Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best Gaming Laptop under 1500

Last response: in Laptop General Discussion
Share
January 2, 2006 7:54:40 PM

Hi, I'm relatively new here and was wondering if you guys could recommend me a laptop i could buy for less than 1500 dollars. I plan to use it among other things for some gamming like for example command and conquer generals, battle for middle earth, things like that.

I would really aprreciate it if you guys could help, or at least point me in a general direction. thank you.

More about : gaming laptop 1500

January 7, 2006 3:39:14 AM

the laptop that i got, a toshiba a70 is great for gaming, it has a ati mobility 9000 video card that can support up to 3 monitors (laptop screen, a tv, and a standard computer monitor) its 64mb, but u can dedicate your ram to let it be 128. it comes with 512mb of ddr ram which can be upgraded to 1.5gigs(i upgraded mine to 1 gig) it has a very powerful pentium 4 with ht technology 3.02ghz of prosseser power. it has a great internal wireless g. network adaptor. and it runs great with games and it has exlent multitasking power. the only bad thing about it is there is only a 80gig hard drive. but overall its great and i only got it for $1300(CDN)
January 21, 2006 5:20:11 AM

i have an asus z70va, centrino 1.86, ati x700, gig ram... for about 1700can in last september so it should be less now, especially in US$...plays all new games even fear at medium settings quite well

check out notebookforums.com theres lots of info there

good luck
Related resources
February 3, 2006 7:21:25 PM

Best System ay $1,500 range
Go to my site KillerNotebooks.com
Configure a system
Choose MT-37 2.0 GHz as a Processor.
Choose 100 Gig 5,400 rpm for a Hard Drive.
Choose 54G for Internal Wireless.

Total cost $1,577 for one heck of a gaming rig! Email me and I can see if there is anything else I can do for you.

February 8, 2006 5:13:58 PM

Quote:
Hi, I'm relatively new here and was wondering if you guys could recommend me a laptop i could buy for less than 1500 dollars. I plan to use it among other things for some gamming like for example command and conquer generals, battle for middle earth, things like that.

I would really aprreciate it if you guys could help, or at least point me in a general direction. thank you.


Dell 9400 / E1705 with coupons (found on gotapex or techbargains...act fast) - $1100 base after coupon/rebate, plus $300 for the nVidia 7800 graphics card - $1400 for a 17" notebook with a SERIOUS, *gamer* graphics card. No wimpy cards here! And it's not the old Pentium M "Centrino" design - it's the new dual CPU "Centrino Duo" design - double the CPU horsepower (albeit not double the speed). Going with less, unless size/weight is an issue, seems silly to me.
February 24, 2006 1:42:14 AM

Firstly Intel is the king of the dog and pony show. The "Core Due" is a marketing scam. You might want to check out my Features page which describes what I mean.
Would you rather have a dual core modified 32 bit Pentium 3 or a state of the art 64 bit Turion?

Using normal single apps you aren't even going to have the processing speed of a regular Centrino.

Second, it isn't even 64 bit. Why buy something that is going to be obsolite next year? (Really right now) Check out my Why Choose a Turion Processor page for more info.

Unless you plan on running virus scans when you are doing your other work, this is going to do you no good. Get a Turion and you will see a definate improvement in your system speed and stability.

KillerNotebooks.com

February 24, 2006 1:59:43 AM

Quote:
Firstly the "Core Due" is a marketing scam.

Using normal single apps you aren't even going to have the processing speed of a regular Centrino.

Second, it isn't even 64 bit. Why buy something that is going to be obsolite next year? (Really right now)

Unless you plan on running virus scans when you are doing your other work, this is going to do you no good. Get a Turion and you will see a definate improvement in your system speed and stability.


Spoken like a true salesperson. But I don't work for Dell - do you work for "KillerNotebooks"? They'll be selling Core Duos soon, like all the other notebook vendors, as soon as Intel ships them - then what do you bet you'll completely change your tune? :) 

No one runs one single app. With OSs being heavily multitasking/multithreaded, more CPUs are better. Sure, if a single app isn't multithreaded (and most games still aren't, but that will change) then there's not as much of an advantage, but you can still offload the OS tasks (plus anything else you like running in the background, which would normally slow down a single-core CPU) to the second core. Advantage: Dual Core. AMD sees the future - their X2 architecture is where their development (and marketing) muscle is headed, and likely will be for years; single core is dead. Tri- and Quad- core is the future.

Benchmarks? Tom's Hardware completely disagrees with your assessment: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/16/will_core_duo_no...
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/16/will_core_duo_no...

64 bit? Are you running a 64 bit OS? 64 bit apps? I'm not. And given the benchmarks the Turon got, in the mobile sector, I don't yet see a compelling reason. Don't run 64 bit for 64 bit's sake - run it if it's faster, with all else being considered. Nothing against 64 bit, but it hasn't yet achieved anything other than buzzword status unless you're in the minority that must run >2GB/4GB memory spaces.

Stability? Speed? Tom's benchmarks show the Centrino is clearly faster, and concerning stability, well, Intel is still king of that game.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one. :)  Point is, for ~$1400, the Dell Centrino Duo with nVidea 7800 *rocks* and delivers a blazing fast GPU and a blazing fast dual-core CPU setup. And a great 17" screen!
February 24, 2006 2:28:10 AM

Here's the bottom line.

I HAVE built both systems because I OWN KillerNotebooks.

We droped the Intel line altogether because they are inferior products.

You can point to benchmarks and reviews all you want. I have notebooks in the field I have to support. Problems with AMD systems are next to non-existant. I can't say that for Intel with the exact same components I put in the Turions, and it is all top of the line.

You think reviews on sites that are paid big advertising dollars and sent free products are more impartial than I? Well, all I am saying is go to my site and read it for yourself. There is links so you can research it all. Features Link

The Pentium M Centrino, and Sonoma are derived from highly modified Pentium 3 chips. The "Core Duo" is a variant of these chipsets. That technology is ancient. It is 32 bit.

The Turion is a variant of the Athlon 64 bit desktop chip. It has a 1,600 MHz front side bus compared to Intels 533 Mhz. It's memory controller is by far superior and 'on chip.' It is common knowledge that AMD destroys Intel in the desktop arena and now you expect me to believe a synthetic benchmark that says a Centrino Core Duo (modified pentium 3) has turned the tables on AMD's mobile chip which is derived from the Athlon 64? Does that even REMOTELY make sense to you?

AMD WROTE the 64 bit instruction set YEARS ago AND implemented the first 64 bit desktop chip AND notebook chip. Intel took AMD's 64 bit code and rebranded it EMT64, it is that simple. They still can't get it to work right because their architecture is antiquated. Read my page and check the facts.

Build a few of each notebook and I bet you will choose the same route we did. Regardless if 64 bit is faster right NOW at this particular point in time is irrelevant. The apps aren't re-written yet, what about when they are?
Common sense says they are going to be faster. Are you using Windows 3.11 and 16 bit apps, or are they all gone? Speed is one thing, but what are you going to benchmark when your computer CAN'T RUN 64 bit APPS? Do you want to invest in a whole new computer or 32 bit Vista? Have you ever run a 64 bit OS? It is noticably faster, even running all 32 bit apps. I have used x64 and Beta Vista, and I can say with certainty 32 bit has a quantifiable lifespan.
KillerNotebooks.com

February 24, 2006 2:57:51 AM

Quote:
Here's the bottom line.

I HAVE built both systems because I OWN KillerNotebooks.

We droped the Intel line altogether because they are inferior products.

You can point to benchmarks and reviews all you want. I have notebooks in the field I have to support. Problems with AMD systems are next to non-existant. I can't say that for Intel with the exact same components I put in the Turions, and it is all top of the line.

You think reviews on sites that are paid big advertising dollars and sent free products are more impartial than I? Well, all I am saying is go to my site and read it for yourself. There is links so you can research it all. Features Link

The Pentium M Centrino, and Sonoma are derived from highly modified Pentium 3 chips. The "Core Duo" is a variant of these chipsets. That technology is ancient. It is 32 bit.

The Turion is a variant of the Athlon 64 bit desktop chip. It has a 1,600 MHz front side bus compared to Intels 533 Mhz. It's memory controller is by far superior and 'on chip.' It is common knowledge that AMD destroys Intel in the desktop arena and now you expect me to believe a synthetic benchmark that says a Centrino Core Duo (modified pentium 3) has turned the tables on AMD's mobile chip which is derived from the Athlon 64? Does that even REMOTELY make sense to you?

AMD WROTE the 64 bit instruction set YEARS ago AND implemented the first 64 bit desktop chip AND notebook chip. Intel took AMD's 64 bit code and rebranded it EMT64, it is that simple. They still can't get it to work right because their architecture is antiquated. Read my page and check the facts.

Build a few of each notebook and I bet you will choose the same route we did. Regardless if 64 bit is faster right NOW at this particular point in time is irrelevant. The apps aren't re-written yet, what about when they are?
Common sense says they are going to be faster. Are you using Windows 3.11 and 16 bit apps, or are they all gone? Speed is one thing, but what are you going to benchmark when your computer CAN'T RUN 64 bit APPS? Do you want to invest in a whole new computer or 32 bit Vista? Have you ever run a 64 bit OS? It is noticably faster, even running all 32 bit apps. I have used x64 and Beta Vista, and I can say with certainty 32 bit has a quantifiable lifespan.


