None, if you have a 4k budget you can get a top of the line desktop for 2-3k, laptops are ok but no room for real upgrades, I would get a 2k desk top and a 2k laptop if I had a 4-5k budget or a desktop with a massive screen, 27" inch.
If you want a small gaming PC try out a Fragbox, kick ass gaming Pc
I had a nice reply made but this website sux and doesnt auto save the frigin reply u have and it quit on me so ill just list them with no links, you can seach for them after all I did for your self if u like lol
1.alienware m18x
2. sager NP7280(fastest notebook on planet)
3.MSI GT780DXR(one of the most unique new laptops)
4. sager NP8170
Those are just some of the most high performance laptops you can get, there are tons more that are mid range that are way more then enough for a game like SWTOR.
1.alienware m14x.
2.lenovo ideapad Y470( i got something just lsike this and i love it)
I had a nice reply made but this website sux and doesnt auto save the frigin reply u have and it quit on me so ill just list them with no links, you can seach for them after all I did for your self if u like lol
1.alienware m18x
2. sager NP7280(fastest notebook on planet)
3.MSI GT780DXR(one of the most unique new laptops)
4. sager NP8170
Those are just some of the most high performance laptops you can get, there are tons more that are mid range that are way more then enough for a game like SWTOR.
1.alienware m14x.
2.lenovo ideapad Y470( i got something just lsike this and i love it)
3. sony SA
4. acer 3820tg
damn, i can always use the back button in Mozilla to go back to what i typed and just copy and paste in a refreshed window.
you think the np7280 is faster then the np7282? how come?
The main difference between those two builds is the different platforms, resulting in two different processors. A Core i7-990X is a desktop processor with a TDP of 130 W. A Core i7-2960XM is a laptop processor with a TDP of 55 W. That's a huge difference in potential power consumption.
As for which is better for gaming performance, that will vary by game. The 2960XM is better in single-threaded programs. The 990X is better in programs that scale well to six cores, or even three or four cores. I'd rather have the 2960M, due to the lower power consumption.
But you might also want to consider spending less and getting a Core i7-2760QM instead. That will cost you a few hundred MHz, but it's also lower power consumption. It's still plenty fast enough for any games that will launch in the next few years, with performance that would be respectable even by desktop standards. And it will save you $750, too. Upgrading from a 2630QM to a 2760QM is worth it on a $2000+ budget. But further upgrades above that are vastly more money for significantly less gain.
-----
Alienware charges stupid prices for memory upgrades. The difference between 8 GB and 32 GB for most purposes (including gaming!) is basically zilch. The difference between 1333 MHz DDR3 and something ridiculous like 2400 MHz DDR3 in a laptop is basically zilch. Both of those amount to basically a rounding error in performance.
If you want 8 GB of 1333 MHz DDR3 memory for a laptop, then look what it costs. Pick your favorite brand:
If you want excess for the sake of excess and get 16 GB, then get two of one of those kits for $90. Dell will charge you $400 for that. Even if you want 1600 MHz CAS 9 memory (which is probably better than what Alienware will ship you) in spite of the infintessimally small advantage it provides, that still costs less than half of what Alienware will charge you for an upgrade:
On a side note, if you use Windows 7 Home Premium, it won't recognize more than 16 GB of system memory, anyway. That's something that Microsoft figures has no plausible consumer use, and they want businesses that aren't sensitive to software prices to pay more for it.
-----
If you're going to get an SSD from Alienware, then you should contact them to find out exactly what SSD they use. SSDs are not all the same, or even remotely similar. It's probably a Samsung 470, which is fine. But if it's something else, then it would be good to say here what it is, so that I can tell you if it's any good.
-----
If you're going to watch Blu-Ray movies on the computer, then go ahead and get a Blu-Ray drive. If not, then skip it, as it's a complete waste of money.
Also, why did you want Wireless HD? And it looks like you're inflating the cost of the Alienware by grabbing some random accessories such as a wireless printer.
