Looking for a new laptop - a few questions

[sgtrobo]

My primary use for this will not be for gaming. I would like to get the best performance for about $1k. It's primary use will be "general home/office" type stuff, but I'm insanely impatient. I typically have a youtube video page open playing music and such while I'm playing one of those silly flash games on facebook, and I have a .pdf (or 3) and multiple web pages open while I "do my homework"

I don't want a slowdown.

Obviously since I'm getting a new system, sandy bridge is the way to go, or so it seems.

But that brings me to a few specific questions

1) i7 vs. i5? i3 seems to be a bit underpowered for the modest improvement in pricing. Does the quad-core of the i7-26##Q take up that much more slack than the dual core/quad-thread of the i5-24##?

2) Is i3 really even a competitor? Can I apply the $$$ i save on the i3 processor go to improving performance enough via RAM or a faster HDD to make the differences between the i3 and the i5 not that big of a deal for a non-gamer?

3) Is there a specific reason to even bother with anything other than Win7 Home Premium (as opposed to Win7Pro or Ultimate)?

4) If I am going to be watching BDs on the laptop will I need a discrete graphics card? Obviously discrete graphics is always better, but again, the price point I'm trying to hit is $1k.

Most bang for the buck, ~$1000

interested in thoughts. Thanks.

 

[TheStu]

My primary use for this will not be for gaming. I would like to get the best performance for about $1k. It's primary use will be "general home/office" type stuff, but I'm insanely impatient. I typically have a youtube video page open playing music and such while I'm playing one of those silly flash games on facebook, and I have a .pdf (or 3) and multiple web pages open while I "do my homework"

I don't want a slowdown.

Obviously since I'm getting a new system, sandy bridge is the way to go, or so it seems.

But that brings me to a few specific questions

1) i7 vs. i5? i3 seems to be a bit underpowered for the modest improvement in pricing. Does the quad-core of the i7-26##Q take up that much more slack than the dual core/quad-thread of the i5-24##?

2) Is i3 really even a competitor? Can I apply the $$$ i save on the i3 processor go to improving performance enough via RAM or a faster HDD to make the differences between the i3 and the i5 not that big of a deal for a non-gamer?

3) Is there a specific reason to even bother with anything other than Win7 Home Premium (as opposed to Win7Pro or Ultimate)?

4) If I am going to be watching BDs on the laptop will I need a discrete graphics card? Obviously discrete graphics is always better, but again, the price point I'm trying to hit is $1k.

Most bang for the buck, ~$1000

interested in thoughts. Thanks.

1: I personally cannot speak to that

2: If you were to go that route, absolutely get an SSD if you think that you can live with the capacity.

3: There are some features in Ultimate that are not present, but unless you have need for them, then go ahead with Home Premium. It is what most ship with anyway. I think that at this point most of the OEMs have switched to 64bit, but you might want to try to make sure.

4: No need for a discrete card, Sandy Bridge's integrated GPU is more than powerful enough for that sort of thing.

 

[beginner99]

slowdowns are probably in like 99% of the cases a HDD issue. So IMHO it doesn't really matter what type of sandybridge you get, you will have slowdowns as long as you have a hdd. If you don't want them, ssd is probably the only option but that is rather difficult at your price point.

Win Professional additional features are mainly around networking.

 

[Paperlantern]

I agree here with Stu, the SSD will be your single best option for increasing performance, regardless of what iX processor you get.

 

[fb02521]

I'm roughly in same decision process at the moment with same money limits. am considering saving cash on memory. if you take 32 bit windows, do you need more than 2gb ram? anybody have a feel for that.
Also wondering whether in note book a 5400 rpm HD might actually have some advantages--less power, less noisy??? does 5400 rpm HD make system noticebly less snappy? On my 5 year old Dell with 5400 rpm I'm failing to recall the 5400 rpm slowed things down after the start up.

you can get a basic but seemingly workable machine from Dell with their best LCD for $649.00 Latitude E5420, or the same E6420 for $803. I5-2410m. That's today. might go up $100 tomorrow.
I am considering whether there's any real world difference for the type of use described in the OP between
I5-2410m
5400 rpm HD
2G DDR 3 memory

and
I7-2620m
SSd
4GB DD3 memory and 64 bit windows
with more than twice the cost.

 

[beginner99]

I
I am considering whether there's any real world difference for the type of use described in the OP between
I5-2410m
5400 rpm HD
2G DDR 3 memory

and
I7-2620m
SSd
4GB DD3 memory and 64 bit windows
with more than twice the cost.

There is but for general usage most of the difference will be due to the ssd (and RAM) and not the cpu.

I would choose an i3 with ssd over an i7 with 5400 rpm hdd all day. it would just feel more responsive.
RAM is cheap like shit. less than 4 gb just makes no sense. And 32-bit also unless maybe for companies with legacy stuff.

 

[fb02521]

from what i see of the SSDs on Utube, this seems correct, at least with the I5s they are using.