I will trust Tom's Hardware reviews (public reviews that can easily be attacked and checked) more than an opinion of a seller posting marketing phrases. That's just basic logic. Tom's Hardware did a review of the notebook you sell (MSI1029, IIRC) and didn't exactly shower it with praise (http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/02/09/is_64_bit_mobile...)
- it's nice, but it uses an older GPU (X700) compared to the Dell's nVidia 7800 - and for games, a fast GPU is what you want. It also uses an older Turon design - the Turon is AMD's basic single-core chip, and it's really nothing special WRT the benchmarks...it is fairly light, though, at 6.4 pounds. But benchmark-wise, the Centrino Duo tears it apart.

Your link you keep posting (/features.aspx) sounds like the Mac user's argument - use a G5 because it has 1600 mhz FSB and cooler-sounding architecture. We know how that turned out - Apple's switched to (you guessed it!) Intel's Duo for better performance, with "only" a 533 mhz bus - yet the Intel Duo performance is clearly better...go figure. The 533 mhz FSB, Pentium 3 "base" (and THAT is misleading - only in the simplest terms, and everything is "based" on the 486 to some extent...how far will you go?) etc. themselves aren't reasons to use a particular architecture. The performance (ie the benchmarks) are - and in those, the Turon typically doesn't do that well compared to Intel's latest (but bear in mind the dual-core Turon should be here in Q3 2006). Also misleading is your CAS2.5 marketing jumbo - you should know as well as anyone that, particularly with on-board memory controllers (like AMD has, as you state) the difference in the (lower, better) latencies for the RAM chips is tiny - immaterial compared to just about anything else in the machine.

I admire your salesmanship. :) 

Concerning "ancient" technology, please tell me, without using buzzwords, why I would care about 32 bit vs. 64 bit. I'll start you off with FarCry, one of the incredibly few 64 bit games out there: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=241...
Hint: It's all of 4% faster (under AMD; 6.5% faster under Intel), and that's IF you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of trying to find 64 bit drivers for that notebook, AND you're willing to deal with all the flaws in existing 64 bit drivers. Want to read about how difficult that is? Here you go: http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/02/09/is_64_bit_mobile...

64 bit isn't here yet. No amount of salesmanship will change that. The driver situation is horribly immature, the support from vendors is horrid, and, in general, it just isn't ready. And given how small the 64 bit market is, that won't change for several years. So, aside from buzzword compliance, for a notebook (where, assumedly, we don't need to run 16TB RAM databases), why would I care about 64 bit?

You mention I should buy 64 bit for the future. The typical lifespan of a notebook around here is probably measured in the 1 to 3 year timeframe - then people upgrade to get better components. Rest assured that 32-bit-using platforms will be the vast, vast majority for long past that timeframe, and will be supported for a decade or more (Vista plus 8 years, at a minimum, per MS's roadmaps - and that's IF MS completely discontinues 32 bit support immediately after Vista, which no one really believes they will). And with that nonexistant 4% performance advantage that 64 bit has (Farcry; other apps will differ), for most people there's no reason to prefer one over the other.
February 24, 2006 3:39:53 AM

I have an x1600 256 MB model coming out next month taht can compete with your precious 7800.

I am not sure how you can call a Turion MT-40 the older model... oh, maybe because in the REVIEW they were using an ML-42. Honestly, your entire argument is revolving around someone elses synthetic benchmark tests.

You completely lost me as credible when you said CAS latency is 'mumbo jumbo'.

Then you go on to say that they didn't shower the system with praise in the article, this is what I read, "The MS-1029 is a solidly built notebook PC. It seemed to me that the computer I received had traveled the world going from one reviewer to another. In fact, it's my guess that this is the same computer that was used in tests done for MobilityGuru's September 2005 article on AMD's Turion processor line. For all its world-circling travel, the MS-1029 showed very little wear and tear. If anything took a hit it was the unit's pretty near perfect keyboard.

The MS-1029 has a very nice 15.4" (39.1 cm) display with resolution running up to 1280 x 800. The display is sharp and easy on the eyes in spite of some of the numbers I'm about to give you.

The mean brightness of the display is 122 candelas per square meter. That's not bad, though in previous tests HP's dv4000 delivered 135 candelas per square meter and Toshiba's TV-quality Qosmio G25-AV513 wowed all with its brightness score of 335 candelas per square meter.
The MS-1029 has unusually dark blacks, which gives it a contrast ratio (whites/blacks) of 342. This compares well with the dv4000's score of 141 and is only outshone by the Qosmio's contrast ratio of 450.
Since the Quaimo has dual lamps in it's LCD and eats batteries like a feind, I'm not sure it is a fair comparrison. I will tell you this is a nice screen, you wouldn't be disappointed.

Now the majority of his review was NOT about the chassis itself, but about the viability of 64 bit Windows running on the machine. He actually said that the machine had been through a ton of people's hands, traveled the globe before he got it and it still performed very well.

You probably aren't old enough to remember Windows 3.11 and 16 bit apps. So you probably haven't heard all this non-sense before and seen it play out. If you want to stick with 32 bit and invest current dollars into it fine. If you want to think a 2.2 Ghz 64 bit notebook is only going to last you 1 - 3 years that is fine too. It's amazing we ever were able to compose a word processing document with less than 128 MB of video memory.

You can think what you want, based on what you read, but I am going to stick with my real world experience. It's one darn good system with top of the line components for a fair price. No review is going to argue that. If you can point me to any other system that has the STANDARD features that I do under 2 grand I would like to see it.
February 24, 2006 12:36:00 PM

The X1600 doesn't compete against the 7800 - the X1600 is slower than the 7800. The X1800 is ATI's competition for the 7800. Do you sell that, now, for a price in the Dell's pricerange? Dell requires a coupon to get the incredible deals I've posted, but they're available frequently. If you can take advantage of it, you can get amazing systems for very little $$. Now, without delay.

For the original poster wanting a fast gaming system, a Dual Core Intel box with 7800 and 17" LCD screen is better than a Turion with old X700 architecture and 15" LCD screen that costs about the same or more $.

Concerning CAS latency, for the AMDs with integrated memory controllers, little is gained by switching from CAS2.5 to CAS3. It's marketing-speak for getting a few more $ from customers that don't know better. Anand and other sites have had reports on this from time to time. Overclocking has some benefit with different memory timings, but we aren't talking about overclocking, and few would overclock a notebook that already runs hot.

The "facts" benchmarks you post on your site are very, very misleading. You took the top graph from this site (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/x86-64-rc1...) but you didn't also paste the other 2 graphs, both of which clearly show Intel-64 has *BETTER* performance than the AMD-64 part. That's misleading marketing.

The rest of Tom's Hardware review on the MSI 1029 wasn't as flattering as the quotes you posted. Some included problems with the keyboard, problems with the drivers or poor functionality of the drivers, heat problems, and various other issues. You can read the entire review (rather than just snipping what you liked) and you'll see that overall, it's an OK notebook, but there were things they didn't like about it.

The review concluded that 64 bit just isn't here for gaming or normal home (or office) use, and I don't think there is anyone (aside from yourself) that would disagree with that. XP Home isn't even offered in 64 bit flavor... that should tell you something. What OS do you include with all of your systems? I didn't see that mentioned on the sales prices part of your site. XP64 has many, many problems - immature drivers, incomplete drivers, or drivers that just don't exist.

I'm still waiting for your rationale of why someone should run XP64. 4% performance gain (Farcry - the only 64 bit game I see out there) just doesn't cut it as a reason - why should I switch from 32 bit to 64 bit? Hint: It isn't twice as fast. Bigger numbers aren't always better.

Concerning your comments about my age, I've got to laugh. I understand why going from 16 bits to 32 bits was significant; I also understand why going from 32 bits to 64 bits, particularly in the memory-limited notebook sector, is so unimportant as to be meaningless for most people. And yes, I word processed on machines with 64KB total memory (and 5KB total, if we count a VIC 20). You still haven't answered my questions for why one would want 64 bits - please feel free to answer, in non-marketing buzzspeak, at any time. Please use technical terms. I suggest starting with something like "Kernel memory space..." and total memory space. Please define exactly how that is important in the laptop sector, too.

Your "real world experience" post is geared towards selling your products. (As is your entire swarm of recent posts on this board; commercial usage of forums is typically looked down upon.) My post is geared towards answering the OP's question - and at that, for games especially, an nVidia 7800 GPU + Intel Core Dueo will toast an ATI X700 GPU + Turion. Graphics card matters far more than CPU once you get into the higher resolutions, as even basic benchmarks clearly demonstrate. (See: Tom's Hardware's review of AGP/PCI-E graphics cards, any edition.)

I look forward to AMD's release of the Turion Dual Core on Q3 2006 so they can become competitive.
February 24, 2006 1:42:21 PM

Yea, you're right.

Seriously, dude you win... you're the winner.

AMD and ATI should just close their doors.

INTEL rules the world!

DELL is the best! Michael Dell might as well cut out the middle man and just write all his checks to the Chinese nuclear weapons program.