The main difference between those two builds is the different platforms, resulting in two different processors. A Core i7-990X is a desktop processor with a TDP of 130 W. A Core i7-2960XM is a laptop processor with a TDP of 55 W. That's a huge difference in potential power consumption.
As for which is better for gaming performance, that will vary by game. The 2960XM is better in single-threaded programs. The 990X is better in programs that scale well to six cores, or even three or four cores. I'd rather have the 2960M, due to the lower power consumption.
But you might also want to consider spending less and getting a Core i7-2760QM instead. That will cost you a few hundred MHz, but it's also lower power consumption. It's still plenty fast enough for any games that will launch in the next few years, with performance that would be respectable even by desktop standards. And it will save you $750, too. Upgrading from a 2630QM to a 2760QM is worth it on a $2000+ budget. But further upgrades above that are vastly more money for significantly less gain.
-----
Alienware charges stupid prices for memory upgrades. The difference between 8 GB and 32 GB for most purposes (including gaming!) is basically zilch. The difference between 1333 MHz DDR3 and something ridiculous like 2400 MHz DDR3 in a laptop is basically zilch. Both of those amount to basically a rounding error in performance.
If you want 8 GB of 1333 MHz DDR3 memory for a laptop, then look what it costs. Pick your favorite brand:
If you want excess for the sake of excess and get 16 GB, then get two of one of those kits for $90. Dell will charge you $400 for that. Even if you want 1600 MHz CAS 9 memory (which is probably better than what Alienware will ship you) in spite of the infintessimally small advantage it provides, that still costs less than half of what Alienware will charge you for an upgrade:
On a side note, if you use Windows 7 Home Premium, it won't recognize more than 16 GB of system memory, anyway. That's something that Microsoft figures has no plausible consumer use, and they want businesses that aren't sensitive to software prices to pay more for it.
-----
If you're going to get an SSD from Alienware, then you should contact them to find out exactly what SSD they use. SSDs are not all the same, or even remotely similar. It's probably a Samsung 470, which is fine. But if it's something else, then it would be good to say here what it is, so that I can tell you if it's any good.
-----
If you're going to watch Blu-Ray movies on the computer, then go ahead and get a Blu-Ray drive. If not, then skip it, as it's a complete waste of money.
Also, why did you want Wireless HD? And it looks like you're inflating the cost of the Alienware by grabbing some random accessories such as a wireless printer.
so are you still recomending the alienware over the sager? the reason why i ask is i have heard a lot of really good things about sager.
what programs will scale to 6 cores? any games; possibly maybe in the future?
i'll stick to the i7xm from either sager or alienware if it keeps me that much more ahead of the curb, unless you find it useless? i dont plan on buying every single pc game coming out, i mostly stick to rpg/mmo/strategy styles mostly and less fps. (which i hear are more demanding on computers, however if a really good one comes out i might want to test it on my machine)
do these companies allow for user customization with the memory you linked? i will certainly keep it out and buy the best one you recommend to add in later if thats what you suggest.
i'll stick to the 8gb or 16gb then if thats all windows 7 will allow, what is the benefit of having more?
i'll be honest with the accessories, i have no idea what the wireless hd is?? i was just checking off stuff that i may actually use like the printer and mouse would be nice
what programs will scale to 6 cores? any games; possibly maybe in the future?
do these companies allow for user customization with the memory you linked? i will certainly keep it out and buy the best one you recommend to add in later if thats what you suggest.
i'll stick to the 8gb or 16gb then if thats all windows 7 will allow, what is the benefit of having more?
i'll be honest with the accessories, i have no idea what the wireless hd is?? i was just checking off stuff that i may actually use like the printer and mouse would be nice
1) That's not quite the right question to ask. The proper question is, what programs will see a meaningful benefit from more than four cores?
