Dazed and confused

[_Francesco_]

Given that I am fairly oblivious about specs and performance of gaming laptops, the ability to customise a laptop's specs before ordering it is probably a dangerous feature in my hands. [rollinglaugh] I would be very grateful if I could have any clarity bestowed upon me with regards to the following:



In terms of the HDD's relevance to overall performance, is there a blatant difference between a 500GB at 5200RPM and 500GB at 7200RPM?

Similarly to above, how significant a deficit is there between 8GB of RAM at 1333MHz and 8GBof RAM 1600 MHz?

If a dual core processor and a quad core processor have the same GHz, is it true that the quad core isn't necessarily quicker? e.g. Does an i7-2670QM Dual Core 2.80 GHz outperform an i7-3610QM Quad Core 2.20 GHz at present day? I noticed that it's more expensive, so I'm assuming so. Next up though, I noticed that the i7-3720QM Quad Core 2.60GHz is actually more expensive than the Does an i7-2670QM Dual Core 2.80 GHz.

Would a modern video card such as GeForce GTX 670M function on old games, such Total War, Age Of Empire, Civilization, etc. games from the past decade or so?

Are all high spec / "gaming laptops" prone to overheating? If so, what is the magnitude of it? Are you only able to play something for a couple of hours before the laptop overheats? Might such a machine crash and burn if, whether by accident or negligence, it is left running all day? Might less rpm in the HDD be a factor here?

How long do these laptops last? Not how long until they're obsolete, as I understand that even the best models don't stay on top for long, but roughly how long until they might stop functioning? A few years? Several years? Up to a decade? Depends (and if so, on what)?

Last but not least, might there be anyone out there who has picked up a Vortex III from http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk, and if so, how has it been for you?



This n00b would be very grateful for any feedback. Thank you!

 

[tom6561]

I'll answer the questions that I can for you, and leave the rest to somebody who knows a bit more .

Similarly to above, how significant a deficit is there between 8GB of RAM at 1333MHz and 8GBof RAM 1600 MHz?

There is very little, if any, noticable difference in speed between the two options.

If a dual core processor and a quad core processor have the same GHz, is it true that the quad core isn't necessarily quicker?

It depends what you're doing, if the application you're using is only designed to use one core then presumably there won't be much of a speed difference, however with more cores your processor can multitask a lot better, so if you're running multiple programs, especially alt-tabbing out of games then there'd be a definite performance improvement.

Would a modern video card such as GeForce GTX 670M function on old games, such Total War, Age Of Empire, Civilization, etc. games from the past decade or so?

Yes it would, no problems.

Are all high spec / "gaming laptops" prone to overheating? If so, what is the magnitude of it? Are you only able to play something for a couple of hours before the laptop overheats? Might such a machine crash and burn if, whether by accident or negligence, it is left running all day? Might less rpm in the HDD be a factor here?

I have the Skyfire II and I've had no problems at all with overheating, from what I know the fans can get clogged with dust after a while, but as long as you clean it out every once in a while it'll be fine, especially buying a decent high quality model from pcspecialist that's got gaming in mind. In the event that the laptop does start overheating, it won't get to the point where it damages itself, as modern laptops have systems whereby the components will stop running at full capacity if it's going to cause damage, and I think in an extreme case it would just shut down. I doubt the rpm would be a factor, but I can't say for sure.

Hope that answers some of your questions a bit!

 

[pepe999]

Hi,
500GB 5400rpm vs 7200rpm: I don't think that the different is blatant. 5400rpm takes less power and this is why manufacturers pick the slower 5400rpm drives instead of a 7200rpm one (my opinion). However, a blatant difference is between any of the hdd above and a solid state drive!!
The RAM: It depends on the FSB of the computer. If the FSB works at 1333MHz there is no any difference between the two modules because the 1600MHz will be down clocked to 1333MHz by the system.
D2C vs Quad: In general a D2C won't be much slower than a Quad core at the same frequency but the Quad core has more cores (or has been manufactured later and is more powerful because of the manufactoring process). The thing is that some applications or games use only 2 cores (some even just a single one) a time so a dual core might be sufficient in some cases(D2C at higher speed than QC at lower speed)..
The other things are about games and I'm not a gamer..

 

[_Francesco_]

That's already a big help. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer the questions you have knowledge of. Not sure why my OP has vanished, but I hope it comes back.

