Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Laptop question
Im deploying again in a few months and want to buy a small laptop that would be able to play Skyrim. Would this one from Alienware do the trick? http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-m11x-r3/fs . I really dont have room for the 17" ones. I would only use this for about a year while deployed. I plan on building a new desktop when I get back.
Comments
Stay away from the Arrandale version of the M11x, as a lot of games will not run smoothly on that even at minimum settings. The processor is just too slow. The Sandy Bridge ones should be a fair bit better.
The base model Sandy Bridge M11x for $1000 should be able to run most games decently enough at moderate settings. None of the upgrades available will help your gaming performance much, though.
If you hit a processor intensive game, it will choke, though, and the game won't run smoothly even at minimum settings. And if you try to max settings, the video card won't be able to handle a lot of games.
If you really need the 11" form factor, then the Alienware M11x is the best option available. But calling it a gaming laptop is a bit of a stretch.
If the problem is that 17" is too big, but 15" is fine, then you've got a whole lot more options. 15" is kind of the minimum size for real gaming laptops. Someone could make a budget gaming laptop by putting Llano into a smaller form factor. Toshiba has done that with some 14" models, but those disable video driver updates, which is a major problem.
If interested in a 15" gaming laptop, then it depends largely on your budget. On a severe budget, you could pick up this, and most games will be playable at moderate settings:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834101252
On a somewhat larger budget, you could grab this and configure it properly for about $700:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_can_series.do?storeName=computer_store&category=notebooks&a1=Processor&v1=AMD&series_name=dv6zqe_series&jumpid=in_R329_prodexp/hhoslp/psg/notebooks/AMD/dv6zqe_series
With an A8-3510MX, that should run a lot of games better than the Alienware M11x. It will be cheaper and have longer battery life, too.
If you want a high end gaming laptop on a large budget, you could try a Clevo P150HM, which is resold by a variety of vendors, including here:
http://www.avadirect.com/gaming-laptop-configurator.asp?PRID=19610
Configured appropriately (Radeon HD 6990M, etc.), nearly all games will run smoothly at high graphical settings for about $1800. Some other upgrades to make it a generally nicer machine would push the price tag closer to $2000.
Thx for the info. It helped alot
I'd like to know what you're going to get. For some of the options, I said, if you configure it right, then such and such. But I didn't explain how to configure it properly, and that matters.
Short version: any ideas for a lighter 14 or 15" laptop in the up to $1100 range? (Ideal price would be around $800).
I am going to try to piggyback on this thread since I want something similar. I would like a laptop maximum 15" screen and can afford to pay around $1000 (a little more is ok). I have been following lots of posts on recommendations for others and have a general idea, but am pretty clueless about good specs. I do know hardware basics. So I would try the HP DV6 but unfortunately it seems to be 6 lbs. I need something lighter. Ideally I would like a 14" but I could live with a 15" as it seems there are more options in this size.
I would be open to any brand - Sager seems good but I have no idea on a model. I also thought about the Lenovo Y460.
I am running a Dell XPS m1330. The form factor is great - only 4 pounds and I dont mind the 1280x800 resolution. But it gets hot, and is slowly dying. I will use this mostly for MMOs and slightly older games - don't need the best gaming performance. 14 or 15" seems ideal and I guess under 5 lbs would be good.
Thanks if you have any ideas or suggestions.
Let's see here:
1) Under 5 lbs
2) Under $1000
3) Can run most games at moderate settings
Pick any two. You cannot have all three at once. You just can't.
I wasn't epxecting to be able to get #1 and #3 simultaneously, but New Egg says that the Sony Vaio S series is under 4 lbs, with a Core i5 2410M and a Radeon HD 6630M. That's expensive, though, at $1100 for the cheapest configuration, and far more than that for some alternatives. And worse, Sony completely disables video driver updates, which is likely to be a catastrophic problem for you at some point in the future. But I'll link it just in case:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834127493
If you ignore that, though, then you have to choose between weight and gaming performance. The next lightest on New Egg that should be more or less functional for gaming is a Toshiba laptop at 4.98 lbs that also disables video driver updates.
So you've really got two options. One is to get something only slightly lighter than the Hewlett Packard dv6z quad edition. For example, this would be functional, albeit significantly slower, at 5.49 lbs:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834131152
The other option would be to go with something much lighter, and accept that some games just aren't going to be playable. For example, this is only 3.11 lbs:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152288
It looks like the Dell XPS m1330 came with very low end graphics (the two I could find were GeForce Go 8400 and Intel GMA X3100), so the MSI laptop that I just linked would be a considerable upgrade over that. The processor would be a substantial downgrade, however.
The other advantage of the MSI laptop is extremely low power consumption. The processor, graphics, northbridge, and memory controller are all in a single chip is capped at 18 W. In your old laptop, those will be in four separate chips, and the processor alone can use double that. The ultra low power consumption goes a long way toward explaining why the laptop can be so light, without having to use outlandishly expensive parts. It also means that you could play games on the battery and get a few hours of battery life.
But again, I should warn you that some games will not run smoothly at any settings. Two Bobcat cores at 1.65 GHz just isn't enough for processor-intensive games. Radeon HD 6320 integrated graphics probably won't prevent games from running smoothly if the processor is fast enough, but it will require low graphical settings in some games.
Lol, true. For some reason is the light weight option rather expensive. Add a pound and things gets a lot easier.
Luckily Skyrim is being built with Consoles in mind so it won't require a good system to play it. Its really hard to suggest intel with a compact laptop. Unfortunately Intel pairs GPUs (Intel GMA is shit) poorly in this segment while AMD has their Fusion processors. Its easy to suggest Intel otherwise.
Thanks for the advice Quizzical. I am going to see if I can live with a heavy HP dv6z. The MSI looks very nice and at least would be a big upgrade from my current laptop. The MSI is a great recommendation that I would not have found myself.
If I decide I can live with a smaller screen then I may go for the Alienware mx11. I know it is older and has limitations too.
So yes it seems, get a very good HP and be set for a while for my gaming needs, or go for something lighter. I carry my laptop around every day so would love to have something lighter.
If you're going to get the HP, then make sure you configure it properly. Get an A8-3510MX processor, integrated graphics only (skip the discrete card that HP will try to sell you for $100), either 4 GB or 8 GB of system memory, and ideally a 7200 RPM hard drive.
The memory bit is important. HP will sell you 6 GB by default, which mismanages the memory channels, and that cripples memory bandwidth. Llano is very sensitive to memory bandwidth, so that will cripple your performance. You're better off with 4 GB tha 6 GB. If you want 8 GB, then you could pay HP an extra $60 to get it. Alternatively, you could buy 6 GB from HP, as well as your own separate 4 GB module:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231266
And then when the laptop comes, open it up, pull out the 2 GB module that HP sent you, and replace it with your own 4 GB module, to have 8 GB in total. That costs you $23 rather than $60, so it saves you $37.
For the hard drive, I guess you've got a number of options. One is to stick with the default 5400 RPM hard drive and simply accept that your system will be sluggish. The cheapest upgrade to a 7200 RPM hard drive that HP offers is $60; they used to offer an upgrade for $10.
Since you've got an $1100 budget, another option if you want the computer to be really fast is to pull out the hard drive when it comes and put your own SSD in. For example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227739
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233160
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147128
The first is really cheap for the capacity, and decent enough. The other two are faster. The last one also comes with a hard drive cloning kit so that you can copy the hard drive's contents onto the SSD. Though you'd be better off doing a clean install of Windows if you can, to get rid of whatever bloatware HP ships.
That said, SSDs are expensive, and don't give you a ton of capacity. The advantages are that they're really fast (so you don't constantly have to sit and wait for the computer to do something), dead silent, nearly indestructible (if you drop your laptop while a hard drive is active, it might break; an SSD won't), and use virtually no power (which means less heat and better battery life).
You know how I said above that the Zacate E-350 APU puts a bunch of things in a single chip capped at 18 W? Llano is the same principle, but a higher end version of it, and has everything capped at 45 W. So you get a quad core processor, with markedly faster cores, and that means four cores, with each of them faster than the Core 2 Duo in your old laptop. You also get 5 SIMD engines rather than one in the graphics, which means nearly all games should be playable at moderate settings, and many will run smoothly at high settings, especially if you're looking at older games. The A8-3500M caps it at 35 W rather than 45 W, which will tend to clock things lower.
Depending on your preferences, you could also consider upgrading the battery capacity or monitor resolution. But that's just something you might want to consider; I'm not saying that you should.
The MX11 from alienware does not have a built in cdrom or dvd player so if you will be using your laptop to watch movies or listen to cd's it will suck for you
Thanks everyone - gonna have to think about the weight issue. I wish I could see a m11x. Good point about the CD drive - I rarely use the one in my current laptop - but think I will want to burn CDs with music, so yeah good to think about.
I feel like I should be sending a check to someone for the good advice. Quiz, incredibly helpful advice on the HP dv6 configuration. Thanks.
I am thinking 50% change of buying the HP, 30% MSI and 20% on the m11x. Still need to weigh some choices and do more research on the MSI and m11x.
personally, i'd go with the A8-3500m for battery endurance. HOWEVER, i'd get the 1080p screen upgrade(cuz the default build comes with blueray player) and the extra battery upgrade(a 6 cell + a 9 cell goes a LONG way when you are stuck on a C-130 transport:D). depending on your situation, you MAY want to pick up the extra power brick too. I would also strongly recommend a SSD but that will easily kick you over the budget:D i'd get the SSD before spending on a 2nd power brick tho. the backup power brick is handy when you dont always have clean power to plug into but the SSD will give you more game time from faster boot/load time and lower power demand.
The A8-3510MX and A8-3500M are different bins of the same chip. The difference is that the 3510MX is allowed to clock itself higher at load. When the 3510MX isn't using more than 35 W, both performance and power consumption will be nearly identical on the two chips, with the only difference being that the 3510MX can clock 100 MHz higher when the load calls for it, and use slightly more power that way. The difference that makes in battery life under most loads is probably best measured in seconds, not minutes, and would be overwhelmed by random variations between dies.
The big difference is when the 3510MX uses more than 35 W. Some games will do this, and some things that the processor very hard (and in particular, use all of the cores at once) might. In these cases, you do get higher performance at the expense of battery life. But this is the sort of application that typically won't be done on the battery for most people. The 3510MX does need a stronger cooling solution in order to be able to dissipate 45 W, which adds cost and weight.
Wrong topic
Sorry - feel like an idiot for posting in the wrong thread. Didn't mean to derail any thread - this or the other one.
So maybe I made a mistake on the purchase, but its not that easy for me to figure out. I did take your advice seriously, and have been reading forum.notebookreview.com for a few weeks.
I did not see a better alternative. If there is one, I would consider returning the m14x. I decided I did not want a 15" and wanted 14".
The Sony S and Toshiba I thought were not good choices because of the disabled video drivers. The MSI looked good but I thought maybe was not that great gaming-wise (meaning a little limited - based on what you said). So I didn't really see a good alternative. I feel kind of stuck at not being able to find a 14" or 13" that would be good. I thought the m14x would be the best alternative. Sorry, I did appreciate all the advice I got - I just decided going from my 13" to a 15" would not be too good.
Lastly, I think your thoughts on the heat makes sense. My XPS 1330 gets pretty hot, but maybe the m14x would get a lot hotter - didn't realize that. However, as wierd as it sounds, if my 1330 is hot, it sits on a raised wire cooking rack (so 1/2" of just air under it) and then on a plastic tray, and then on my lap.
I will try to see if I can find a better choice, and research what a Brazos laptop is. Can anyone suggest a 14" laptop that would be better than the m14x? If its good I will return the m14x and get it instead.
One thing that annoys me is when people come in and say, I bought something random, and I want to know if it's good. When people do this, there are usually some things that are flagrantly wrong with it, so that it is not a good computer at all.
Now, that's not what you did. You did ask first. But then you went and bought something that you hadn't even been previously considering, before asking if it was good.
Now, you might have thought, this is such a good deal that I have to grab it right now before it goes away. Alienware tries very hard to make people think this, so that they'll buy something that is completely insensible for their purposes, before they realize that it would be a mistake. It's not just Alienware, either; many other computer vendors do the same thing. Deals that really are so good that you have to grab it right now are pretty rare, and you have to be pretty tech savvy to recognize the occasional really good deal mixed in with massive numbers of okay or bad deals that are claiming to be exceptionally good.
-----
The Alienware M14x isn't a product that makes sense for absolutely no one. But it's pretty close, as it takes a very unusual set of preferences. In order for the M14x to make sense for you, you'd need to hold the views that:
1) A 14" form factor is vastly better than 15", but 11" isn't much better than 14".
2) Weight is not that important, so a heavier 14" laptop is far preferable to a lighter 15" laptop.
3) The price tag is not that important, so it's worth paying hundreds of dollars more than you would for a 15" laptop.
4) Heat and power consumption are not that important, as you'll just deal with however hot the laptop gets--preferably by not putting it on your lap or using the built-in keyboard while gaming.
5) Gaming performance matters in that you need essentially all games to run smoothly at low settings, but being able to max settings is not important.
The basic problem is that a 15" form factor makes it easy to accommodate a processor, a video card, and the rest of the usual stuff that goes into a gaming laptop. A 14" form factor means that the usual components in the usual arrangements simply don't physically fit.
In order to offer the M11x and M14x, Alienware has to go to considerable lengths to engineer the laptop in non-standard ways, such as by soldering components that would normally go on a discrete video card directly onto the motherboard instead. Having to do weird stuff like that tends to greatly increase the price tag, though I don't know if that's because it adds a lot of cost to build or if it's only that there isn't much direct competition.
-----
Now, it sounds like you do hold view #5, which is reasonable enough. But what about the first four? Someone who takes a strong view that smaller is better would be better off looking at an Alienware M11x.
If you want lighter weight, a much lower price tag, and much lower heat and power consumption, then you can easily have all of those at once in a 15" form factor. The HP dv6z quad edition is a relatively higher end version of this. You can lose a little weight and a lot of price tag and power consumption by going with either of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834101252
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834246150
Both of those have an A6-3400M, which is a quad core processor with integrated graphics and a TDP of 35 W. Just about any game on the market will run smoothly at appropriate settings on either of those laptops. You do give up about 20% of the performance as compared to an A8-3510MX, however, in exchange for the lower power consumption. The Lenovo mismatches the memory channels, so you'd have to fix that when it arrived if you bought it.
They're also 5.7 and 5.73 pounds, respectively. For comparison, the Alienware M14x is 6.43 pounds.
Note that a TDP of 35 W for the APU means that the graphics, processor, northbridge, and memory controller all added together will never use more than 35 W. On your old laptop, those are probably in four separate chips. For comparison, the processor in your old laptop has a TDP of 35 W, and the others are probably much less, but they might total 60 or 70 W added together. Sandy Bridge eliminates the northbridge, and integrates the memory controller, so in an Alienware M14x, they'll be two separate chips, not four. I don't know what the processor and video card added together will use, but if I had to guess, I'd say total TDP in the neighborhood of 80 W.
Now, to get that down to 35 W rather than 80 W, you do give up some performance. So you will have to turn graphical settings down some. But it will be a difference of, game runs smoothly at moderately high settings versus game runs smoothly at moderately low settings. Or perhaps rather, runs at the same settings, except that the monitor resolution is different.
Llano will also be more power efficient, so while you do lose some performance, you still get more than half of the performance of the M14x. I don't know if Llano is more energy efficient than Sandy Bridge on the CPU side; my guess is that they're pretty close. The GPU portion of Llano will be far more energy efficient than any discrete card you could get, however. That's partially because of the process node of the GPU, partially because more SIMD engines clocked lower is better than fewer clocked higher, and partially because AMD is way ahead of Nvidia in performance per watt in their latest architectures. It is also partially because eliminating the video memory, unifying the CPU and GPU memory controllers, and not needing a bunch of PCI Express lanes to allow the CPU and GPU to communicate means that you eliminate the power consumption from the components that you don't need.
-----
There's one thing that I want you to notice about the price tag. If you want to keep the prices comparable, then the comparison isn't the MSI 13" or the Gateway 15" or the Alienware 14". Rather, it's the Alienware 14" or both the MSI 13" and the Gateway 15". Because you could get both the MSI and the Gateway for only slightly more than the Alienware M14x alone.
I'm not saying that you should do that. I'm just saying that to put the price tag on the M14x into perspective. If you were to get two laptops, then when you need something highly portable and low performance is fine, then the MSI is an easy choice, with its 13" form factor and 3.11 pounds of weight. Or you could give up a bit of performance to go with something smaller and cheaper yet, like this:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/series/category/notebooks/dm1z_series/3/computer_store
That's 3.46 pounds an in 11" form factor for $450, with nearly the same APU as the MSI laptop. The MSI one has a refresh of the part, so the CPU is slightly faster (1.65 GHz versus 1.6 GHz) and the GPU will clock higher if power consumption is low enough.
Both of those have a Brazos/Zacate APU, which is the same basic theme of putting everything in one chip, except with a TDP of 18 W. You could freely set that on your lap while gaming and it would only feel slightly warm to the touch.
And then for games that just won't run smoothly, you could use the Gateway laptop and they'll run and you can play them. And if one laptop dies entirely, you'll still have the other available and working.
Again, I'm not saying that you should get two laptops. But the Alienware M14x alone cost you more than the Gateway NV55S04u ($500) and the HP dm1z ($450) would added together.
SOOOO tempting to just send people to the sony vaio Z config site and just rack up a $4500 bill for their ignorance:D
Yeah, everything you said makes sense, I will decide to cancel the order or return it. I get it now - how for the price the m14x is not that great. I was suckered a little by the sale - I got it $250 off, but it does seemed overpriced.
I am rethinking my options again - thanks for the input. Making my priorities 14" (ignoring the m14x's weight) and getting the m14x somewhat better specs (for a 14") is probably not the best for my needs. I don't really have a need for top end graphics - I probably will spend 80% of my time playing WoW, Rift and games a few years old. Also, a lower heat laptop would be a very good thing for me. Thanks for the posts.
if size and weight is paramount, nothing really beats the sony vaio Z. do realize you will be paying around $4000+ for a properly configured unit
if overall performance per value is your intrest, a properly configured HP A8 is about as good as you are going to get. get the CPU upgrade, 1080p upgrade, battery upgrade, and maybe an additional power brick so you dont have to mess with unpluging it at home. once you get the unit from HP, you need to upgrade the memory so you have matching sticks(don't pay HP prices for their memory upgrade) and you need to upgrade the drive to an SSD. i'd say a 120 gig would be enough for your purpose. configured as such, you wont find another laptop out there that would perform as well as the HP in all "practical" purpose. with battery upgrade, you can actually GAME for like 2 hrs ON BATTERY:) the little m14x would kill its battery in less then 20min's under gaming conditions:D you'd pay extra for the HP, but you are getting ALL KINDS of extras with the HP. battery life, extra power brick, SSD all will contribute to your overall computer experiance. as a matter of fact, that laptop WILL out perform most of your friends desktop simply because you'd be running on SSD:D
Just a word of warning here.
I'm about as brand-neutral as things get, but there is often a price to pay for the generally good bang for your buck with HP laptops. They are pretty much the worst laptops for reliability anywhere. I've owned three within the past 10 years, and not one of them lived longer than two years, with all three of them seeing light travel and careful treatment (something I suppose you just hvae to take my word for, but then, my Asus is about to pass 2 years and it's still in practically new condition). They also tend to bottom out in studies on reliability, including the often-cited Square Trade survey that I see pop up all the time, which is a favorite of mine for its downright absurd sample size. We also subscribe to Consumer Reports here, and I can't remember the last time I saw HP at anywhere but the top or near-top for failure rates.
MSI I don't typically see, but they build their machines in-house afaik, and I belive Alienware machines are build by Clevo, who's machines are typically a bit higher end than the corner-cutting Compal junk HP sells.
This is something that really is fairly important in my opinion. Laptops in general have high failure rates, and repairs are often very expensive because of they lack both the standardization and modularity of desktops. Add in the fact that gaming is very stressful on laptop hardware, and the fact that the gap in reliability could potentially be very large, and I think this becomes a not insignificant concern. I've also had a lot of other people here back me on this when the subject has come up before, so it's clearly not just me.
All that said, take it for what it's worth, as one more anonymous opinion on the interwebz.
Interesting Catamount.
I was going to ask but figured this out: HP A8 is an AMD Quad-Core A8-Series APU.
I am going to go back and look for something like this - checking on the HP prices and also other options.
I really don't know about build quality of various laptops. I'd suspect that it varies some even within a given brand, just like many components do.
While gaming loads are relatively stressful on hardware, it's worth noting that the heat and power consumption is what makes them stressful. Hardware that doesn't use much power, and hence doesn't put out much heat, won't find gaming loads all that stressful, either.
If you're planning on putting the laptop on your lap, then either you'll have to hold very still, or else you should worry about breaking the hard drive. Hard drive platters rotate at 120 revolutions per second, with drive heads hovering mere nanometers above the platters. Meanwhile, the drive heads are flitting back and forth, trying to cover centimeters of distance in mere milliseconds, in order to get into the right position to read or write. If a drive head actually runs into a platter, then it's called a "head crash", and it means that the hard drive is dead and your data is gone.
If that sounds precarious, it's because it is. If that sounds like something that you really shouldn't shake while it's in operation, then that's the point. Laptop hard drives do try to do some things to combat shaking, but there is only so much they can do. A solid state drive will have no such problems with movement breaking things.
HP's business laptops might be alright, but if so, that should make one even more wary of their consumer lines, because it means that even the bias towards greater reliability from them wouldn't be enough to average them out of last place for reliability. If 25% failure rates were an average with machines of slightly better design, then I'd be rather scared to think of how much higher than that their consumer lines must go to create that mean (30%?). Their ENVY machines might also be of higher quality, but I don't know.
In general though, their general consumer line is very, very bad, the worst, in fact. In fact, heat is actually what killed two of three of my HP laptops. The other died because the power jack was secured so miserably, that it would frequently just detach from the motherboard, and the arcing that created combined with repeatedly soldering it back on eventually bricked the machine (and even before that, it only took a short time for it to detach, and for the computer to refuse to accept AC power). HP eventually faced a class action suit for their crappy jack design.
These machines aren't just a little bit bad; they're downright reliability nightmares, and that's not good given how it just compounds how bad laptops already are.
The problem right now is that HP is the only company that even offers an A8-3510MX, and no one offers an A8-3530MX. The problem is that there aren't very many of those chips available.
It's a combination of poor yields (due to the process node being very new) and AMD wanting to shift production to Opteron Valencia and Interlagos. Zambezi likely gets priority over Llano, too. AMD is Global Foundries' only customer on their 32 nm process node, so AMD gets as much capacity sa Global Foundries can supply, and gets to choose whether they want to run Llano or Orochi wafers, and will probably prefer the latter unless it's a complete mess.
HP has traditionally been quicker to adopt AMD processors than some other companies. HP's laptops also use mostly (exclusively?) AMD graphics for the discrete video cards, rather than Nvidia. So with a shortage of Llano, AMD certainly has incentives to make sure that HP gets plenty--and that Dell gets nada.
For what it's worth, EliteBook is HP's high end laptop line, so the build quality there probably is better, but it probably also accounts for a very small percentage of total sales.
I'm inclined to agree that the Elitebooks are probably a good step up from their typical machines, and probably alright. With something like that, there's a little more reputation to protect, so reliability past the short warranty period actually matters.
Who knows, maybe they even get someone besides Compal to make them