We shouldn't go to 64 bit either. There is absolutely No benefit whatesoever. When all the apps are 64 bit, you can just refuse to accept they don't work on your machine and everything will be ok.

CAS latency doesn't matter, that's all marketing hype. 0-60 acceleration times for cars, that's BS too.

The on chip memory controller is non-sense... acording to Intel. That marketing doesn't have anything to do with AMD's U.S. Patent on it.

All my marketing is misleading, that is why I put the link to the original article right on the same page.

A 17" screen is just automatically better than a 15.4" because it's bigger. Nice and portable, I might as well just throw a LAN strap on my desktop and have my 24" monitor.

We should ALL get DELL's 17" screen, nVidia graphics chipsets, with Intel's 32 bit CORE-Duo.

17" screens and graphics chipsets are all we should consider, the fact that KillerNotebooks come with 7,200 rpm hard drive STANDARD, and 108 MBps a/b/g/G+ internal wireless STANDARD, and that I have upfront pricing and don't burn the majority of my customers that don't know about "online coupons" like DELL shouldn't factor into your decision.

Just wanted to throw in a review that completely takes the opposite view of what you have said. Review 'wars' are kind of dumb since there will always be one that can support your personal pet theory's, again, I will rely on real world experience
February 24, 2006 3:47:45 PM

So you have no reason to recommend 64 bit over 32, other than it's a bigger number? Did you read the link (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/x86-64-rc1.h...) you mention on your marketing page? I have to hope you hope your customers won't read it - it isn't flattering of 64 bit, either. Doom is slower in 64 bit. So is FarCry, in that review. So is Quake4. So is Half Life. In fact, they're *ALL* (games) slower in 64 bit. Zip is faster in 64 bit, as are some math applications, but the common stuff that people (gamers) will run now and in the next few years is slower. That article is very old; hopefully newer articles will demonstrate the 64 bit advantage.

C'mon - simple question - why do you suggest it? No URLs, just post, in your own words, why you think it's a big deal and why you think it's worth spending money on. Benchmarks so far don't bear out that it's faster for most of what people do with it, and the driver situation is still terrible.

Oh - and what OS do you ship with your notebooks?

I'm fully willing to agree at some point compiler technology, driver maturity, and customer demand will propel 64-bit technology forward; that day isn't today or anytime soon, though.

*Some* of your points are good - 7200 RPM drives are good, better wireless, for those that have the appropriate base stations, can be good. But the point's *I* have raised don't talk about those things - they talk about why a Dell laptop with the current best GPU, the nVidia 7800, is the best notebook for most people concerned with games; they also rebut your suggestion that the Intel Core Duo is "marketing" - it is, essentially, having *two* Pentium Ms in there, rather than just one; that's not marketing - it's performance.
February 25, 2006 3:59:13 AM

Ok, one last time.

Q: Why choose a Turion over an Pentium M?
A: (over simplified) I have built and owned them both. My real world experience has shown me the Turion is noticeably smoother running (no hangs, pauses, lock ups with multiple programs etc.), noticeably faster and 64 bit.

Q: Why is buying a 64 bit chip now smarter than buying a 32 bit chip?
A: Whether 64 bit is better, stronger faster is a mute point. It can be debated and 'reviewed' to death, but I'm sure everyone agrees that we are going to 64 bit sooner or later. 64 bit apps WILL NOT RUN on your precious Intel. Period, end of story.

Since the Turion can run today’s 32 bit apps and tomorrows 64 bit apps WHAT WOULD POSSIBLY BE THE BENEFIT OF BUYING A 32 BIT PROCESSOR?

You're claiming it's faster now but it WILL NOT EVEN WORK IN THE FUTURE. You then state this is a non-issue because notebooks only last 1 - 3 years. I'm sorry, but a 64 bit 2.2 Ghz 1,600 fsb notebook with 1 Gig of RAM (and 2 gig potential) is going to last you more than 1 - 3 years. WHAT is it that you are doing that it can not handle?

Since your diatribe centers around the gamer based on your GPU argument, you bring up that the core due is faster. Can you name a game that is ported to take advantage of dual core technology? I mean, I don't know about you, but I am not running virus scans encoding DVD’s and background processes when I am playing games on my laptop.

I have a desktop for the heavy lifting, as do all hard core gamers. There isn't a notebook around that is going to unseat a tricked out SLi desktop for that, it just isn't going to happen.

If we are talking about gaming on a laptop, it is a part time gig, it is BETWEEN what we are actually using the notebook for. When the app you NEED your laptop for goes 64 bit, you're out of luck. There is no gaming because you can't use your notebook for its primary function, if we go with the Intel at this particular point in time we COULD be burning ourselves down the line.

Is a 64 bit O.S. faster? Without a doubt, I don't need reviews and tests to know that because I run x64 Pro ON MY DESKTOP and it is FASTER. Period, you can argue this until your blue and it isn't going to make any difference to me because I am actually using it.

I DO NOT use it on my laptop because I need total compatibility, drivers for off site work and it is just not mature enough to be a notebook OS. I have tried it on my notebooks, and it does work, but like you said there are issues RIGHT NOW of drivers, hibernation, screen luminosity, main stream virus scanners etc.

Do I think it will mature, absolutely. Is it 100% now, NO. Do I recommend x64 as an OS now on a laptop? No, not unless you are using it on a desktop or have a need for 64 bit Linux.

One final point, when you are wirelessly gaming on a laptop with your DELL and your fancy 7800 GPU, don't be surprised if you see, in beatiful color YOU getting dragged on your wireless connection by someone with a KillerNotebook with 108 G+ wireless and massive throughput! You can see yourself being ghosted immediately after it happens due to your split second of lag that took you out. :lol:  Everybody wants to be the Killer
February 25, 2006 12:39:42 PM

Quote:
Ok, one last time.

Q: Why choose a Turion over an Pentium M?
A: (over simplified) I have built and owned them both. My real world experience has shown me the Turion is noticeably smoother running (no hangs, pauses, lock ups with multiple programs etc.), noticeably faster and 64 bit.


No one but you has ever mentioned lockups or hangs or pauses with Intel chips. And running one Turion against what is essentially two Pentium M's is a recipe for disaster on the part of the Turion - it doesn't have a chance. Most benchmarks say the Turion is pretty competitive with a single Pentium M; against essentially two of them, it doesn't have a chance.

Quote:
: Why is buying a 64 bit chip now smarter than buying a 32 bit chip?
A: Whether 64 bit is better, stronger faster is a mute point. It can be debated and 'reviewed' to death, but I'm sure everyone agrees that we are going to 64 bit sooner or later. 64 bit apps WILL NOT RUN on your precious Intel. Period, end of story.


Actually, it's "moot", not "mute", but anyhow, yes, we'll probably switch to 64 bit at some point in the next decade or so. But for right now, if a 32 bit notebook is cheaper and faster than a 64 bit notebook, users should buy the 32 bit notebook, because we buy hardware for what we need now, not in a decade. (And the "Intel" is neither "mine" nor "precious" - I just use them.)

Quote:
Since the Turion can run today’s 32 bit apps and tomorrows 64 bit apps WHAT WOULD POSSIBLY BE THE BENEFIT OF BUYING A 32 BIT PROCESSOR?


It's faster, typically cheaper, and better for the OP when playing games because it has the far better graphics card and dual CPUs, something the Turion won't have for another six months or so.

Quote:
You're claiming it's faster now but it WILL NOT EVEN WORK IN THE FUTURE. You then state this is a non-issue because notebooks only last 1 - 3 years. I'm sorry, but a 64 bit 2.2 Ghz 1,600 fsb notebook with 1 Gig of RAM (and 2 gig potential) is going to last you more than 1 - 3 years. WHAT is it that you are doing that it can not handle?


No, it isn't. The X700 video architecture is already showing it's age, isn't DirectX 10 compatible in hardware, and so is going to have a tougher time with LDM than a higher end DirectX 9 card like the nVidia 7800 in the Dell. And when playing games, the nVidia 7800 in the Dell is going to walk all over the slower x700 in the MSI1029. And you *still* haven't given an argument for why 64 bit is desirable now aside from that it will run 64 bit apps - which doesn't matter because nobody's going to be writing only-64-bit apps for a decade or more. Who in their right mind would write a 64-bit only app when the vast, vast, VAST majority of users run 32 bit OSs? That's not going to change anytime in the next decade.

Quote:
Since your diatribe centers around the gamer based on your GPU argument, you bring up that the core due is faster. Can you name a game that is ported to take advantage of dual core technology? I mean, I don't know about you, but I am not running virus scans encoding DVD’s and background processes when I am playing games on my laptop.


Quake (and all the games ported around the Quake engine) as of Quake 4 1.05 get strong benefits from dual core and hyperthreading technology, particularly, per iD, Intel's. Since Quake/iD is a pioneer in game development and since many, many games are based on Quake/Doom code, this is significant. It's also significant because iD frequently paves the way for technology many other firms eventually adopt. And this is *just* benefits inside the game - it doesn't mention the fact that playing will be smoother due to having the second core to address any other programs that the user runs.