And the answer is, programs that you shouldn't make heavy use of on a laptop. A quick check of a processor review found that they used some photo and video editng programs and compression utilities to gauge processor performance in programs that scale well to many cores.
So why is my question different from yours? There are two major situations in which games could scale well to many cores, but you wouldn't see any advantage from it. One is when your frame rates are high enough that going higher doesn't matter. If one processor can do 200 frames per second, and another can do 300 frames per second, is 300 really better than 200? In that game, I'd say no. Anything over a steady 120 frames per second makes no plausible difference whatsoever. And even a steady 120 frames per second is only infinitesimally better than a steady 60 frames per second.
You might think, well, if it's the difference between 300 and 200 now, then maybe it will be the difference between 60 and 40 a few years from now. And that difference matters. But changing the graphical settings usually doesn't affect the processor load very much. A game that can't run smoothly at max settings because a Core i7-2760QM isn't fast enough (and yes, that's a lower bin, not the 2960XM) probably won't run smoothly even at minimum settings on a lot of brand new computers that people buy a few years from now. There probably will be a relative handful of badly-coded games that do that, but a sufficiently badly-coded game can manage to run poorly on matter what hardware you have.
There's also the question of, what if one processor could do 300 frames per second, and another could do 200, but your video card can only deliver 100? In that case, it means that the first processor is 2/3 idle and the second processor is 1/2 idle, and you get 100 frames per second either way. If a processor is fast enough that it's not a meaningful limiting factor, then getting a processor that is faster yet doesn't help. And this situation is pretty common.
So while there probably will be quite a few games that scale well to more than four cores a few years from now, they probably won't give you a meaningful benefit. I'd see a more likely application to that in making those games run well on processors with six or eight very weak cores, such as the successor to Zacate or Krishna that AMD launches in a few years, or perhaps Silvermont or Airmont Atom. A (perhaps hypothetical) processor with eight of those low power cores would probably be slower a Core i7-2760QM even in programs that scale flawlessly to eight cores, but it may need some games to scale to more than four cores in order to run smoothly.
Now, if you make millions of dollars per year and $1000 is basically a rounding error in your budget, then go ahead and get the Core i7-2960XM. But there isn't a value for the money proposition. Even on the off chance that it does get you a little extra life out of the laptop, is it better to get a $2000 laptop that lasts you three years, or a $5000 laptop that lasts you four? Most people would prefer the former. You might argue that it's not a $3000 difference, but it's not going to be a one year difference in lifetime, either.
2) They probably do, but I can't guarantee it. Larger laptops usually have standard DDR3 SODIMM slots. You could call Alienware or Sager to ask and make sure. Very small laptops that are trying to cram too much stuff into too little space sometimes have to solder things directly onto the motherboard, because the standard form factors just don't fit. I doubt that they'd need to do much of that in an 18" form factor.
3) The benefit of more system memory is basically that you can have more and larger programs open at a time. Essentially all games are 32-bit programs, and such programs cannot address more than 2 GB of system memory.
The advantage of system memory is that if the processor needs some data and it's already in system memory, it can get it in about 50 nanoseconds. If it has to get it off of an SSD, it can take more like 100 microseconds. If it has to wait for a hard drive, that can easily take 10 milliseconds. For little pieces of data that the processor is likely to use, having it sitting in system memory is a huge deal. More memory means that you can put more data there.
But there is only so much data that the processor is likely to need at a moment's notice. If your amount of system memory is less than this, then Windows has to guess what you aren't actually going to need, and put it on a hard drive (or SSD, if you have it) instead. This is called "virtual memory". If the processor is constantly having to stop and wait for something off of the hard drive, then that can completely kill your performance.
If your amount of system memory is more than you need, then Windows will do prefetching. It will try to guess what data you might like to have in memory, even though it isn't going to be immediately needed. For example, it will pick programs that you aren't running, but do use quite a bit, and load those into leftover system memory. If Windows guesses correctly, and you later open a program that it had already loaded into memory, then maybe the program loads for you in two seconds instead of four. This is mostly an effort at getting around the deficiencies of hard drives, and if you're using an SSD, then the SSD can provide most of the advantage of prefetching even if Windows guesses wrong.
