Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Laptop Vs.PC

Last response: in Mobile Computing
Share
August 28, 2003 5:40:51 AM

Hi to everyone.I wanna ask if laptop can be as good as PC in performance.I f laptop can reach PC.And which are the best brand new models.Companies such as Sony,Toshiba...!!

More about : laptop

August 29, 2003 3:12:32 AM

Of course, the laptop is able to be as good as PC.
But, at first, your money must be enough to offer it^O^......
It's far more expensive than a desktop....
August 30, 2003 4:17:07 AM

Try a Dell 5150 for near desktop performance with mainstream company
Related resources
August 30, 2003 4:28:26 AM

You can get desktop performance from a laptop. My first choice would be Alienware. But if your wallet isn't that big, I would reccommend either Sony or Dell.
August 30, 2003 4:53:55 AM

Alienwarez makes laptops????

Anyways the gap between maximum performance of laptops and PCs is definitely getting smaller and smaller. The fastest laptop CPU is like 3 GHz and the fastest desktop CPU is 3.2 Ghz. So for standard applications, a laptop is up to spec as far as highend CPU performance. You can even buy laptops with a Radeon 9600 with DirectX 9 support, and this is a gamer's card although not as poweful as a 9800 Pro. But still, from the advantage you get from a laptop's mobility, what more can you ask? Also, a laptop with a "Ti4200 go" would be a decent choice for a laptop. Personally, I am writting to you now on a DELL Inspiron 4150 1.6 GHz Pentium 4 Processor, 256 megs of DDR RAM, and a Radeon Mobility 7500C 32 meg DDR & just love this computer. Heck, I can even game on this system, although others here might dissagree that this is a decent laptop for gaming that I was given August last year.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
August 30, 2003 1:29:09 PM

Yes they do, there's a 3.2ghz, 7200 rpm 60 gig hd, 9600/5600 laptop from Alienware. I'd get it if I had the dough. I do wonder how much it costs to upgrade the videocard later on though.
August 30, 2003 2:40:14 PM

I beleive the motherboards are designed on laptops to accept a few specific cards that were available that year, adnd those are the only ones they'll take. Personally, why go with Alienware and pay twice as much when you could get the same and hardware and performance for much less $$$$. Sure ALienware makes great fantastic stuff for gamers, but notheing yuou couldn't buy on your own for alot less.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
August 30, 2003 3:38:28 PM

As I understand it, notebooks generally run 30 to 50% slower than desktops no matter what the configuration is.

However I'm typing this on my new Toshiba 5100 Satelite with 1.8 gig P4 64 meg Navidia and 512 of DDR Ram and absolutly love it. It handels my 3d solid modeling with out a problem and can get 1600 x 1200 with out the screen floating.

And as far as games go this thing rocks lol Quake looks great on it and the Harmen Kardon speekers make this thing sound great.
August 30, 2003 3:47:36 PM

<<<As I understand it, notebooks generally run 30 to 50% slower than desktops no matter what the configuration is.>>>

Well, I apologize for being so blunt, but you understand it wrong. Notebooks can definitely perform as well as desktops at a standard configuration, however the chipsets and graphics solution make them very inflexible, and you can't very easily overclock a notebook CPU.

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
August 30, 2003 4:08:47 PM

Well no need to apologize.

I seem to remeber that on this very site that it was mention that they run about 30 to 50% slower, not sure where I read it but I'm sure I read it here.

Now I'm not just talking processor speed I'm talking over all performace including graphics,games and so on.
August 30, 2003 4:23:28 PM

I don't care what you're comparing, if you take a notebook with a 2GHz P4 and a Mobility Radeon 9000, it will perform within a margin of error, the same as a desktop with identical RAM, CPU and Graphics Chipset. If THG said anything to the contrary, they are in error, however I am certain that THG did not say anything as specific as that, and if they did it would be subject to the context in which it was written.

Heck, some Inspiron 8500's perform BETTER than equivalently spec'd desktop machines, some have speculated that it has something to do with the lower quality RAM used on (some)various GeForce 4 Ti 4200's - I don't know myself, but I do know for a FACT that if you put a notebook that uses identical basic components (e.g. Chipset, Graphics, CPU, RAM, HDD etc.) next to a desktop of the same configuration, it will perform approximately the same (This too, however, is dependant on the manufacturer, as many things on notebooks are hardly explicable).

