with a *ell 9100" has benchmarks to prove it, as "remotely" is quite daring....
Click to expand...

ummm, the emachines has a 9600 mobile the 9100 has a 9700 mobile, it doesnt take benchmarks to figure out which is the faster VPU...
Click to expand...

Exactly, it should be faster... but if you think "it can't even remotely compete" then you need to check your grammar. The only difference is clockspeed in the GPU. How much? Numbers needed.

You keep insisting on "easily will outperform", well, bring the numbers. Obviously, to say that "it can't even remotely compete" is very broad and general, let's make it broad and general.

The asseveration of "slightly faster CPU" is wrong also.. it is quite faster. You forget that the P4 needs low latency RAM to perform the best, and that is not available in SODIMMs.
Click to expand...

if you look at Anands benchmarks, the 9700 is about 25% or more faster than the 9600 pro mobile LET ALONE A PLAIN OLD 9600 @1280*1024 or when AA and AF is involved. I consider that a pretty big performance gap

btw, AMD chips are more dependent on low latency ram, not Intel

edit: lets assume a 9600 pro = same performace as 9600 to compensate for the difference in the CPUs

In Aquamark 3: 1280*1024 4x AA/8X AF = 9700 is ~25% better
In COD with NO AA OR AF: 9700 ~17% faster
in HALO 1280*1024: 9700 is ~32% faster
Jedi Academy 1280*1024 8xAF: 9700 is 24% faster
Knights of the old republic 1280*768 4xaa/8xaf: 9700 is 17% faster
NHL 2004 1280*1024 4xaa/8xaf: 9700 is 27% faster
Prince of Persia 1280*768: 9700 is 27% faster
splinter cell: many scenarios tested, 28-30% lead for the 9700
frozen throne 1280*1024: 9700 leads by 14%
wolfenstein ET 1280*1024: 9700 34% faster

are those numbers convincing enough? i didnt want to take the time to do it in the first place because i assumed you guys would just check it out in anands review.

I dont know about you but it seems to me that the 9700 is far better than the 9600 pro let alone the 9600 non pro mobile. btw, since the 9100 is only 1299.99, you can use the difference is proce to upgrade to a 3.0C instead of a 2.8C in which the processors would be very similar in perfromance and the gap between the 9700 and the 9600 would be evn more apparent than the gap between the 9700 and the 9600 pro

if you check out this
review, you will notice that the performance difference between a 3.0C and a 3000+ mobile isnt very much at all, esp at high resolutions, where the 3.0C whens by narrow margins at time and the A64 3000+ wins at times by narrow margins. therefore, for the same price (assuming you upgrade to a 3.0C), the 9100 will be about 30-35% faster when using 1280*1024 or AF/AA than the emachines since the 9700 is about 25% faster than the 9600 pro mobile

I think i have proven that the 9100 is superior to the emachines.
 
S

ShellGuy

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,343
0
0
Well we can start with what is wrong with ur statements. The 9100 begins life at $1349, not 1299. I could also nitpick the fact that the *ell only offers a DVD burner with the + rating not both + and -. But wait I don't have the option to upgrade mine so why should u? LOL.... have fun with those ideas......................
 
A

Abhi

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
4,548
0
76
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Well what is wrong with intel Graphics?
Click to expand...

Start with what is right, that list is much shorter. For office apps and surfing, integrated is fine. For gaming it's a no go.
Click to expand...

If gaming = solataire and minesweeper, intel graphics = perfect

 
C

Corporate Thug

Lifer
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
Originally posted by: ShellGuy
Well we can start with what is wrong with ur statements. The 9100 begins life at $1349, not 1299. I could also nitpick the fact that the *ell only offers a DVD burner with the + rating not both + and -. But wait I don't have the option to upgrade mine so why should u? LOL.... have fun with those ideas......................
Click to expand...

the m6805 @ bestbuy doesnt even have a dvd burner :confused:

also, Aganack1 was asking about gaming performance. He didnt mention anything about a DVD burner
 
S

ShellGuy

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,343
0
0
Lets look o wait that is for small business is he a business? Didn't say so how would we know. I woud assume that he is getting it as a person not a business hence forth he woudn't qualify for that.
 
A

Aganack1

Senior member
May 16, 2002
331
0
0
ShellGuy something very nice about dell is that you dont have to be a small business to order from their small business web site...
 