If Windows has loaded a bunch of data into memory for prefetching purposes, and then programs that you're actually using need more memory, then Windows will dump some of the stuff that it had prefetched in order to make room for the programs that you're actually running.
If you're using Windows 7 on your current computer, you can press Ctrl+Alt+Del, then click Start Task Manager, and go to the "performance" tab. That will show you how much memory you have in total, how muh physical memory is in use, and how much is being currently used for prefetching (the "cached" line).
So how much memory do you actually need for real programs? For everyday use, including gaming, maybe 2-3 GB. Now, you want at least 4 GB, because you need a power of 2, and you don't want to just barely have enough. Memory is cheap enough that I'd get 8 GB on a large budget, so that you'll probably still have enough a few years from now without needing to upgrade at some point. But I see no sense in getting more than 8 GB unless you run some particular programs that need massive amounts of memory. And those are the sort of programs that you probably shouldn't be doing on a laptop, anyway.
4) That's probably the sort of thing that, if you need it, then you know it. Honestly, I don't know what Wireless HD is, either. My best guess is that it's a way to output the laptop's monitor signal wirelessly to an external monitor, without needing to run a monitor cable. But that's likely wrong, as I don't know what it is.
For stuff like a printer and mouse, check to see what it costs elsewhere. You know how I pointed out that Dell charges vastly more for memory than you can get it for on New Egg? That's not the only thing that Dell does that. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they charge $100 for a mouse that you can get for under $50 from a number of other sources. Especially for peripherals like that, installation is exactly the same whether it comes in a box from Dell or a box from New Egg.
4) That's probably the sort of thing that, if you need it, then you know it. Honestly, I don't know what Wireless HD is, either. My best guess is that it's a way to output the laptop's monitor signal wirelessly to an external monitor, without needing to run a monitor cable. But that's likely wrong, as I don't know what it is.
That's the basic gist of it. It's typically used for TVs so that you don't need cables running all over the place.
for the ssd the person said he didnt have that information, he said it is most likely a samsung ssd but could not confirm the model number.
he also said i could do user upgrading to the memory.
he also said they offer the dual Geforce gtx 580m SLI, how does that compare to the dual amd 6990 and would it work with the i7-2760QM previously recommended?
While SW:TOR hasnt released specs yet. I went and bought an alienware Mx17.
2.2 I7 overclocked to 3.3
750 gig hard drive
Nividia 580 2 gig video card
16 gig memory.
It runs silent, good cooling system, great looking and Im also able to change the color scheme of the keyboard to red or blue if im playing republic or Sith.
If you have that kind of cash to spend I would suggest Alienware.
***raises plunger in slaute to Alienware!!!***
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care. Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
A GeForce GTX 580M gives you about the same performance as a Radeon HD 6990M. The desktop equivalents are the GeForce GTX 560 Ti and Radeon HD 6870, respectively, but Nvidia has to underclock their card much further to bring power consumption down far enough to put it in a laptop.
In the latest generation, CrossFire seems to scale better than SLI in desktops, at least in the average frame rates that review sites look at, so two 6990Ms in CrossFire is more likely to give better performance than worse performance as compared to two GTX 580Ms in SLI. Average frame rates do not give the full story with CrossFire and SLI scaling, however, but that wanders into information that I don't know, and reading reviews won't tell you.
The most important difference in the cards themselves is that the 6990M will use considerably less power at load than the GTX 580M. This means less heat output, so the laptop stays cooler. Even a single 6990M is already into "do you really want that much heat in a laptop?" territory. Two of them means you're far into the range where less heat is better, and it is a big deal. On that basis, I'd recommend the 6990Ms over the GTX 580Ms for all but the most die-hard Nvidia fanboys and people who needed some peculiar Nvidia-only feature even if they were the same price.
Add in that the 6990Ms cost hundreds of dollars less and it's an easy choice.
In a desktop, the difference between 100 W and 120 W isn't that big of a deal. All else equal, you'd rather have lower power consumption, of course. But it's easy enough to get a case that accommodates 120 W without incident. In a laptop, that difference in power consumption is very much a big deal.
for the ssd the person said he didnt have that information, he said it is most likely a samsung ssd but could not confirm the model number.
he also said i could do user upgrading to the memory.
he also said they offer the dual Geforce gtx 580m SLI, how does that compare to the dual amd 6990 and would it work with the i7-2760QM previously recommended?
Demand to speak to someone who knows. This would typically be a senior technician. Anyone you can directly reach through phoning without extensions likely knows nothing about the computer. With companies like AW, you need to make sure you're clear about what you want.
If it's any use in your decision, SWTOR seems to be limited to using 2 cores and the 2nd thread isn't quite as demanding so I'd go with a quad core with the best single thread performance. It also seems to be quite CPU dependent more than GPU dependent but that may change.
And it was already covered but seriously, don't use RAID in laptops - negligible gaming performance for a huge heat penalty and those gaming laptops already have serious heat issues.
For memory, generally more than 4 GB isn't very useful but this is the first game I would say get 8 GB since it runs 2 separate processes and could exceed using 2 GB of memory. 16 GB is still a waste of money so don't bother with that.
Originally posted by RavingRabbid It runs silent, good cooling system, great looking and Im also able to change the color scheme of the keyboard to red or blue if im playing republic or Sith.
Oh.. my.. god.. I didn't even think of that. I just ordered a red Sidewinder X6 to change out my red Logitech G15.. and I'm going republic. (btw I have a G15 for sale!)
Comments
None, if you have a 4k budget you can get a top of the line desktop for 2-3k, laptops are ok but no room for real upgrades, I would get a 2k desk top and a 2k laptop if I had a 4-5k budget or a desktop with a massive screen, 27" inch.
If you want a small gaming PC try out a Fragbox, kick ass gaming Pc
http://www.falcon-nw.com/desktops/fragbox
I had a nice reply made but this website sux and doesnt auto save the frigin reply u have and it quit on me so ill just list them with no links, you can seach for them after all I did for your self if u like lol
1.alienware m18x
2. sager NP7280(fastest notebook on planet)
3.MSI GT780DXR(one of the most unique new laptops)
4. sager NP8170
Those are just some of the most high performance laptops you can get, there are tons more that are mid range that are way more then enough for a game like SWTOR.
1.alienware m14x.
2.lenovo ideapad Y470( i got something just lsike this and i love it)
3. sony SA
4. acer 3820tg
damn, i can always use the back button in Mozilla to go back to what i typed and just copy and paste in a refreshed window.
you think the np7280 is faster then the np7282? how come?
The main difference between those two builds is the different platforms, resulting in two different processors. A Core i7-990X is a desktop processor with a TDP of 130 W. A Core i7-2960XM is a laptop processor with a TDP of 55 W. That's a huge difference in potential power consumption.
As for which is better for gaming performance, that will vary by game. The 2960XM is better in single-threaded programs. The 990X is better in programs that scale well to six cores, or even three or four cores. I'd rather have the 2960M, due to the lower power consumption.
But you might also want to consider spending less and getting a Core i7-2760QM instead. That will cost you a few hundred MHz, but it's also lower power consumption. It's still plenty fast enough for any games that will launch in the next few years, with performance that would be respectable even by desktop standards. And it will save you $750, too. Upgrading from a 2630QM to a 2760QM is worth it on a $2000+ budget. But further upgrades above that are vastly more money for significantly less gain.