. on the ram issue, reverse the Q into: does it make sense topay $85 for 4GBs over 2GB that u could apply to an SSD. for a noob like me, what does 4gb ram get you if u use 32 bit windows, and what does 64 bit windows get u on a lap top?

 

[Paperlantern]

from what i see of the SSDs on Utube, this seems correct, at least with the I5s they are using.

. on the ram issue, reverse the Q into: does it make sense topay $85 for 4GBs over 2GB that u could apply to an SSD. for a noob like me, what does 4gb ram get you if u use 32 bit windows, and what does 64 bit windows get u on a lap top?

The only thing more RAM allows you to do is MORE THINGS at a time. The typical user wont need more than about 2GB with a Win7 machine. 3 Would be really comfortable for the average user, and 4GB would be utterly wasted. You can have 10 browser windows open all running youtube videos at once, with a dozen PDFs open, playing a movie in itunes while ripping a CD INTO itunes while playing 5 different games on facebook, and still not max out 2GB, and certainly not 3GB. My advice in that scenario WOULD be to stick with 2GB (possibly 3GB) and get the SSD. Anything over 3 for the average user is CERTAINLY wasted. My Air has 2GB and I am not an average user, I even run a VM on it with no issues. 2GB will probably be fine for you.

64bit windows really only gets you the ability to install more than 4GB of RAM. 32bit windows can only address 4GB of RAM, that's it's limitation. For the average user, a 64 bit copy of windows and a 32 bit copy installed on a PC with 4Gb or less will have zero differences. Aside for the rare software compatability issue if something is old enough and hasnt been updated.

 

[fb02521]

very helpful! txs. some might appreciate this humor--tinkering around with Dell for past few days vacillating between spending $600 or $1500--decision then go cheap and de-emphasize my laptop use. I find a Vostro for $609.00 with I5-2410m, 4 GB memory, 7200 rpm hard drive 64 bit windows pro-heck of a deal--and at about $200 cheaper than i found over exhaustive search. 10 min later, after reading here, I come back and whole Vostro lineup has changed. The regular vostro 3450 has disappeared with a "new" 3450 in its stead with the exact components at $200 more expensive, lol. I got 'em though. still had the old screen up with the $609. got it while getting is good, and they accepted the order.

 

[Tom]

I think people misinterpreted your OP. You are getting a lot of recommendations for an SSD based on your 'impatience', but after reading it again it sounds more like you mean you want to multi-task without slowdowns.

SSD in a laptop doesn't make sense but for geeks and technophiles. Or the rich. They are way more expensive than hard drive storage. And they are too small in capacity to be convenient. You can duplicate almost all of the benefit of an expensive SSD for free, by using sleep mode on your laptop.

You're right about the i3. It isn't enough cheaper than the i5..unless you come across a super deal with an i3, in which case it's probably fast enough for anything you need.

Since you want to multitask, 4 gb of ram is important, it's not likely more than that will make much difference given your useage. i7 quad is sweet, but I doubt you'll be dissapointed with an i5. If you really want to spend $800, you ought to be able to get an i7.

You shouldn't need a discrete graphics card, Sandy Bridge is a very good integrated graphics solution.

Don't take my post for more than it's worth. On the SSD issue in particular, it's just my opinion that for the average user, they aren't worth the cost. I'm sure it's cool to have a fast boot time, and to have apps feel real snappy when you open them, but that only amounts to a few minutes a day, at best. And if you never have an SSD, you won't miss it.

 

[Paperlantern]

Sleep mode doesnt make firefox come up in a quarter of a second rather than 4 seconds. Or make outlook or any other office application pop up near instantly rather than crank it over for 7 - 10 seconds. If he's impatient, just in general, an SSD is the route to go. I would trade hundreds of gigs of storage space to have many seconds back from every computer program I open. yes, i am a geek/nerd/whatever and that is my nature to like performance enhancements. But in this scenario, it will help him. I dont think its a good idea to recommend 4GB of RAM to someone who will most likely... AT THE MOST, be using 1.5GB day to day. Yes he wants to multitask, but if you are only USING 1.5GB at most, the extra 2.5GB just sitting out there... while comforting... wont increase speed on anything... the SSD will.

EDIT* I will give you this, these days with the software that comes with machines, 3GB would actually be a good idea, that extra overhead added to the 1.5GB you may actively be using would crank it up to 2 or 2.5 of use, but still not enough to consider 4GB.

 

[Tom]

Sleep mode doesnt make firefox come up in a quarter of a second rather than 4 seconds. Or make outlook or any other office application pop up near instantly rather than crank it over for 7 - 10 seconds. If he's impatient, just in general, an SSD is the route to go. I would trade hundreds of gigs of storage space to have many seconds back from every computer program I open. yes, i am a geek/nerd/whatever and that is my nature to like performance enhancements. But in this scenario, it will help him. I dont think its a good idea to recommend 4GB of RAM to someone who will most likely... AT THE MOST, be using 1.5GB day to day. Yes he wants to multitask, but if you are only USING 1.5GB at most, the extra 2.5GB just sitting out there... while comforting... wont increase speed on anything... the SSD will.

EDIT* I will give you this, these days with the software that comes with machines, 3GB would actually be a good idea, that extra overhead added to the 1.5GB you may actively be using would crank it up to 2 or 2.5 of use, but still not enough to consider 4GB.

Firefox opens in 2 seconds on my machine with a 5400 rpm drive. Excel 2007 opens in 4 seconds.

If they're already open in sleep mode they open in an instant. Just like I said.

SSD in a laptop means compromises on space, not so much in a desktop. To me, it's an expensive luxury item. That's great for those who want it, doesn't make sense to me though. It doesn't add any function, it's too expensive for a small, but noticeable speed up. For me.

On the memory, I agree that 3 gb is enough, but it isn't much cheaper than 4 gb, most of the time, unless he finds a good deal with 3 gb.

 

[Paperlantern]

Firefox opens in 2 seconds on my machine with a 5400 rpm drive. Excel 2007 opens in 4 seconds.

If they're already open in sleep mode they open in an instant. Just like I said.

SSD in a laptop means compromises on space, not so much in a desktop. To me, it's an expensive luxury item. That's great for those who want it, doesn't make sense to me though. It doesn't add any function, it's too expensive for a small, but noticeable speed up. For me.

On the memory, I agree that 3 gb is enough, but it isn't much cheaper than 4 gb, most of the time, unless he finds a good deal with 3 gb.

Most comparisons Ive done have been a bit more substantial than that. Though what i don't understand is why you need all this space on a laptop. For me, a 32 or a 64gb would be more than enough space on a lappy. My Air has a 128GB and i dont even touch a quarter of it and ive had it for 6 months. Its all preference though I guess.

No I guess 3 isnt much cheaper than 4 these days, though 2 really is all he should need. He said 2 to 4 is an 80 some dollar difference. For me, in my usage having 2GB of RAM and a SSD is WAY better than 4GB of RAM and a massive spindle disk.

For me it doesnt make sense the latter way. For you it doesnt make sense the Former. I'll agree to disagree... we have differnet usage needs. So that being said, the OP really needs to just scrutinize HIS usage needs and choose accordingly.

 

[fb02521]

there are some utube vids showing laptop SSds in operation and visually comparing pop up times. substantial difference. if there's a budget, is it whether laptop use is recreational, in which case a 5400 rpm suffices for me, or as office desk top replacement. for latter SSD from what I'm seeing might be a godsend.

 

[RaistlinZ]

there are some utube vids showing laptop SSds in operation and visually comparing pop up times. substantial difference. if there's a budget, is it whether laptop use is recreational, in which case a 5400 rpm suffices for me, or as office desk top replacement. for latter SSD from what I'm seeing might be a godsend.

This might be the video you were thinking of.

Short story short, get an SSD.

 

[Tom]

This might be the video you were thinking of.

Short story short, get an SSD.

Have you seen a video of an SSD laptop versus HD laptop coming out of sleep mode and being ready to work with an already open app ?

 

[Tom]

Most comparisons Ive done have been a bit more substantial than that. Though what i don't understand is why you need all this space on a laptop. For me, a 32 or a 64gb would be more than enough space on a lappy. My Air has a 128GB and i dont even touch a quarter of it and ive had it for 6 months. Its all preference though I guess.

No I guess 3 isnt much cheaper than 4 these days, though 2 really is all he should need. He said 2 to 4 is an 80 some dollar difference. For me, in my usage having 2GB of RAM and a SSD is WAY better than 4GB of RAM and a massive spindle disk.

For me it doesnt make sense the latter way. For you it doesnt make sense the Former. I'll agree to disagree... we have differnet usage needs. So that being said, the OP really needs to just scrutinize HIS usage needs and choose accordingly.

A 32gb ssd on a laptop ? Can Windows 7 even be installed ?

Like you said, it all depends on usage. Personally, I have about 280 gb of stuff on my main laptop.

 

[Abwx]

My primary use for this will not be for gaming. I would like to get the best performance for about $1k. It's primary use will be "general home/office" type stuff, but I'm insanely impatient. I typically have a youtube video page open playing music and such while I'm playing one of those silly flash games on facebook, and I have a .pdf (or 3) and multiple web pages open while I "do my homework"

I don't want a slowdown.

Obviously since I'm getting a new system, sandy bridge is the way to go, or so it seems.

.

Lifecycle of a laptop is not determined by the CPU,
but by its graphic part.
If you go SB, take one with a quite good discrete GFX,
as 1K$ is enough to buy such a LT...

 

[LokutusofBorg]

The Momentus XT drives provide a nice middle-ground between slow laptop drive performance and an SSD.