A

Abhi

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
4,548
0
76
Originally posted by: ShellGuy
Lets look o wait that is for small business is he a business? Didn't say so how would we know. I woud assume that he is getting it as a person not a business hence forth he woudn't qualify for that.
Click to expand...

Oh look .... u r a #$#%#!

u dont need to be a small business to get a dell laptop ... even from the small business section.

However... the tax levied to small business might kill the price advantage in this case...
 
S

ShellGuy

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,343
0
0
Thnks for the info Agan. But i guess this is becoming a moot point though since e is commin out with new stuff this month.
 
alexruiz

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Originally posted by: shady06
if you look at Anands benchmarks, the 9700 is about 25% or more faster than the 9600 pro mobile LET ALONE A PLAIN OLD 9600 @1280*1024 or when AA and AF is involved. I consider that a pretty big performance gap

btw, AMD chips are more dependent on low latency ram, not Intel

edit: lets assume a 9600 pro = same performace as 9600 to compensate for the difference in the CPUs

In Aquamark 3: 1280*1024 4x AA/8X AF = 9700 is ~25% better
In COD with NO AA OR AF: 9700 ~17% faster
in HALO 1280*1024: 9700 is ~32% faster
Jedi Academy 1280*1024 8xAF: 9700 is 24% faster
Knights of the old republic 1280*768 4xaa/8xaf: 9700 is 17% faster
NHL 2004 1280*1024 4xaa/8xaf: 9700 is 27% faster
Prince of Persia 1280*768: 9700 is 27% faster
splinter cell: many scenarios tested, 28-30% lead for the 9700
frozen throne 1280*1024: 9700 leads by 14%
wolfenstein ET 1280*1024: 9700 34% faster

are those numbers convincing enough? i didnt want to take the time to do it in the first place because i assumed you guys would just check it out in anands review.

I dont know about you but it seems to me that the 9700 is far better than the 9600 pro let alone the 9600 non pro mobile. btw, since the 9100 is only 1299.99, you can use the difference is proce to upgrade to a 3.0C instead of a 2.8C in which the processors would be very similar in perfromance and the gap between the 9700 and the 9600 would be evn more apparent than the gap between the 9700 and the 9600 pro

if you check out this
review, you will notice that the performance difference between a 3.0C and a 3000+ mobile isnt very much at all, esp at high resolutions, where the 3.0C whens by narrow margins at time and the A64 3000+ wins at times by narrow margins. therefore, for the same price (assuming you upgrade to a 3.0C), the 9100 will be about 30-35% faster when using 1280*1024 or AF/AA than the emachines since the 9700 is about 25% faster than the 9600 pro mobile

I think i have proven that the 9100 is superior to the emachines.
Click to expand...


This is more in line, but it still fails to pit one against the other..... Also, if you had the chance to read a review by extremetech some months ago called "attack of the meganotebooks", the voodoo pc m855 beat a rebadged sager 8890 in gaming by about 10% average.... DTR 3200+ versus "mobile" 3.2C in a 865 mobo.

In your edit you are making the 9600 pro the same that the regular 9600 to compensate for the CPU. Point taken and valid, but a few percent points can be deducted also because of the above sentence. In addition, I am almost sure the only difference of the 9600 in the M6805 and the 9600 pros turbo used by others OEMs is the memory, making the cores the same and supported by the fact that almost anyone can get their M6805 cores at 380 Mhz.... thus getting them to compete in a different light. Also, I don't see any game that is CPU dependent such as flight simulator or all those RPG....

You didn't prove anything, as we knew the 9700 would be faster for gaming even with the weaker CPU, but from that to your arrogant sentence of "it can't even remotely compete" there is a big difference. Either you work for *ell or you are very loyal. You pointed price, and what shellguy said is correct regarding the specifications.... make your price of $1299 close to $1600 once you get the 512 MB RAM, wireless G and the 3.0C CPU..... because that is how the big "E" ships.

Finally, as shellguy pointed again, wait a few weeks for the new E baby..... like it or not, the new kings are now coming from an ARIMA factory with an "e" logo on top..... But we can start creating our own database with numbers.