-----
Alienware charges stupid prices for memory upgrades. The difference between 8 GB and 32 GB for most purposes (including gaming!) is basically zilch. The difference between 1333 MHz DDR3 and something ridiculous like 2400 MHz DDR3 in a laptop is basically zilch. Both of those amount to basically a rounding error in performance.
If you want 8 GB of 1333 MHz DDR3 memory for a laptop, then look what it costs. Pick your favorite brand:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231342
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226027
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820161366
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211515
If you want excess for the sake of excess and get 16 GB, then get two of one of those kits for $90. Dell will charge you $400 for that. Even if you want 1600 MHz CAS 9 memory (which is probably better than what Alienware will ship you) in spite of the infintessimally small advantage it provides, that still costs less than half of what Alienware will charge you for an upgrade:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104257
On a side note, if you use Windows 7 Home Premium, it won't recognize more than 16 GB of system memory, anyway. That's something that Microsoft figures has no plausible consumer use, and they want businesses that aren't sensitive to software prices to pay more for it.
-----
If you're going to get an SSD from Alienware, then you should contact them to find out exactly what SSD they use. SSDs are not all the same, or even remotely similar. It's probably a Samsung 470, which is fine. But if it's something else, then it would be good to say here what it is, so that I can tell you if it's any good.
-----
If you're going to watch Blu-Ray movies on the computer, then go ahead and get a Blu-Ray drive. If not, then skip it, as it's a complete waste of money.
Also, why did you want Wireless HD? And it looks like you're inflating the cost of the Alienware by grabbing some random accessories such as a wireless printer.
so are you still recomending the alienware over the sager? the reason why i ask is i have heard a lot of really good things about sager.
what programs will scale to 6 cores? any games; possibly maybe in the future?
i'll stick to the i7xm from either sager or alienware if it keeps me that much more ahead of the curb, unless you find it useless? i dont plan on buying every single pc game coming out, i mostly stick to rpg/mmo/strategy styles mostly and less fps. (which i hear are more demanding on computers, however if a really good one comes out i might want to test it on my machine)
do these companies allow for user customization with the memory you linked? i will certainly keep it out and buy the best one you recommend to add in later if thats what you suggest.
i'll stick to the 8gb or 16gb then if thats all windows 7 will allow, what is the benefit of having more?
i'll be honest with the accessories, i have no idea what the wireless hd is?? i was just checking off stuff that i may actually use like the printer and mouse would be nice
1) That's not quite the right question to ask. The proper question is, what programs will see a meaningful benefit from more than four cores?
And the answer is, programs that you shouldn't make heavy use of on a laptop. A quick check of a processor review found that they used some photo and video editng programs and compression utilities to gauge processor performance in programs that scale well to many cores.
So why is my question different from yours? There are two major situations in which games could scale well to many cores, but you wouldn't see any advantage from it. One is when your frame rates are high enough that going higher doesn't matter. If one processor can do 200 frames per second, and another can do 300 frames per second, is 300 really better than 200? In that game, I'd say no. Anything over a steady 120 frames per second makes no plausible difference whatsoever. And even a steady 120 frames per second is only infinitesimally better than a steady 60 frames per second.
You might think, well, if it's the difference between 300 and 200 now, then maybe it will be the difference between 60 and 40 a few years from now. And that difference matters. But changing the graphical settings usually doesn't affect the processor load very much. A game that can't run smoothly at max settings because a Core i7-2760QM isn't fast enough (and yes, that's a lower bin, not the 2960XM) probably won't run smoothly even at minimum settings on a lot of brand new computers that people buy a few years from now. There probably will be a relative handful of badly-coded games that do that, but a sufficiently badly-coded game can manage to run poorly on matter what hardware you have.
There's also the question of, what if one processor could do 300 frames per second, and another could do 200, but your video card can only deliver 100? In that case, it means that the first processor is 2/3 idle and the second processor is 1/2 idle, and you get 100 frames per second either way. If a processor is fast enough that it's not a meaningful limiting factor, then getting a processor that is faster yet doesn't help. And this situation is pretty common.
So while there probably will be quite a few games that scale well to more than four cores a few years from now, they probably won't give you a meaningful benefit. I'd see a more likely application to that in making those games run well on processors with six or eight very weak cores, such as the successor to Zacate or Krishna that AMD launches in a few years, or perhaps Silvermont or Airmont Atom. A (perhaps hypothetical) processor with eight of those low power cores would probably be slower a Core i7-2760QM even in programs that scale flawlessly to eight cores, but it may need some games to scale to more than four cores in order to run smoothly.
Now, if you make millions of dollars per year and $1000 is basically a rounding error in your budget, then go ahead and get the Core i7-2960XM. But there isn't a value for the money proposition. Even on the off chance that it does get you a little extra life out of the laptop, is it better to get a $2000 laptop that lasts you three years, or a $5000 laptop that lasts you four? Most people would prefer the former. You might argue that it's not a $3000 difference, but it's not going to be a one year difference in lifetime, either.
2) They probably do, but I can't guarantee it. Larger laptops usually have standard DDR3 SODIMM slots. You could call Alienware or Sager to ask and make sure. Very small laptops that are trying to cram too much stuff into too little space sometimes have to solder things directly onto the motherboard, because the standard form factors just don't fit. I doubt that they'd need to do much of that in an 18" form factor.
3) The benefit of more system memory is basically that you can have more and larger programs open at a time. Essentially all games are 32-bit programs, and such programs cannot address more than 2 GB of system memory.
The advantage of system memory is that if the processor needs some data and it's already in system memory, it can get it in about 50 nanoseconds. If it has to get it off of an SSD, it can take more like 100 microseconds. If it has to wait for a hard drive, that can easily take 10 milliseconds. For little pieces of data that the processor is likely to use, having it sitting in system memory is a huge deal. More memory means that you can put more data there.
But there is only so much data that the processor is likely to need at a moment's notice. If your amount of system memory is less than this, then Windows has to guess what you aren't actually going to need, and put it on a hard drive (or SSD, if you have it) instead. This is called "virtual memory". If the processor is constantly having to stop and wait for something off of the hard drive, then that can completely kill your performance.
If your amount of system memory is more than you need, then Windows will do prefetching. It will try to guess what data you might like to have in memory, even though it isn't going to be immediately needed. For example, it will pick programs that you aren't running, but do use quite a bit, and load those into leftover system memory. If Windows guesses correctly, and you later open a program that it had already loaded into memory, then maybe the program loads for you in two seconds instead of four. This is mostly an effort at getting around the deficiencies of hard drives, and if you're using an SSD, then the SSD can provide most of the advantage of prefetching even if Windows guesses wrong.
If Windows has loaded a bunch of data into memory for prefetching purposes, and then programs that you're actually using need more memory, then Windows will dump some of the stuff that it had prefetched in order to make room for the programs that you're actually running.
If you're using Windows 7 on your current computer, you can press Ctrl+Alt+Del, then click Start Task Manager, and go to the "performance" tab. That will show you how much memory you have in total, how muh physical memory is in use, and how much is being currently used for prefetching (the "cached" line).
So how much memory do you actually need for real programs? For everyday use, including gaming, maybe 2-3 GB. Now, you want at least 4 GB, because you need a power of 2, and you don't want to just barely have enough. Memory is cheap enough that I'd get 8 GB on a large budget, so that you'll probably still have enough a few years from now without needing to upgrade at some point. But I see no sense in getting more than 8 GB unless you run some particular programs that need massive amounts of memory. And those are the sort of programs that you probably shouldn't be doing on a laptop, anyway.
4) That's probably the sort of thing that, if you need it, then you know it. Honestly, I don't know what Wireless HD is, either. My best guess is that it's a way to output the laptop's monitor signal wirelessly to an external monitor, without needing to run a monitor cable. But that's likely wrong, as I don't know what it is.
For stuff like a printer and mouse, check to see what it costs elsewhere. You know how I pointed out that Dell charges vastly more for memory than you can get it for on New Egg? That's not the only thing that Dell does that. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they charge $100 for a mouse that you can get for under $50 from a number of other sources. Especially for peripherals like that, installation is exactly the same whether it comes in a box from Dell or a box from New Egg.
That's the basic gist of it. It's typically used for TVs so that you don't need cables running all over the place.
thank you so very much for your help! i really appreciate it.
Quizzical you have been the best most unbiased help one could ask for.
I spoke with alienware today,
for the ssd the person said he didnt have that information, he said it is most likely a samsung ssd but could not confirm the model number.
he also said i could do user upgrading to the memory.
he also said they offer the dual Geforce gtx 580m SLI, how does that compare to the dual amd 6990 and would it work with the i7-2760QM previously recommended?
While SW:TOR hasnt released specs yet. I went and bought an alienware Mx17.
2.2 I7 overclocked to 3.3
750 gig hard drive
Nividia 580 2 gig video card
16 gig memory.
It runs silent, good cooling system, great looking and Im also able to change the color scheme of the keyboard to red or blue if im playing republic or Sith.
If you have that kind of cash to spend I would suggest Alienware.
***raises plunger in slaute to Alienware!!!***
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care.
Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
A GeForce GTX 580M gives you about the same performance as a Radeon HD 6990M. The desktop equivalents are the GeForce GTX 560 Ti and Radeon HD 6870, respectively, but Nvidia has to underclock their card much further to bring power consumption down far enough to put it in a laptop.
In the latest generation, CrossFire seems to scale better than SLI in desktops, at least in the average frame rates that review sites look at, so two 6990Ms in CrossFire is more likely to give better performance than worse performance as compared to two GTX 580Ms in SLI. Average frame rates do not give the full story with CrossFire and SLI scaling, however, but that wanders into information that I don't know, and reading reviews won't tell you.
The most important difference in the cards themselves is that the 6990M will use considerably less power at load than the GTX 580M. This means less heat output, so the laptop stays cooler. Even a single 6990M is already into "do you really want that much heat in a laptop?" territory. Two of them means you're far into the range where less heat is better, and it is a big deal. On that basis, I'd recommend the 6990Ms over the GTX 580Ms for all but the most die-hard Nvidia fanboys and people who needed some peculiar Nvidia-only feature even if they were the same price.
Add in that the 6990Ms cost hundreds of dollars less and it's an easy choice.
In a desktop, the difference between 100 W and 120 W isn't that big of a deal. All else equal, you'd rather have lower power consumption, of course. But it's easy enough to get a case that accommodates 120 W without incident. In a laptop, that difference in power consumption is very much a big deal.
thanks again Quizzical, you are the best!
im going to order the laptop now and i am excited.
Demand to speak to someone who knows. This would typically be a senior technician. Anyone you can directly reach through phoning without extensions likely knows nothing about the computer. With companies like AW, you need to make sure you're clear about what you want.
If it's any use in your decision, SWTOR seems to be limited to using 2 cores and the 2nd thread isn't quite as demanding so I'd go with a quad core with the best single thread performance. It also seems to be quite CPU dependent more than GPU dependent but that may change.
And it was already covered but seriously, don't use RAID in laptops - negligible gaming performance for a huge heat penalty and those gaming laptops already have serious heat issues.
For memory, generally more than 4 GB isn't very useful but this is the first game I would say get 8 GB since it runs 2 separate processes and could exceed using 2 GB of memory. 16 GB is still a waste of money so don't bother with that.
Oh.. my.. god.. I didn't even think of that. I just ordered a red Sidewinder X6 to change out my red Logitech G15.. and I'm going republic. (btw I have a G15 for sale!)
i'll be playing a smuggler in game with probably a character name similar to this.
see you guys there