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
August 30, 2003 5:00:55 PM

The comparison was between an equally specked Laptop, home computer and a mini computer.

And at the end of it all the laptop did not fare as well as the two others in over all performance.
August 30, 2003 7:14:41 PM

Well, for one thing I noticed the Alienware's mem isn't 3200, it's 2700 so it's async, thus it can't be quite as fast as an 875 mobo.
One question, somebody mentioned I could get the same for half the price, could you be more specific. TIA
August 31, 2003 12:08:02 AM

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but they weren't equally spec'd. Take a look for instance at the memory: The Shuttle is using PC3200 memory (partly because it has a newer model of chipset and is thus able to handle it), versus the 2100 memory of the notebook. Not to mention that it was at a serious disadvantage when it came to graphics. The Shuttle also had a much faster HDD (7200rpm), the notebook wasn't even equipped with a reasonably fast notebook HDD, let alone one of the newer 7200rpm notebook HDDs. And above all this, the CPUs weren't even the same: The notebook was using a standard 2.4GHz (400MHz FSB), whereas the Shuttle was using an 800MHz FSB 2.4GHz Pentium 4.

So don't tell me that the spec's were equal, because they quite evidently were not.

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
August 31, 2003 1:14:28 AM

RaPTuRe
Why don't you chill out. it sounds like your taking this whole thing personally lol

It is a well known fact. I hate to break it to you, but home PC PERFORM BETTER than laptops.

Yes laptops have come a looooong way in the last several years BUT THEY STILL can't keep up with a home PC.

And I'm not basing this on that one test between the 3 computers, it's just a fact, simple as that.

Cheers

Joe
August 31, 2003 2:04:49 AM

Quote from xlodo:
"Yes they do, there's a 3.2ghz, 7200 rpm 60 gig hd, 9600/5600 laptop from Alienware. I'd get it if I had the dough. I do wonder how much it costs to upgrade the videocard later on though"

alienware has no such nice machines. u must have confused it with a voodoo pc, hypersonic pc or an eurocom lappie.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
August 31, 2003 2:17:50 AM

If the configuration of a laptop and a desktop is identically the same (i mean identical, OS configuration, hardware configuration, hardware parts) there shouldnt be any reason why a lappie would be slower than a desktop. But, there are many things that reduce performance on a laptop in order to increase battery life. Stuff like mobile versions of hardware, software that optimizes power usage (therefore reducing performance), etc. A lot of people dont know how to turn off these features and therefore their power is reduced. Obviously, if you are running on batteries, thats also a factor. Stuff like speedstep technology and energy saving stuff makes it slower. But also, if you dont know what ure doing and turn all this stuff off, laptops can overheat and sometimes they loose performance or even hang on you. laptops cant rely much on cooling except for a few small heatsinks and a small fan.

Conclusion: get a desktop unless you really really need some portability.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
August 31, 2003 9:53:18 AM

<<<Why don't you chill out. it sounds like your taking this whole thing personally lol>>>

I'm not taking anything personally I guarantee you, perhaps it is your insecurity about the issue that causes you to think that - I am merely stating facts to prevent people from becoming mislead about the performance of notebook computers.

<<<It is a well known fact. I hate to break it to you, but home PC PERFORM BETTER than laptops.>>>

--[(Sarcasm)] errt. yes. right. just like it is a well known fact that more GHz equals better performance. definitely. uh-huh. of course. [(/Sarcasm)]

<<<Yes laptops have come a looooong way in the last several years BUT THEY STILL can't keep up with a home PC.>>>

Yes they can. And they do, but you have a lot more choice when it comes to a home pc. You are not limited by chipsets and graphics solutions, if you build a home pc to the exact specifications of a notebook, they will perform the same - it is undeniable.

...to quote someone on these forums, "it's a fact, simple as that."

RaPTuRe

P.S.
When you make a statement, It is always good to support it with a fact, making groundless statements just wastes space on the forums, and people's time.