Edit: Regarding memory latency, you are thinking NForce2. A P4 is more depeendant of very fast memory. Proof of that is in the Athlon 64 review by HardOCP, a clawhammer running DDR333 was within 5% of the same CPU with DDR400. Can you say the same for a P4? Also, in the extremetech review pointed, the margin of victory for the A64 (DDR333) was higher than in a desktop.... because the latency of the SODIMMs is higher, even if they are DDR400 for the 8890.
Alex
 
C

Corporate Thug

Lifer
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Originally posted by: shady06
if you look at Anands benchmarks, the 9700 is about 25% or more faster than the 9600 pro mobile LET ALONE A PLAIN OLD 9600 @1280*1024 or when AA and AF is involved. I consider that a pretty big performance gap

btw, AMD chips are more dependent on low latency ram, not Intel

edit: lets assume a 9600 pro = same performace as 9600 to compensate for the difference in the CPUs

In Aquamark 3: 1280*1024 4x AA/8X AF = 9700 is ~25% better
In COD with NO AA OR AF: 9700 ~17% faster
in HALO 1280*1024: 9700 is ~32% faster
Jedi Academy 1280*1024 8xAF: 9700 is 24% faster
Knights of the old republic 1280*768 4xaa/8xaf: 9700 is 17% faster
NHL 2004 1280*1024 4xaa/8xaf: 9700 is 27% faster
Prince of Persia 1280*768: 9700 is 27% faster
splinter cell: many scenarios tested, 28-30% lead for the 9700
frozen throne 1280*1024: 9700 leads by 14%
wolfenstein ET 1280*1024: 9700 34% faster

are those numbers convincing enough? i didnt want to take the time to do it in the first place because i assumed you guys would just check it out in anands review.

I dont know about you but it seems to me that the 9700 is far better than the 9600 pro let alone the 9600 non pro mobile. btw, since the 9100 is only 1299.99, you can use the difference is proce to upgrade to a 3.0C instead of a 2.8C in which the processors would be very similar in perfromance and the gap between the 9700 and the 9600 would be evn more apparent than the gap between the 9700 and the 9600 pro

if you check out this
review, you will notice that the performance difference between a 3.0C and a 3000+ mobile isnt very much at all, esp at high resolutions, where the 3.0C whens by narrow margins at time and the A64 3000+ wins at times by narrow margins. therefore, for the same price (assuming you upgrade to a 3.0C), the 9100 will be about 30-35% faster when using 1280*1024 or AF/AA than the emachines since the 9700 is about 25% faster than the 9600 pro mobile

I think i have proven that the 9100 is superior to the emachines.
Click to expand...


This is more in line, but it still fails to pit one against the other..... Also, if you had the chance to read a review by extremetech some months ago called "attack of the meganotebooks", the voodoo pc m855 beat a rebadged sager 8890 in gaming by about 10% average.... DTR 3200+ versus "mobile" 3.2C in a 865 mobo.

In your edit you are making the 9600 pro the same that the regular 9600 to compensate for the CPU. Point taken and valid, but a few percent points can be deducted also because of the above sentence. In addition, I am almost sure the only difference of the 9600 in the M6805 and the 9600 pros turbo used by others OEMs is the memory, making the cores the same and supported by the fact that almost anyone can get their M6805 cores at 380 Mhz.... thus getting them to compete in a different light. Also, I don't see any game that is CPU dependent such as flight simulator or all those RPG....

You didn't prove anything, as we knew the 9700 would be faster for gaming even with the weaker CPU, but from that to your arrogant sentence of "it can't even remotely compete" there is a big difference. Either you work for *ell or you are very loyal. You pointed price, and what shellguy said is correct regarding the specifications.... make your price of $1299 close to $1600 once you get the 512 MB RAM, wireless G and the 3.0C CPU..... because that is how the big "E" ships.

Finally, as shellguy pointed again, wait a few weeks for the new E baby..... like it or not, the new kings are now coming from an ARIMA factory with an "e" logo on top..... But we can start creating our own database with numbers.