 

[dangro474]

I don't see an original post so I can't really chip in, however a gaming laptop that is functioning correctly should never overheat. If it overheats it is most likely due to one of the following:

• Faulty component
• Loose heatsync
• Dried up thermal compound
• User has blocked intake vents
• Poorly modified bios / updated drivers
• Overclocking
• The system is far too close to an extremely high heat source.

If you have not blocked the intake vents and you are not near a heat source and have not updated / modified your systems bios / drivers recently, the system is most likely faulty in some way, in which case I would recommend contacting PCS for further assistance.

 

[fnf]

In terms of the HDD's relevance to overall performance, is there a blatant difference between a 500GB at 5200RPM and 500GB at 7200RPM?

Not if your drive is not fragmented or if you have lots of RAM (say, more than 2GB of free RAM for caching).

Similarly to above, how significant a deficit is there between 8GB of RAM at 1333MHz and 8GBof RAM 1600 MHz?

Insignificant for day-to-day operations, unless you do video processing or compiling huge programs (in which case probably I/O bound anyway).

If a dual core processor and a quad core processor have the same GHz, is it true that the quad core isn't necessarily quicker?

Correct, you'll benefit the most from 4-core if you do 3D modelling, video processing or programming.

Would a modern video card such as GeForce GTX 670M function on old games, such Total War, Age Of Empire, Civilization, etc. games from the past decade or so?

It entirely depends on drivers and OS compatibility so I can't comment on this one. Generally, if you can find drivers for an OS that was made X years ago, you can expect games from X years ago to work fine.

Are all high spec / "gaming laptops" prone to overheating? If so, what is the magnitude of it? Are you only able to play something for a couple of hours before the laptop overheats? Might such a machine crash and burn if, whether by accident or negligence, it is left running all day? Might less rpm in the HDD be a factor here?

I'd suggest buying from a reputable company. From my limited experiences Sony, Lenovo can be trusted to build long-lasting systems. I've no experience with custom-built laptops such as Clevo (which PCS sources from), but I'm trusting my money on them for my latest order from PCS as they are designed to dissipate heat efficiently.

My main laptop is a 16.4' Sony VAIO. The highest temperature I was able to cause was 90C.

How long do these laptops last? Not how long until they're obsolete, as I understand that even the best models don't stay on top for long, but roughly how long until they might stop functioning? A few years? Several years? Up to a decade? Depends (and if so, on what)?

Depends on your purposes and usages, if you're talking natural degradation a decade is not uncommon. But most people replace them every 3-4 years when their laptops don't perform as well for new applications.

Last but not least, might there be anyone out there who has picked up a Vortex III from http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk, and if so, how has it been for you?

Still waiting for one .

 

[Rakk]

Not sure why my OP has vanished, but I hope it comes back.

You edited your original post so it got put in the moderation queue again, therefore it looked like it disappeared. I've validated it so it is back again

 

[_Francesco_]

Thank you all for the replies. I now feel that I have a much better understanding than before I posted here.

One thing in particular still leaves me a bit confused, however, and that is processors. I've noticed on benchmark sites, quad processors are all listed as having superior performance, but I'm trying to figure out the scale of this. If an application or game does not support a quad core processor, does that mean it performs far short of its projected power?

In essence, I am trying to figure out which processor to choose on a Vortex III. I am trying to understand why the quad core i7-3720QM 2.60GHz costs a fair bit more than the dual core i7-2640M 2.80GHz. Is it from a manufacturing perspective with the parts perhaps being more expensive and/or time consuming to build? Is it because of the future potential for when more applications exist that support quad core and allow for the harnessing of its full capabilities?

To what extent is a Quadcore's potential nerfed when it is not supported? If an application supports dual core but not quad core, might even a quadcore i7-3920XM 2.90GHz be outperformed by a dual core i7-2640M 2.80GHz? Also, what happens if an application is so old that it only supports single core? Are both processors reduced to slow performance in this case, or might the application even not run at all?

Hypothetically, if you were getting a machine and you intended to play such things as Football Manager, Age Of Empires 3, Total War games (mainly older one but possibly new), Civilization 3, 4 and possibly 5, and maybe an MMORPG such as WoW - and with no intention to play console games, which processor(s) would you consider for high performance here and now, not in the future when quad processors are widely supported?

Finally, when it's said that excess RAM negates whatever marginal benefit there may be in a 7200 rpm HDD, how can I gauge as to whether or not I will have 2GBs spare or not? I have a feeling that 8GB RAM should be more than enough considering my lack of interest in playing modern games / console games on the laptop, thus further strengthening the merit of choosing 5200 rpm?

Thank you all again for providing such clarity and I'm sorry for the fact I still haven't grasped a couple of things.

 

[fnf]

One thing in particular still leaves me a bit confused, however, and that is processors. I've noticed on benchmark sites, quad processors are all listed as having superior performance, but I'm trying to figure out the scale of this. If an application or game does not support a quad core processor, does that mean it performs far short of its projected power?

That's right, although for modern OSes you'll find that more cores always means better user experiences. Typically, there are hundreds of processes running simultaneously so with more cores the background tasks will not slow down the foreground application (what you're working on) as much as fewer cores.

There is a delicate balance between having too few cores and too many cores (say, hundreds), both may hamper performance but suffices it to say that quad-core is still beneficial if you've got the cash.

In essence, I am trying to figure out which processor to choose on a Vortex III. I am trying to understand why the quad core i7-3720QM 2.60GHz costs a fair bit more than the dual core i7-2640M 2.80GHz. Is it from a manufacturing perspective with the parts perhaps being more expensive and/or time consuming to build? Is it because of the future potential for when more applications exist that support quad core and allow for the harnessing of its full capabilities?

I'd say the latter, but the main reasons probably are marketing (they charge more for the latest and greatest) and economy of scale. I went with the 3720QM as my work benefits from it. For gaming, I doubt a quad-core CPU will make any difference if your system is not too busy (i.e., few background tasks).

To what extent is a Quadcore's potential nerfed when it is not supported? If an application supports dual core but not quad core, might even a quadcore i7-3920XM 2.90GHz be outperformed by a dual core i7-2640M 2.80GHz?

No, goind by the raw numbers the 3920 should definitely outperform the 2640 (larger cache, higher max turbo frequency, etc.).

Also, what happens if an application is so old that it only supports single core? Are both processors reduced to slow performance in this case, or might the application even not run at all?

No, it'll run fine at full speed of a single core.

Hypothetically, if you were getting a machine and you intended to play such things as Football Manager, Age Of Empires 3, Total War games (mainly older one but possibly new), Civilization 3, 4 and possibly 5, and maybe an MMORPG such as WoW - and with no intention to play console games, which processor(s) would you consider for high performance here and now, not in the future when quad processors are widely supported?

If you have the money to spare, go for the quad-core versions. Otherwise go for dual core, it's not going to make a difference in gaming now. I'm sure any 1nd gen or higher processor will run them just fine. I have an i7 740QM and it has been a blast for anything I throw at it.

Finally, when it's said that excess RAM negates whatever marginal benefit there may be in a 7200 rpm HDD, how can I gauge as to whether or not I will have 2GBs spare or not? I have a feeling that 8GB RAM should be more than enough considering my lack of interest in playing modern games / console games on the laptop, thus further strengthening the merit of choosing 5200 rpm?

If you don't use many applications that require huge amount of RAM (image, video, audio processing, CAD, 3D modelling, virtual machines, etc.) or firefox with hundreds of tabs opened, 8GB is more than enough for the next few years. You will experience slowdowns as a result of applications paging in and out of memory (loading from hard disk to RAM) if you don't have enough free RAM, that's when 5400RPM/7200RPM HDD or an SSD makes the most difference. Otherwise, applications will be loaded once and stay in memory for as long as the RAM isn't used up.

As an anecdotal exprience: my laptop has 6GB of RAM. firefox consumes 3GB of which on average with 120 tabs opened. If I open 2 virtual machines (each allocated 1GB of RAM) or compile large programs my system runs out of memory quickly. As a result, my Vortex III's gonna have 16GB of RAM .

 

[_Francesco_]

Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

One more final thing I'm sure of. Does it matter if RAM is 1x8 or 2x4? Also, are there any consequences of "too much RAM"? Just want to be sure that 8 is a suitable number in my case and that the arrangement of it is suitable (1x8 or 2x4), if it even matters at all. I find myself wondering why 1x8 is the more expensive option (and why indeed there is such an option at all).

 

[Craigsup]

1x8GB is more expensive because it's in 1 module.
Where as 2x 4GB is two separate modules of 4GB. It costs the manufacturers more to develop/produce the higher spec.
The fact that you buy 1x8GB or 2x4GB does not matter.
It may be beneficial to you in the future.
Eg. Today you buy 1x8GB ram. In 3 months time you want more ram - you have 1 out of 4 slots taken so you can buy 3 more slots of ram.
However, Today you buy 2x4GB ram. In 3 months time you want more ram - you have 2 out of 4 slots taken so you can only buy 2 more slots.

It limits how much RAM you can get.

If you buy 4x8GB you can have 32GB of ram
If you buy 4x4GB you can have 16GB of ram.

This has been a long explanation but I hope you understand!

 

[_Francesco_]

Got it, I think. 1x8 now, and then in x years, if more RAM turns out to be needed, I would pick up another 8 in order to make it 2x8 (with the maximum total being 4x8, or 32MBs of RAM)?

Am I basically trying to estimate how long it would take until I want to use all 4 RAM slows? If so, that makes me wonder if 2x4 is better. If I understand correctly, that would make my RAM limit 16 if I decided to upgrade in the future with another 2x4? I find it hard to believe that I will ever need 16MBs of RAM, and if ever that time came, the machine would likely be obsolete by that point anyway?

 

[Craigsup]

Got it, I think. 1x8 now, and then in x years, if more RAM turns out to be needed, I would pick up another 8 in order to make it 2x8 (with the maximum total being 4x8, or 32MBs of RAM)? Yeah that's correct, you can also mix the amounts. E.g. 1x8Gb and 2x4Gb. - Might need clarification on this, but i'm 90% certain you can.

Am I basically trying to estimate how long it would take until I want to use all 4 RAM slows? If so, that makes me wonder if 2x4 is better. If I understand correctly, that would make my RAM limit 16 if I decided to upgrade in the future with another 2x4? I find it hard to believe that I will ever need 16MBs of RAM, and if ever that time came, the machine would likely be obsolete by that point anyway? If your struggling to afford 16Gb of ram now, i'd suggest getting 2x4gb (8gb) now and then in the future you can get another 2x4. However RAM is very cheap at the moment, so it may be wise to bite the bullet and get 4x4gb (16gb) However it is totally your choice. Most people won't need more than 8gb but 16gb will be more futureproof.

.

 

[_Francesco_]

I gather there are no consequences of having 16MB RAM (with the future in mind), even if I don't actually use anywhere near that amount of RAM for a while?

32MB (4x8) sounds like it must be surely 10 or more years away from being truly needed, at least for the vast majority of users? If so, definitely not going to bother with 1x8!

 

[Craigsup]

Nah I wouldn't bother with 1x8GB.
When i order my laptop on thursday, I plan to get the 4x4GB.
16GB of 1600mhz ram will definitely last a good 3+ years.

 

[vanthus]

Got it, I think. 1x8 now, and then in x years, if more RAM turns out to be needed, I would pick up another 8 in order to make it 2x8 (with the maximum total being 4x8, or 32MBs of RAM)?

Am I basically trying to estimate how long it would take until I want to use all 4 RAM slows? If so, that makes me wonder if 2x4 is better. If I understand correctly, that would make my RAM limit 16 if I decided to upgrade in the future with another 2x4? I find it hard to believe that I will ever need 16MBs of RAM, and if ever that time came, the machine would likely be obsolete by that point anyway?

If you ever wanted 32GB you would need at least windows Professional installed,
apart from that I think you have answered your own question,by the time a game comes out requiring anywhere near 16GB it's unlikely any of the rest of your components will handle it.

 

[_Francesco_]

Still trying to figure out how a 3610QM would perform in comparison to a 2640M on applications which only support dual core. I understand that it scores significantly better on benchmarks, but does this mean it would still be better, even when it can't use all four cores? Or the scores on benchmarks only a measure of how powerful a quad core is when all of its cores are being utilised?

How significant is clock speed? Is it misleading that the 3610QM is 2.3GHz while the 2640M is 2.8GHZ with regards to processor power?

 

[Craigsup]

Still trying to figure out how a 3610QM would perform in comparison to a 2640M on applications which only support dual core. I understand that it scores significantly better on benchmarks, but does this mean it would still be better, even when it can't use all four cores? Or the scores on benchmarks only a measure of how powerful a quad core is when all of its cores are being utilised?

How significant is clock speed? Is it misleading that the 3610QM is 2.3GHz while the 2640M is 2.8GHZ with regards to processor power?

The 3610QM is an Ivybridge processor which is a lot more economic and I think around 10% more powerful than it's predecessors (Sandybridge). I'd recommend the 3610QM over the 3640M as it has two more cores and it's a lot more up to date. However I can't comment on the situation with dual core programs vs quad core etc as I don't know.