You're 0 for 3 today so far. Keep going. :) 

Quote:
I have a desktop for the heavy lifting, as do all hard core gamers. There isn't a notebook around that is going to unseat a tricked out SLi desktop for that, it just isn't going to happen.


You cannot assume "all gamers" have a desktop for the heavy lifting - and with the Dell's nVidia 7800, many gamers won't *need* a desktop at all. But the Dell notebook will fare much, much better and be much faster with it's nVidia 7800 compared to a lowly, last-generation X700 when directly comparing notebooks, which is what we're doing here.

Quote:
If we are talking about gaming on a laptop, it is a part time gig, it is BETWEEN what we are actually using the notebook for. When the app you NEED your laptop for goes 64 bit, you're out of luck. There is no gaming because you can't use your notebook for its primary function, if we go with the Intel at this particular point in time we COULD be burning ourselves down the line.


Games (and MS Office, and everything else everyone runs) won't be 64-bit only for a decade or so. Your 64 bit arguments are completely immaterial.

Quote:
Is a 64 bit O.S. faster? Without a doubt, I don't need reviews and tests to know that because I run x64 Pro ON MY DESKTOP and it is FASTER. Period, you can argue this until your blue and it isn't going to make any difference to me because I am actually using it.


Neither Tom's Hardware nor most other benchmarks agree with you. At some point that may change, but I wouldn't bet on it. The architectural differences of 16 bit to 32 bit and 32 bit to 64 bit are completely different, and the reasoning and rationale to go from 16 bit to 32 bit vs. 32 bit to 64 bit are *completely* different, and you haven't hit on any of them. The only thing you appear to think about 64 bits is that it's better because it's bigger - I've asked you to post, in your own words, why, technically, it's better, and you've never done so.

Quote:
I DO NOT use it on my laptop because I need total compatibility, drivers for off site work and it is just not mature enough to be a notebook OS. I have tried it on my notebooks, and it does work, but like you said there are issues RIGHT NOW of drivers, hibernation, screen luminosity, main stream virus scanners etc.


And there you have it...64 bit sucks right now. So why do you suggest 64 bit OSs then when the driver situation is crap? 64 bit OS mainstream won't be here for years, and so 32 bits will be the dominant, supported, "best for most users" platform for years and years. Your argument about programs not working is simply not going to happen for a decade or more.

Quote:
Do I think it will mature, absolutely. Is it 100% now, NO. Do I recommend x64 as an OS now on a laptop? No, not unless you are using it on a desktop or have a need for 64 bit Linux.


Exactly. So buy what you need now that's fastest. And for the OP, wanting a gaming laptop, the fastest will be the one with the best GPU (and the best CPU helps too, but for this particular OP, the GPU matters more) - and that's the Dell. Without question.

Quote:
One final point, when you are wirelessly gaming on a laptop with your DELL and your fancy 7800 GPU, don't be surprised if you see, in beatiful color YOU getting dragged on your wireless connection by someone with a KillerNotebook with 108 G+ wireless and massive throughput! You can see yourself being ghosted immediately after it happens due to your split second of lag that took you out. :lol:  Everybody wants to be the Killer


When you don't have an argument, you resort to this. Sad. Since there's no suggestion that anything but latency is an issue with wireless gaming, please provide proof that your 108G+ wireless card is somehow better than the cards in the Dells. Please list how your cards change the specifications in the wireless routers/base stations that are being used to connect the gamers together to make your connection less latent. (Hint: You can't, because there isn't; the latency is the same.)

Then provide information on why you believe the opposite won't be true - the gamer running the slow X700 in your portable won't be destroyed because his graphics card cannot keep up with the speed and power of the nVidia 7800.

I see the latter (7800 squashing the X700) as far more likely, particularly if the OP cranks up the graphics special effects and such.

Face it - the X700 in the MSI1029 you use at Killer Notebooks is old and obsolete compared to the nVidia 7800 in the Dell. For those that want a gamer card, that's significant and important. It's time to upgrade the notebook you're selling to put a modern GPU in there, if you want to sell to gamers.
February 25, 2006 1:20:55 PM

Dude, You're the WINNER!

Your correction of mute to moot put you over the top. It's official!
Wow, that's anal, but you know more.
You're better than me.

I guess you can move on now.

I accept you're review reading level is GRAND MASTER.

I make a statement that I run a 64 bit OS and it is definately faster, you come back with, "This article disagrees with you.

Seriously, WHAT-EVAH!
That is just stupid, there is an inherent flaw in NOT having done the stuff, and quoting reviews to someone who does it on a regular basis to prove them wrong.

I'm wrong, you're right, you're rubber, I'm glue whatever I say bounces off you you and sticks to me.
THAT's how childish this is.
February 25, 2006 1:25:22 PM

Is an X700 faster than an nVidia 7800?

If not, the OP should get the system with the 7800, assuming the prices are similar and other specs aren't issues.

Agreed? If we really want what's best for the OP, we'd make the suggestion for what's best for _him_, and for him, for games, a system with a 7800 will be better than one with the X700.

Agreed?
February 25, 2006 4:53:09 PM

Because the only thing at issue is the GPU.

What DELL notebook are you comparing this to? I want to configure it and see what the actual price is, and when the thing can actually be delivered.
February 25, 2006 5:12:05 PM

From a student's point of view, I'd say that both AMD and Intel make very fine processors. True, the Intel Duo may outperform the Turion because it has 2 chips instead of just 1, for an average user, 1 processor unit is usually enough. I'd say a lot of it is based on personal preference. I have a desktop with Athlon XP 1.8 GHz, and a lappy P4M 2.2 Ghz. Both are VERY fine computers, and all have served me very well.
Also, the peripheral products are also important to a computer's performance (I have no doubt that both of you are very familiar with this concept.) The laptop I have is a Dell Inspiron 8500, and I'm very pleased with it. Maybe someone has had an Intel based computer and loved it to death. They may naturally prefer the Intel based processors when it comes to time for them to shop for another computer.
Personally, I'm leaning more towards the AMD side, because I've had my PC for 5 years now and it has never failed me. The Dell P4M on the other hands, being 2 years old, already burned out an nVidia 5400 GO video card. That was quite a painful experience for me. Therefore, I'm sorta-ish preferring the AMD Turion over the Centrino. That doesn't mean the AMD will HAVE to prefer better than Intel; it's just a matter of personal preference.
Bottom line is, I don't think it's that BIG of a deal as of which processor to choose. For an AVERAGE user, like most of us are out there, who surfs the net, listens to music and watches DVD, word processors, and some casual gaming, the Turion or even the Centrino Solo will do the job VERY WELL. Both the Turion and Centrino DUO should perform well when it's at a high-power range (2.0 GHz+). I think both Intel and AMD make excellent processors. It just depends on what you prefer and what kind of peripherals the computer is coming with.
BTW, I greatly admire both of your expertises on this subject.
February 25, 2006 5:38:45 PM

Whats the best cpu for games then? How does turion compare to centrino? and turion to dore duo?

I find some wicked cheap x700 based turions, but better graphics chipsets all seem to be in core duo which puts them out of my budget
February 25, 2006 5:43:57 PM

Quote:
The Dell P4M on the other hands, being 2 years old, already burned out an nVidia 5400 GO video card. That was quite a painful experience for me.


Bear in mind any flaw in a graphics card speaks to the poor quality of the graphics card (or case cooling, or just a random you-got-the-bad-apple-from-the-bushel) ... I don't think a graphics card that keeled over could illustrate a problem with a CPU, whether Intel or AMD. The two are not related. That's like not liking AMD because your Maxtor hard drive (located in an AMD system) dies - the two aren't related.
February 25, 2006 5:47:57 PM

Quote:
Whats the best cpu for games then? How does turion compare to centrino? and turion to dore duo?

I find some wicked cheap x700 based turions, but better graphics chipsets all seem to be in core duo which puts them out of my budget


For games, the CPU in the system is so far down the list of what's important compared to the GPU that it just isn't funny. Take a look at Tom's Hardware's charts of GPU performance and you'll see the differences - the CPU, as long as it's remotely modern, just doesn't impact that much.

Dell's single-core 9400 is available for $950; add the 7800 for $300 and you're at $1250 (granted, with no extra nice stuff, but you might not care) - and that's available now, without searching for coupons.

If you can wait a little while and are OK with checking websites 2-3x per week, check out www.gotapex.com every few days and you'll get Dell's coupons - save $650+ off of their notebook deals (IE configure one for over $2000 list price, apply coupon and save $650 immediately - get it at $1350). That's a serious discount.

Here's the current deal bits from GotApex:
DellHome - Dimension and Inspiron Coupon Codes! (Posted by: Brian)
Codes for Dell Dimension desktops and Inspiron laptops. May not be combinable with Deals of the Week, mail in rebates, dollars off, percentages off, or select other promotions. Only one coupon may be applied per cart at checkout. Deals expire 3/2/06 at 5:59AM Central or after 4000 redemptions unless otherwise noted.

* Dimension Desktops: DELL DIMENSION COMPUTER DEALS
o $300 off $999+ Dimension desktop purchases. Use code: 3H9N1VLCPM3B0R
* Inspiron Notebooks, excluding XPS notebooks. INSPIRON LAPTOP DEALS
o $500 off $1599+ Inspiron notebook purchases. Use code: ZGNFPBVQBP6QBD
+ 17" Widescreen Inspiron E1705 with Dual Core processor for $1099, just add $190+ worth of upgrades to use coupon. DELL INSPIRON E1705 CORE DUO NOTEBOOK DEAL
o $550 off $1699+ Inspiron notebook purchases. Use code: X7LZ32JSBGJ6VR
o $650 off $1999+ Inspiron notebook purchases. Use code: HHX5?X$QTF2XF4
* Three more deals for you too, with no coupons necessary:
o FREE 17" UltraSharp LCD monitor with XPS dual core Desktops, plus 12 months no interest. DELL XPS DESKTOP DEALS
o FREE DVD Burner and Battery upgrades with XPS M140 laptop, plus 12 months no interest. This 14.1" WXGA equipped laptop is just 1.5" thick and 5.5 lbs. DELL XPS M140 LAPTOP DEAL
o Inspiron E1705 Laptop with 1.66Ghz Intel Core Solo T1300, 17" WXGA+ TFT, 512MB DDR2, 60GB 5400RPM HD, 24x CD-RW/DVD combo, 802.11b/g wireless, Windows XP Media Center 2005, and 1 year warranty for $949! DELL INSPIRON E1705 CORE SOLO NOTEBOOK DEAL

(go to the site to get the link, found in CAPS.)
February 25, 2006 5:55:22 PM

I agree with the discount. Though Dell's online customer support isn't good, to put it in polite terms. When I was trying to get a replacement video card for my lappy, I spent hours talking to technicians on Dell's "preferred" online technical support chat system...they told me that either I have to downgrade to a 32MB one, or spend around $600 to get a 256 MB one. What the heck? And a few days later I CALLED Dell, and the lady (who actually can speak proper English, thank goodness) located a 64MB one for me in less thatn 5 min. Cost? ~$100. Too bad Dell's online chat support isn't as good as the live one 8)
February 25, 2006 5:56:21 PM

Quote:
I agree with the discount. Though Dell's online customer support isn't good, to put it in polite terms. When I was trying to get a replacement video card for my lappy, I spent hours talking to technicians on Dell's "preferred" online technical support chat system...they told me that either I have to downgrade to a 32MB one, or spend around $600 to get a 256 MB one. What the heck? And a few days later I CALLED Dell, and the lady (who actually can speak proper English, thank goodness) located a 64MB one for me in less thatn 5 min. Cost? ~$100. Too bad Dell's online chat support isn't as good as the live one 8)


Agreed. I think you'll find that's true with many vendors. They outsource a LOT to India and China now.
February 25, 2006 6:16:05 PM

Quote:
Because the only thing at issue is the GPU.

What DELL notebook are you comparing this to? I want to configure it and see what the actual price is, and when the thing can actually be delivered.


GotApex.com has links & coupon codes.

Here's the info:

Dell E1705 (twin of Dell 9400), Core Duo 2300 (1.66x2) configured with 17" monitor, nVidia 7800 w/256MB, plus 802.11g+BT, 1G, 100GB 7200RPM, 9 cell battery, DVD burner, Windows XP Media Center 2005 - $1631 after $650 coupon (and honestly, these are common as mud)

KillerNotebook.Com MSI1029, Turion MT-40 (2.2 ghz x 1) configured with 15.4" monitor, Radeon X700 w/128MB, plus 802.11g+BT, 1G, 100GB 7200RPM, 8 cell battery, DVD burner, No Operating System (well, it's not mentioned, and I've asked twice...) - $1832

RawpowerPC.com MSI1029, Turion MT-40 (2.2 ghz x 1) configured with 15.4" monitor, Radeon X700 w/128MB, plus 802.11g+BT, 1G, 100GB 7200 RPM, 8 cell battery, DVD burner, No OS - $1579 (with XP Home, $1673; with MCE2005, $1709.)

(And I'm not even saying RawPowerPC has the cheapest of the MSI1029 solutions; they were just highly rated in resellerratings.com, http://www.resellerratings.com/seller8271-p1-s2-d1.html...)

So, KillerNotebooks.com has the most expensive solution, while offering exactly the same thing as what RawpowerPC offers for $250 less (of the Turion solutions).

Hmm.... and both don't have the big screen of the Dell (17") and the far faster graphics card of the Dell (nVidia 7800).

Hmm... I know which one I'd want for gaming. :) 
February 25, 2006 6:22:10 PM

I have a lot of people contact me that say their DELL laptop has failed them.
I am NOT saying DELL has a bad machine.

Many people don't know that DELL doesn't actually MAKE the computer they are buying, and neither do I, neither does VooDoo or Alienware. We assemble them.

The main computer or chassis is provided to us by an ODM, or Original Design Manufacturer. VooDoo is really a Clevo, Dell uses Quanta for one line etc. etc. etc

I chose the main ODM for KillerNotebooks after a lot of research and hands on experience. I built systems from 3 different ODM's, I tried Intel and AMD processors, all with the same specs (only the processors varied).

My component requirements were:
* System had to have a 7,200 rpm hard drive, because in modern systems the hard drive is usually the bottleneck.
* System had to have 108 a/b/g/G+ 108 MBps internal wireless card.
* Systems had to have dedicated video memory.
*System had to have 1 Gig of memory on 1 chip so customers could upgrade in the future w/o hassle.

That being said, I looked at each system and determined:
* Size & Weight requirements sought after by my target audience.
* Chassis materials, and durability concerns.
* Screen design, luminosity, and overall appearance.
* Processor performance running the OS & Apps.
* Extra features such as DVD Burner, video outputs, ports etc.
* Warranty.
* Chipset Architecture.

That is how I determined my flagship product, or main product line. I had some stringent requirements for my customers to have a base system that was Killer. My concern was the end user, and my desire to build a company that was not for everyone but catered to the elite few.

Killer Notebooks.com

February 25, 2006 6:51:25 PM

Wow, I am being compared to RAW POWER.

You get what you pay for. First that DELL you are cherishing doesn't come up to that amount. You are taking $650 off the $400 instant savings so obviously you have never even bought a DELL before.

Maybe I could put you in touch with my customer who NEEDED his laptop on a Friday before the weekend and it was delivered to him in a 13" snow storm because I SAID he would have it. When he answered the door he said, "Oh my God, I can't believe you're here."

A customer had a problem with his computer after installing a improperly written bluetooth device driver. I diagnosed then fixed via custom written vb script that all he had to do was double click at 1:30 am because he needed it for work the next day.

How about the customer who lost a "foot" to his computer and I PRIORITY MAILED HIM ONE, his reply,
Quote:
Thanks for taking care of this so quickly, Mark. I really appreciate it.

The wireless really is incredible. I'm seeing multple neighbors' open wireless netwoks that I never saw before with my Dell, or with my wife's iBook. Very cool...


I don't know why you are such a hater, but it is seriously misplaced.

So GRANDMASTER of LOOKING STUFF UP ON THE INTERNET I can honestly say, you have no clue what you are talking about. I would venture to guess that you look up anything and everything you can to support just your narrow minded opinion, and glean some cursory knowledge of the things you can't do. What I would like to know is if you know so much... why aren't you doing it?

If you ever built and supported even ONE computer you might change your tune a little bit. Until then feel free to sign off from your Mom's computer in her basement at any time. Maybe once school starts again Monday there will be a respite from your ramblings at least until 3:30.
February 25, 2006 7:01:35 PM

Quote:
Wow, I am being compared to RAW POWER.

Yes. You both sell exactly the same products. Is that not appropriate? It makes perfect sense to me. You're just upset because I pointed out your products cost $250 more than theirs for exactly the same thing.

Quote:
You get what you pay for. First that DELL you are cherishing doesn't come up to that amount. You are taking $650 off the $400 instant savings so obviously you have never even bought a DELL before.


You are wrong. The price as I listed is exactly correct. You find the full price (which in this case was $2281) and subtract $650. That brings you to $1631. That's what I wrote.

Quote:
Maybe I could put you in touch with my customer who NEEDED his laptop on a Friday before the weekend and it was delivered to him in a 13" snow storm because I SAID he would have it. When he answered the door he said, "Oh my God, I can't believe you're here."


Plenty of Dell customers are thrilled too. Of the big vendors they do very well.

Quote:
A customer had a problem with his computer after installing a improperly written bluetooth device driver. I diagnosed then fixed via custom written vb script that all he had to do was double click at 1:30 am because he needed it for work the next day.


I'd question why it wasn't installed in the image in the first place. *Again*, what OS is included with your hardware? Is that an extra cost item?

Quote:
How about the customer who lost a "foot" to his computer and I PRIORITY MAILED HIM ONE, his reply, Thanks for taking care of this so quickly, Mark. I really appreciate it.

The wireless really is incredible. I'm seeing multple neighbors' open wireless netwoks that I never saw before with my Dell, or with my wife's iBook. Very cool...


I don't know why you are such a hater, but it is seriously misplaced.

I don't hate anyone. But I do hate inaccurate information, and the information you've posted is wildly inaccurate. I called you on it, and you then went nuts from there. I've asked you direct questions, and you've consistently refused to reply. That suggests either A) you have something to hide or B) you don't have a clue why anyone would want 64 bits (among other issues), and so you're just repeating a marketing mantra.

Quote:
So GRANDMASTER of LOOKING STUFF UP ON THE INTERNET I can honestly say, you have no clue what you are talking about. I would venture to guess that you look up anything and everything you can to support just your narrow minded opinion, and glean some cursory knowledge of the things you can't do. What I would like to know is if you know so much... why aren't you doing it?


If you say I have no clue, why can't you rebut my points?

Quote:
If you ever built and supported even ONE computer you might change your tune a little bit. Until then feel free to sign off from your Mom's computer in her basement at any time. Maybe once school starts again Monday there will be a respite from your ramblings at least until 3:30.


When I can hold a technical discussion on 64 bit issues, and you cannot, it's quite obvious who knows what about computers. You assemble them, and I'm sure you do a wonderful job. But when you slam Intel and Dell with wildly inaccurate information, I responded. Keep the technical inaccuracies out of your posts and you won't have to keep losing the discussions.

And I still think posting commercial postings on non-commercial forums is _very_ poor business practice.
February 25, 2006 7:13:37 PM

So, it is the same product? RAW POWER comes to your house to make sure you have what they promise you?

RAW POWER writes scripts for you to fix device driver problems that aren't even issues with their build?

RAW POWER offers 108 G+ Wireless?

RAW POWER offers custom skins?

RAW POWER offers European Union, U.K. and Australian power plugs for the notebooks they sell?

You can post everything you want because I can't even take you seriously anymore. The one question you never reply to is, "If you know so much... then why aren't YOU doing it?"

What is your problem? Seriously, Get a life. I am done, you can que up "We are the Champions" MP3 and dance around your mom's basement doing your "forum victory dance" in your underwear now Grand Master.
February 25, 2006 7:27:10 PM

Quote:
So, it is the same product? RAW POWER comes to your house to make sure you have what they promise you?


So now you're saying you'll take trips to any of your customer's homes, whether in Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, or New York City? You're kidding, right?

Quote:
RAW POWER writes scripts for you to fix device driver problems that aren't even issues with their build?


Your "install script" can be handled a variety of different ways; your way isn't the only way.

Quote:
RAW POWER offers 108 G+ Wireless?


Did you read the system I priced out? Bluetooth is a spec on the sheet, and so there is no 108G possible - on your system.

Quote:
RAW POWER offers custom skins?


If a custom ("Carbon Fiber Gaming") skin is worth $250 more, plus the $30 fee for the skin, more power to the customer. But let's let them make an informed choice - I suspect most will be able to do without that skin for $280. :) 

Quote:
RAW POWER offers European Union, U.K. and Australian power plugs for the notebooks they sell?


One could call and ask, but since adapters are available in any decent hotel, many convenience stores, most computer stores, and any airport, who cares? Oh, and do you travel to EMEA / UK / Aust. homes for house calls too? :) 

Quote:
You can post everything you want because I can't even take you seriously anymore. The one question you never reply to is, "If you know so much... then why aren't YOU doing it?"


There's no money and, nowadays, very little skill in hardware assembly. When anyone can buy an MSI1029 from MSI and then buy parts and assemble them, there is no money in it. Dell doesn't make money unless they sell tens of thousands of parts.

And architecture is much more interesting. I get to play with 64 bit systems - and I actually understand *why* one would want a 64 bit system, unlike some people. :) 

Quote:
What is your problem? Seriously, Get a life. I am done, you can que up "We are the Champions" MP3 and dance around your mom's basement doing your "forum victory dance" in your underwear now Grand Master.


I have no problem aside from, as I already listed, your wildly inaccurate posts. Stop making those and you'll stop losing discussions.

Say - maybe fourth time's the charm - what OS is included in your notebooks? :) 
February 25, 2006 7:38:36 PM

E1750 configured right at DELL:
* First this is a 1.66 GHz Core Duo which, hey if you believe this is what you need then by all means get it. It is going to be no match for a 2.2 GHz Turion MT-40 which is a 3900+ desktop equivalent by the way, but GrandMaster doesn't mentiun the 2.13 GHz Core Duo which more closely will match the Turion is +$650.
* He doesn't include the $150 Tru-Life upgrade which KillerNotebooks offers Glossy Tru-Brite standard.
* Add another $100 for the 1 gig of RAM which they don't mention is on 2 chips.
* The 100 Gig 7,200 rpm hard drive, add another $325 for that. I guess he doesn't know the difference between 5,400 and 7,200.
* 8x DVD burner that is stabdard on Killer Notebooks is another $60
* Add at least Intel Pro 3945 a/g 54 MBps wireless for another $25 still not giving you the Killer Notebooks BASE a/b/g/G+ 108 MBps wireless capabilities.
* GeForce Go 7800 another $299 (no GT or GTX?)
* Killer Notebooks has an 8 Cell battery standard, you can't really compare a 6 cell to that so another $99 to upgrade to a 9 cell on the DELL.

Total Price right off DELL's site: $2,555 then take his $650 coupon off (if it is still active) $1,900 AND you're running around with a 1.66 GHz core duo 32 bit processor instead of a 2.2 Ghz 3900+ 64 bit desktop equivalent.
Just wanted to point out that you were full of it while you did your "forum victory dance" GrandMaster.
February 25, 2006 7:41:11 PM

I'm all done dude, you're the GrandMaster, you know all.[/b]
February 25, 2006 8:00:46 PM

Quote:
E1750 configured right at DELL:
* First this is a 1.66 GHz Core Duo which, hey if you believe this is what you need then by all means get it. It is going to be no match for a 2.2 GHz Turion MT-40 which is a 3900+ desktop equivalent by the way, but GrandMaster doesn't mentiun the 2.13 GHz Core Duo which more closely will match the Turion is +$650.


So then the customer will get not just one, but *TWO* CPUs in the Dell that are faster than the single Turion CPU. Wonderful. But unnecessary.

Quote:
* He doesn't include the $150 Tru-Life upgrade which KillerNotebooks offers Glossy Tru-Brite standard.


The MSI1029 display isn't that great. Here's a comparison from an MSI1029 review: http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2617 ... take a look at the picture and you can see the MSI1029's display is ... suboptimal, or at least not as nice as the Asus, which isn't really well-known as a stellar performer either.

Quote:
* Add another $100 for the 1 gig of RAM which they don't mention is on 2 chips.


Already included in the price as quoted.

Quote:
* The 100 Gig 7,200 rpm hard drive, add another $325 for that. I guess he doesn't know the difference between 5,400 and 7,200.
* 8x DVD burner that is stabdard on Killer Notebooks is another $60
* Add at least Intel Pro 3945 a/g 54 MBps wireless for another $25 still not giving you the Killer Notebooks BASE a/b/g/G+ 108 MBps wireless capabilities.
* GeForce Go 7800 another $299 (no GT or GTX?)
* Killer Notebooks has an 8 Cell battery standard, you can't really compare a 6 cell to that so another $99 to upgrade to a 9 cell on the DELL.


Fortunately, all of that (not Intel wireless; it's Dell wireless "G" and Dell BT) is included in the price I've already posted, $1631, which is several hundred dollars less than your "Killer" notebook price, for which a customer would get an inferior GPU and a smaller screen.

Quote:
Total Price right off DELL's site: $2,555 then take his $650 coupon off (if it is still active) $1,900 AND you're running around with a 1.66 GHz core duo 32 bit processor instead of a 2.2 Ghz 3900+ 64 bit desktop equivalent.Just wanted to point out that you were full of it while you did your "forum victory dance" GrandMaster.


Nah; price as I listed is exactly correct - $1631, with DVD, 9 cell battery, 1G RAM, 802.11g+BT, etc. I don't know where you get your $1900 price, but it isn't from Dell's site. It's still $2281-$650, exactly as I wrote.

I didn't include TruBrite/UltraSharp/Etc. because the MSI's screens aren't, either. They're anti-glare, but not TruBrite (or similar, depending on marketing terminology). One common issue with TruBrite-style screens (from any vendor) is glare, so make up your mind - is your system TruBrite or is it anti-glare? MSI says AntiGlare....

Say, MSI also says their MSI1029s are DDR333 (http://www.msicomputer.com/NB/product_spec.asp?model=MS...). Why do you say your systems have DDR400 memory? (http://www.killernotebooks.com/comparison.htm) Isn't that illegal? Or maybe you're just talking about how fast the SO-DIMM is, and you're not talking about how fast it actually runs once it's in the MSI-1029 portable you sell? Sneaky. :) 

Is MSI wrong? Maybe they're wrong, and you've got an MSI1029 that is DDR400..?? Best to inform their advertising department....

PS: The MSI1029 review I referenced (http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2617) stated the MSI1029 has some RAM issues. Dual SODIMMs used in the board bring memory timing down even further, to DDR266 speeds. Is that why you sell a single SODIMM with 1G on it? :) 

Enjoy! :) 
February 25, 2006 8:51:22 PM

Quote:
Nah; price as I listed is exactly correct - $1631, with DVD, 9 cell battery, 1G RAM, 802.11g+BT, etc. I don't know where you get your $1900 price, but it isn't from Dell's site. It's still $2281-$650, exactly as I wrote.