Edit: Regarding memory latency, you are thinking NForce2. A P4 is more depeendant of very fast memory. Proof of that is in the Athlon 64 review by HardOCP, a clawhammer running DDR333 was within 5% of the same CPU with DDR400. Can you say the same for a P4? Also, in the extremetech review pointed, the margin of victory for the A64 (DDR333) was higher than in a desktop.... because the latency of the SODIMMs is higher, even if they are DDR400 for the 8890.
Alex
Click to expand...

i dont work for dell nor do i own i dell so i have absolutely no loyalty at them at all. the benchmarks I provided are valid. i still feel at the same price point, the dell would be somewhere along the lines of 25% faster. Also. i dont understand your point with the extremetech review: nobody here is talking about overclocking video cards!!! also, for the pricepoint thing: it costs $100 tp upgrade to a 3.2c, and there is no reason to upgrade the ram as you can pay another $50 for another 256 mb stick

sooo, $1299 + 100 = $1399 + aplly my 10% off coupon that i get in my email every week = $1350 after shipping charges + $50 for another satack of ram = $1400

or the emachies at bestbuy: 1649 + tax (i'm using my local tax of 8.5%) = $1785 - 100 mir = $1685

looks like you are still paying $285 more the emachines


by the way, by "big e", do you mean "big g" as in gateway?


But hey, i understand your argument. i would have buyers remorse too if i paid for an emachines and then a month latter Dell release a better computer for less $$$
 
D

dnuggett

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
6,703
0
76
Originally posted by: ShellGuy
O wait but ur *ell won't be able to properly run 64 bit os??? O darn
Click to expand...



Ohhh wait... looks like we have our newest monthly troll! Contribute something meaningful or STFU!!
 
alexruiz

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Originally posted by: shady06

i still feel at the same price point, the dell would be somewhere along the lines of 25% faster. Also. i dont understand your point with the extremetech review: nobody here is talking about overclocking video cards!!! also, for the pricepoint thing: it costs $100 tp upgrade to a 3.2c, and there is no reason to upgrade the ram as you can pay another $50 for another 256 mb stick

sooo, $1299 + 100 = $1399 + aplly my 10% off coupon that i get in my email every week = $1350 after shipping charges + $50 for another satack of ram = $1400

or the emachies at bestbuy: 1649 + tax (i'm using my local tax of 8.5%) = $1785 - 100 mir = $1685

looks like you are still paying $285 more the emachines


by the way, by "big e", do you mean "big g" as in gateway?


But hey, i understand your argument. i would have buyers remorse too if i paid for an emachines and then a month latter Dell release a better computer for less $$$
Click to expand...


Let's close it for good. In my mention of the extremetech review, I never mentioned overclocking.... read the paragraph again. The review was a 3200+ with 64 MB 9600 vs a 3.2C in a 865 mobo with 128 MB 9600 pro turbo, and despite the 128 MB the 3200+ got an average of 10% advantage over the 3.2C for gaming.

For price, you are still forgetting the wireless LAN, and the memory came as 512, so apples to apples it should come from the factory with 512. By the way, my M6805 was $1549 + tax -$250 rebates..... aprox $1400.

Management? It will still be the big "e", as fortunately the CEO of emachines will be the new CEO of the merged company..... so no retarded gayway exec will cr@p eMachines rebound.

Buyers remorse? No, not at all. Hardware is changing every week, and the top gun of 4 months ago is mainstream today. Prices change with new hardware introductions, and my bargain yesterday will be expensive tomorrow. I am extremely happy with my M6805, as most of the buyers are. Tomorrow there will be a better machine, it is the cycle of hardware.

Yes, the *ell will be faster at gaming because of the video card, but overall IT IS NOT a better machine.... It is fugly with capital "F" and capital "U", heavy with capital "H", furnace behavior whose cooling capacity is measured in BTUs, electricity consumption that needs power adapter and batteries rated in kWH, battery life measured in minutes and its truly brick-like thickness..... Faster at gaming yes, faster overall maybe, better machine of course NOT.

Let's close it, because we didn't see the "can't even remotely compare" Your asseveration was exagerated and remains that way


Alex
 
alexruiz

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
[troll mode]

I am sure you have seen all those reports about the XPS lockups and problems..... the 9100 is the same machine...... talk about reliability.....

[/troll mode]


Alex ;)
 
Mermaidman

Mermaidman

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2003
7,987
93
91
This is funny--I've seen fanbois in CPU and Video forums, but this is the first for me in laptops!

Anyway, I recently bought the M6805 with the 250$ MIR and no-interest financing for 2yrs, which for me was a great deal. Anecdotally, it works really well for me in gaming. I play CoD online and it doesn't skip a beat. Then again, I'm not one who parses benchmark results for satisfaction--If something feels good for me, I'm happy.

It sounds like the Dell for $1300 is the price/performance leader now, so perhaps that's the way to go. It's hard to pass over the Radeon 9700!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom