• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

laptop for gaming < 2000

A

Aganack1

Senior member
I have a friend that wants a laptop for some gaming... He plays Dark age of Camelot... which isn't the most demanding game, but he wants it to run well, but he would like to spend around 1500, but would pay as much as 2000. What do you guys suggest?
 
I am normally NOT a big HP fan but check out the HP ZD7000 series.

They also have a $100 rebate going right now.

It is not light or small but it sure has a lot powerful features.
 
My two cents is sager.

I dont have one, but I want one!
Contains top notch components, great for gaming from the benchmarks they have been posting.

Great as a desktop replacement...the 8790 was just released!

Its quite similar to the HP ZD7000 but comes with better
components. 1500 may be out of the question, but 2000 would
fit the bill!

Go here:
http://pctorque.com/
 
ok I talked to him again and he wants to see how much something would be not so powerfull, but lighter and longer battery life. The problem is it can't have intel graphics
 
Well what is wrong with intel Graphics? But anyway my way would be the Emachine i have done alot of research, and bang for buck it is the best. Made well and will overclock well. I have heard not much good about the new HP. and you cant go wrong with a 64bit processor. Upgradeable to 2gb ram. well there is my 2 cents



Will
 
the problem with intel graphics is that Dark age of Camelot can not run on it. Its a problem... the problem with the emachine is its size and battery life
 
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....

 
Originally posted by: ShellGuy
Well what is wrong with intel Graphics? But anyway my way would be the Emachine i have done alot of research, and bang for buck it is the best. Made well and will overclock well. I have heard not much good about the new HP. and you cant go wrong with a 64bit processor. Upgradeable to 2gb ram. well there is my 2 cents



Will
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's not longer the best bang for the buck. The best bang for the buck now is the Dell 9100.
 
Sorry I still have to disagree with you to be able to match the specs on the M6807 your *ell is gunna run you 1667 which is almost 100 bucks more than the E. AND you don't get the 64bit processor nor do u get the 1mb cach.

Will
 
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...
 
Originally posted by: ShellGuy
Sorry I still have to disagree with you to be able to match the specs on the M6807 your *ell is gunna run you 1667 which is almost 100 bucks more than the E. AND you don't get the 64bit processor nor do u get the 1mb cach.

Will
Click to expand...

the "stock" 9100 with a 2.8c/9700 will easily outperform a A64 3000+/9600 mobile in gaming. the emachines has a slightly better cpu but the 9100 has a far superior VPU
 
Originally posted by: shady06
Originally posted by: ShellGuy
Sorry I still have to disagree with you to be able to match the specs on the M6807 your *ell is gunna run you 1667 which is almost 100 bucks more than the E. AND you don't get the 64bit processor nor do u get the 1mb cach.

Will
Click to expand...

the "stock" 9100 with a 2.8c/9700 will easily outperform a A64 3000+/9600 mobile in gaming. the emachines has a slightly better cpu but the 9100 has a far superior VPU
Click to expand...
Far superior? It's pretty much just higher clocked. Also, the eMachines battery life is about 2.5-3 hours for web\word, closer to 1.5-2 on demanding tasks.
 
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.




 
How about this show me hands down numbers that your *ell will out perform a M6807 and i will agree but untill then i will continue to say i doubt it. Both on AC power 2 don't pull that ish on batt power we all know about the XP issue with the AMD chip.

Will
 
Originally posted by: ShellGuy
How about this show me hands down numbers that your *ell will out perform a M6807 and i will agree but untill then i will continue to say i doubt it. Both on AC power 2 don't pull that ish on batt power we all know about the XP issue with the AMD chip.

Will
Click to expand...

Even on battery...... my M6805 is running windows 2000 SP4, which is NOT affected by the 800 Mhz issue on battery. Or, if you want media encoding, my WinXP 64bits beta will be pleased to work..... 😉

Seriously, the M11 will make a machine with a slower CPU faster for gaming than a machine with an M10, but from being "faster" to "can't even remotely compete" there is quite a gap.... Shady06, you insist on the big gap, prove it!

Edit: As I proposed, that broad asseveration should have broad results. I want to see my M6805 being "badly destroyed" by the *ell 9100 in everything.....

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top