Nah GrandMaster the price isn't right. You are taking DELL's instant savings off which you don't get when you use the coupon so obviously you have never even bought a DELL with a coupon, or maybe you just bought it in question marks like your real-world computer knowledge. NONE.

Quote:
I didn't include TruBrite/UltraSharp/Etc. because the MSI's screens aren't, either. They're anti-glare, but not TruBrite (or similar, depending on marketing terminology). One common issue with TruBrite-style screens (from any vendor) is glare, so make up your mind - is your system TruBrite or is it anti-glare? MSI says AntiGlare....


LOL, so you are reading specs, because you have never even seen the system and telling ME who built 30 of them last month that I don't know what kind of screen it has? ROFL. Yea, BUZZ, the screen is Tru-Brite, which is Anti-Glare, I really can't believe I am explaining this but essentially you extrapolate from
Quote:
One common issue with TruBrite-style screens (from any vendor) is glare, so make up your mind - is your system TruBrite or is it anti-glare?
that since a glossy screen generally has more glare that an anti-glare screen means it is not Tru-Brite.

Well little guy, since you are READING everything you know, because you don't have a car yet, I will give you this link to a picture of the screen so you can see that it is in fact Tru-Brite, and it does in fact look great. Before you quote this and say, "No it doesn't" take a picture of the screen on your DELL (that you don't have) you are using and post it.

Quote:
Say, MSI also says their MSI1029s are DDR333 (http://www.msicomputer.com/NB/product_spec.asp?model=MS...). Why do you say your systems have DDR400 memory? (http://www.killernotebooks.com/comparison.htm) Isn't that illegal? Or maybe you're just talking about how fast the SO-DIMM is, and you're not talking about how fast it actually runs once it's in the MSI-1029 portable you sell? Sneaky.
PS: The MSI1029 review I referenced (http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2617) stated the MSI1029 has some RAM issues. Dual SODIMMs used in the board bring memory timing down even further, to DDR266 speeds. Is that why you sell a single SODIMM with 1G on it?


My favorite part of your idiotic quotes is right there. If you had ever built one of these systems you would have known that the new BIOS coupled with the correct memory chipset takes care of this problem which was pretty much posted last summer, but you already know that because you are the GrandMaster of the forums and you saw that when you looked it up. You only put 1/2 the truth down, like hte rest of your little teenage jibberish, which pretty much kills any last shread of credability you had.

Now, I wanted to straighten out some of your lies, but I really can't waste any more of my time on your little games. Unfortunately you are going to have to find someone else to flame on the forum to feel like your life has meaning. I am no longer being notified when a reply is posted so you can rant all you want GrandMaster Brovine. I don't think anyone is going to find your little quotes and "forum knowledge" a credible alternative to real world experience.

KILLERnotebooks.com

February 25, 2006 8:57:44 PM

Oh yea, one last thing you forgot to add into the $2,555 DELL quote minus the $650 coupon is the tax, shipping and handeling from DELL.

If you want to argue the point, go configure the system with all the PROPER add ons to make it comperable to the Killer go to check out at DELLs site, apply your coupon that probably isn't active anymore and enter in the shipping info and get a screen shot of the true cost of $2,100 after shipping and tax.


... that's what I thought. You don't know how to do any of that, and don't even have a website to post a picture to. You are DEFINATELY someone people should be listening to.
February 25, 2006 9:13:35 PM

Quote:
Nah GrandMaster the price isn't right. You are taking DELL's instant savings off which you don't get when you use the coupon so obviously you have never even bought a DELL with a coupon, or maybe you just bought it in question marks like your real-world computer knowledge. NONE.


I don't understand why you're still confused. The Dell's price is $2281. That's the full price, without coupons, rebates, incentives, or the automatic $400 off. Then apply the $650 coupon. That takes you to $1631. It's really very basic. Thousands of people do it. Why can't you, aside from the fact that you're selling competing systems and have a vested interest in being confused at this?

Quote:
LOL, so you are reading specs, because you have never even seen the system and telling ME who built 30 of them last month that I don't know what kind of screen it has? ROFL. Yea, BUZZ, the screen is Tru-Brite, which is Anti-Glare, I really can't believe I am explaining this but essentially you extrapolate from One common issue with TruBrite-style screens (from any vendor) is glare, so make up your mind - is your system TruBrite or is it anti-glare?
that since a glossy screen generally has more glare that an anti-glare screen means it is not Tru-Brite.

Well little guy, since you are READING everything you know, because you don't have a car yet, I will give you this link to a picture of the screen so you can see that it is in fact Tru-Brite, and it does in fact look great. Before you quote this and say, "No it doesn't" take a picture of the screen on your DELL (that you don't have) you are using and post it.

You're honestly trying to compare a basic antiglare 1280x800 15" screen with Dell's Ultrasharp 1920x1280 17" screen, and you're trying to tell me they're the same? Don't be absurd. BTW: MSI doesn't agree with you. They don't market the screen as anything but antiglare. You really should get in touch with their marketing department - you've found several innovations in their productline! In any case, the price as stated is more than fair - MSI 1280x800 screen vs. Dell 1440x900 screen 17" screen; the Dell, obviously, having the better screen. And the better graphics card, too, most importantly.

Quote:
Say, MSI also says their MSI1029s are DDR333 (http://www.msicomputer.com/NB/product_spec.asp?model=MS...). Why do you say your systems have DDR400 memory? (http://www.killernotebooks.com/comparison.htm) Isn't that illegal? Or maybe you're just talking about how fast the SO-DIMM is, and you're not talking about how fast it actually runs once it's in the MSI-1029 portable you sell? Sneaky.
PS: The MSI1029 review I referenced (http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2617) stated the MSI1029 has some RAM issues. Dual SODIMMs used in the board bring memory timing down even further, to DDR266 speeds. Is that why you sell a single SODIMM with 1G on it?


My favorite part of your idiotic quotes is right there. If you had ever built one of these systems you would have known that the new BIOS coupled with the correct memory chipset takes care of this problem which was pretty much posted last summer, but you already know that because you are the GrandMaster of the forums and you saw that when you looked it up. You only put 1/2 the truth down, like hte rest of your little teenage jibberish, which pretty much kills any last shread of credability you had.

Now, I wanted to straighten out some of your lies, but I really can't waste any more of my time on your little games. Unfortunately you are going to have to find someone else to flame on the forum to feel like your life has meaning. I am no longer being notified when a reply is posted so you can rant all you want GrandMaster Brovine. I don't think anyone is going to find your little quotes and "forum knowledge" a credible alternative to real world experience.

You really should inform MSI then, because their marketing information clearly stated these issues. MSI actually states DDR333 on their system. Do you know why this might be the case?

Say, maybe fifth time is the charm - what OS do you ship with your systems, and is it an extra-cost item? Why can't you answer this basic, basic question?
February 25, 2006 9:18:22 PM

Quote:
Oh yea, one last thing you forgot to add into the $2,555 DELL quote minus the $650 coupon is the tax, shipping and handeling from DELL.

If you want to argue the point, go configure the system with all the PROPER add ons to make it comperable to the Killer go to check out at DELLs site, apply your coupon that probably isn't active anymore and enter in the shipping info and get a screen shot of the true cost of $2,100 after shipping and tax.


... that's what I thought. You don't know how to do any of that, and don't even have a website to post a picture to. You are DEFINATELY someone people should be listening to.


You're legally obligated to pay tax for all purchases. If you, as a vendor, are encouraging customers not to pay the tax owed to the government, you're committing fraud, tax evasion, and, surely, other penalties as well.

"Proper add-ons"? Don't make me laugh. How much is the "Killer" add-on to add a Radeon X1800 or nVidia 7800? How much is the "Killer" add-on to add a 17" LCD screen at 1440x900?

Get real. Your system doesn't stack up. It's not half bad - no one is really saying it is - but it doesn't stack up for a gamer looking for a hot games system with a hot graphics card. The X700 is a decent mid-range last-generation card. For a gamer, the nVidia 7800 is a vastly, vastly better purchase - it is the highest end card (save the GT/GTX) model of the current generation - a huge leap over the X700.

And to top it all off, the Dell's cheaper too, once configured by an independent customer (rather than Dell's competition).
February 25, 2006 9:23:51 PM

Dell System Follows:




Description
Inspiron E1705
Date & Time: February 25,2006 5:22 PM CST

SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Inspiron E1705 Qty 1
Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2300 (1.66GHz/667MHz FSB), Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005 Unit Price $2,281.00
Select Inspiron affiliate offer save $650 off $1999+ (Affiliate only)
LIMITED TIME OFFER! Remove Coupon
- $650.00
Catalog Number: 29
Module Description Show Details
Inspiron E1705 Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2300 (1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Operating System (Office software not included) Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
LCD Panel 17 inch Wide Screen XGA+ Display
Memory 1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz
Video Card 256MB NVIDA® GeForce™ Go 7800
Hard Drive 100GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive
Network Card Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem
Adobe Software Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0
Combo/DVD+RW Drives 8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Wireless Networking Cards Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g Mini Card (54Mbps)
Office Software (not included in Windows XP) No productivity suite- Corel WordPerfect word processor only
Anti-Virus/Security Suite (Pre-installed) No Security Subscription
Primary Battery 80 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
Hardware Warranty 1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr Mail-In Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support
Dial-Up Internet Access 6 Months of America Online Membership Included
Wireless Personal Networking Card Dell Wireless 350 Bluetooth Internal(2.0 + Enhanced Data Rate)
Operating System Backup & Recovery PC Restore recovery system by Symantec
Dell Digital Entertainment Starter Entertainment Pack - Basic digital Music, Photo and Game experience
TOTAL:$1,631.00


The Home & Home Office site and offers contained herein valid only for end users and not for resellers and/or online auctions. Pricing, specifications, availability and terms of offers may change without notice. Taxes, fees, shipping and handling and any applicable restocking charges are extra, and vary. U.S. Dell Home Systems Co. new purchases only. Limit of 5 systems per customer please. Dell cannot be responsible for pricing or other errors, and reserves the right to cancel orders arising from such errors.

Copyright 1999-2006 Dell Inc.
About Dell | Conditions of Sale and Site Terms | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Site Map | Visit ID

Top
Large Text
sn PCM4
February 26, 2006 2:17:28 AM

how amusing :roll:
you're losing sight at the fact that you can't compare a 17" model with a 15".
obviously the heavier/larger notebook can dish out more gpu power...and fyi the 7800 isn't the holy grail of notebook GPUs, the 7800GTX is, the vanilla 7800 is average. it is highly comparable to the x1600, go look at benchmarks/user reviews on a dedicated notebook sight notebookforums.com
i would buy a notebook that has mobility AND power over a DTR anyday...that is my definition of a laptop. of course some pple are looking for a DTR, but that's not the point. you guys are arguing over nonsense, just a classic case of portability vs. power. both are good choices, neither is superior over the other. killernotebooks' flagship model packs an awesome amount of performance in a light/small package. the dell has more performance but at a price, you'll have a brick on your hands. depends what defines "best gaming laptop" in the threadmaster's mind. enuff of this bickering plz.
just my two cents.
February 26, 2006 2:46:43 AM

Quote:
how amusing :roll:
you're losing sight at the fact that you can't compare a 17" model with a 15".
obviously the heavier/larger notebook can dish out more gpu power...and fyi the 7800 isn't the holy grail of notebook GPUs, the 7800GTX is, the vanilla 7800 is average. it is highly comparable to the x1600, go look at benchmarks/user reviews on a dedicated notebook sight notebookforums.com
i would buy a notebook that has mobility AND power over a DTR anyday...that is my definition of a laptop. of course some pple are looking for a DTR, but that's not the point. you guys are arguing over nonsense, just a classic case of portability vs. power. both are good choices, neither is superior over the other. killernotebooks' flagship model packs an awesome amount of performance in a light/small package. the dell has more performance but at a price, you'll have a brick on your hands. depends what defines "best gaming laptop" in the threadmaster's mind. enuff of this bickering plz.
just my two cents.


Well, you can compare anything you like; it's just a question of whether it's a valid comparison or not. I'd suggest that the extra pound and a half of weight is a fine tradeoff for the substantially more performance, but those who must have a 15.4" screen, for some reason, may be OK with putting up with slower performance. It all depends on what's wanted; some people may really want a 12.1" screen and may be willing to accept, say, integrated graphics. It all depends.

The Dell...brick...comments don't really fly - it's another 1.5 pounds or so, or about 20% more weight. That's not a lot unless there's a specific reason the size isn't acceptable. In return, you get a larget screen that will display more (a benefit to most people) and you get a far better and more modern GPU.

Actually, we're not arguing over much; I'd point out why KN's 64-bit comments were wrong (or just ask _why_ he wrote what he did), and he'd move on to talking about something else. It's difficult to argue in those circumstances.
February 26, 2006 2:53:08 AM

Well I don't only mean the weight, I meant the overall size/weight in general. It's a full size DTR so it's not gonna be as thin/small/light as a 15.4", it really depends on what the end-user wants.
I have nothing against Dell's, I just feel notebooks should be compact. Just IMO.
Obviously some people are gonna prefer a bigger screen or killer performance, to each his/her own.
I think the Acer TM8402 minus all the problems+667 ram instead of 533 would be my dream machine. Decent size, thin, beautiful, and pretty dang powerful.
February 26, 2006 4:46:52 AM

You said everything I wanted to say Adreen 8) It all depends on personal peference/need. For me, I DON'T want anything bigger than 15.4, since anything like 17 would be simply too big and I will not like using it. Therefore, I may have to settle for lappys with slightly slower performance, but I doubt I'd have much time for serious gaming in college anyway... :?
Acer Ferrari 4006.....if ONLY it'd come with the Radeon X1600....*drools*
BTW, the fact that Acer's can't be configured is really...odd lol. And that really displeases me :twisted:
February 26, 2006 1:06:06 PM

I had to make a similar decision when I bought a 12.1" Apple Powerbook. Most vendors don't put serious graphics hardware into their 12" form factors, so it was difficult getting anything much better than integrated graphics. Even Apple (a company that doesn't use integrated graphics) only put the nVidia 5200 in there, so performance is pretty poor. It's all a tradeoff between size, weight, cost, and a variety of other factors. I decided I didn't need to game on it, and so the portability has been a big plus for me.
February 26, 2006 3:45:04 PM

I see. Personally, I don't like the 17 screens because they tend to get PRETTY HEAVY :wink: And to tell you the truth, I don't think I'd ever need that big of a screen anyway lol. But yes, you're right, one has to trade size, weight, and portability for performance. (Well you CAN have both, if you want to spend $2500+ lol).
a b D Laptop
a b 4 Gaming
February 28, 2006 10:25:55 AM

Just thought I would add my 2 cents. I have been perusing through several different sites to find a decent gaming laptop for under $1,500 and have only found a few that have a decent GPU.
The Dell e1705 is one of them that has the 7800 GPU and can be had easily under the $1500 mark. Yes I would like to have the 7200rpm hard drive, but Dell definately inflates the price quite a bit along with there memory prices.
One of the biggest problems I have with most major retail/etailer chains (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc), is that the proprietary hardware that is generally used, they try to force you to buy their stuff. I especially don't like the software that comes PRELOADED on their systems. I have had several computers in my life. My most recent ones have been an IBM 266mhz AMD K6, Compaq 500mhz AMD K6-2, Dell Latitude C400/PIII 866mhz, and 3 other home built systems (2 AMD's and 1 Intel P4).
Out of the 3 pre-configured systems that I have, the IBM is the one that I liked the best. Mainly because it was always bug and BSOD free (Win95SE, now sitting in garage since I have newer gaming systems)! It also didn't have alot of unnessary software crap that came with it.
But getting back to the original question, I would have to agree that the Dell seems to be a better buy, assuming you get the coupon codes. If there wasn't a coupon offered than I would probably side with the newer MSI-1036. It has the 17" screen and 256mb of x700 GPU, but as stated earlier, the X700 is starting to become a little dated, but that shouldn't change things too much.
Just thought I would give my opinion and hope that this helps out.
March 10, 2006 8:16:57 AM

If anyone who buys a DELL is in need of a 7,200 rpm hard drive. I have a 200 gig 7,200 rpm SATA notebook hard drive I accidentally purchased that I can't use.

DELL get $365 for this "upgrade". If I got $175 shipped I would be happy.

July 30, 2007 7:52:01 PM

FYI had my dell e1705 for over a year now, love it! went to LAN Man in KY (4 days round the clock gaming) and played 8-10 hours a day and not one problem :) 
February 4, 2008 3:52:14 PM

Oh sorry killer didnt know you posted. I sold the dell to a friend and it still works GREAT. And what a GREAT deal... I bought a Gateway P-6831 FX laptop from best buy for $1250, here are the specs
Core 2 1.67 ghz, 3 Gig DDR2 Ram, 250 GIG SATA Drive, 17 Inch 1440x900 Screen, Bluetooth, Firewire, 5 in 1 media reader, Vista Home Premium, DVDRW, NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800 GTS 512 MEG (beats 8700 and 7950 by quite a bit), and it came with my choice free game.
CPU is P Socket and is highly upgradeable, and with 3 gigs ram (runnning dual channel) seems like a great system for less than $1300 bucks... I figured since you never answered you would have anything then or now that would be this good so I went ahead and got it... :) 
October 7, 2008 7:39:07 AM

hello everyone,

I been looking at these post and been laughing like crazy between the fights of bluescreen and killer computers...

But i agree and disagree with bluescreen

for laptops i recommend a intel based system with a 8800gtx x2 and at least a 2.3 ghz core duo and at least 2 gigs of ram for a laptop around $1500

for Desktops i recommend a AMD Phenom black edition with (which is quad core) 3.04ghz and at least 4 gigs of ram and a ASUS M5N MB and a ATI 3750 crossfire ready GPU and at least a 650-1000 watt ultra X3 power supply and a 250gig HD
October 7, 2008 7:56:50 AM

And one more thing killernotebooks. did you copy and paste your killernotebooks logo from the Killer NIC card ?? lol cause sure does look alike :p 
!