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
August 31, 2003 1:52:49 PM

I'm not insecure in the topic lol it's your defensive way that you post that makes it more that obvious that you think that your right and everyone else can only be wrong

Show me facts that prove I'm wrong. If I’m wrong than great I will have learned something but up to now all I see is you shooting off your mouth saying that I’m wrong and have no idea of what I’m talking about.

Show me tests from a reputable source that shows that laptops are equal to desktops in every way. I have had this discussion before with people that know way more than I do about computers and desktops (equally specked are faster than laptops)

As I say, please prove me wrong I would love to learn something here.

Look forward to your test results.

Cheers
Joe
August 31, 2003 4:47:03 PM

Perhaps I was defensive. It is often the only way to carry a point across - not so in this circumstance. I apologize.

Here let's try to follow this logically: 2 systems exactly the same configuration - Precisely the same configuration. We put one in a big tower chassis, and we put the other in a smaller notebook chassis - to fit it all in, we change the shape of components, make them smaller but less easy to assemble; We put this system together like a jigsaw puzzle and it ends up being much smaller than the other. Now why on earth would the smaller system suddenly start performing badly?! [Hear me out]

It is comparable to Shuttle PCs - It uses the same chipset as a "normal" tower system, but the motherboard is shrunk and is less expandable etc. It doesn't perform any worse because it is small. It's not possible.

The same applies to notebooks. Of course you get your low power notebooks with slower graphics, and slower CPU and a 'Power Saving' Chipset, but those aren't designed to compete with similarly spec'd desktops.

But other notebooks such as the Hypersonic Sonic Aviator which uses standard PC components that are simply redesigned on the PCB to fit into a notebook perform basically the same as a desktop PC. The only problem with that notebook is the Mobility Radeon 9000 which doesn't quite perform as well as a standard Radeon 9000 as it is not clocked the same. If it was, well the answer is obvious. But then on the other hand, you have the GeForce 4 Go 4200 - on my D800 it scores 11000 3DMarks at Default. Most desktops with GeForce 4 Ti 4200s don't even break the 10000 mark, and if they do it is not by much unless it is coupled to a very fast board and CPU and/or if it is overclocked.

Take a look at Anand's comparison between a Pentium 4 2.4GHz notebook, and a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 Desktop system. Look the notebook performs slightly slower than the desktop - but not by "30 - 50%", no in fact in most of the tests it scored within 5% of the desktop system which can easily be accounted for: THG in its motherboard tests often finds that identical systems on different motherboards can have up to a 10% performance difference. This is usually accounted for by the Motherboard manufacturer overclocking the motherboards FSB by 1 or 2MHz, but those slight increases can make significant performance differences. Of course in reality, it is highly unlikely that you would ever notice the difference between two computers, one with a 5% performance deficit.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1674&p=7

In this review by Anandtech, the GeForce 4 Go 4200 is compared to the GeForce 4 Ti 4200. The GeForce 4 Go looses out here, but this is explained by the fact that it is set to run at a maximum of 200MHz Core and 400MHz Memory, compared to the desktop's 250MHz, 500MHz. Then of course you can just overclock the GF4Go to those speeds with no problems and voila! Identical performance, thus proving once more that identical components equals identical performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1745&p=5

I mean think about it?! How can it NOT be the same???

Allow me to continue:
Anand went on to put a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 notebook against a 3.06GHz Desktop. The scores were within 10% of the desktops, just as a desktop 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 would be.

At this point, it should be noted that THG hardly ever does desktop-notebook comparisons, and as good as THG is, nothing beats experience - and in this issue, Anandtech has the greater.


So as you can see I haven't been "shooting my mouth off", and you are quite blatantly wrong. "Everyone else" is not wrong, I know that Grassapa agrees with me to a certain extent - in fact most people who think logically even in a remote way would. So here it is:

A notebook with identical specifications to a desktop system, will perform precisely the same within a reasonable margin of error.

There you have it. I hope you've learned something.

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
August 31, 2003 8:54:13 PM

Well first off apology accepted and you have some valid points.

I thought as you did that there should be no difference in performance between the two.

If one has a 2 gig and the other has a 2 gig processor one would think that you would get the exact same speed. The point I bring up is that the difference lies in 3d applications such as rendering large cad assemblies or graphic intense programs like 3d max. The bottle neck I would imagine lies in the smaller motherboard (I believe you touched on this in your post)

They perform equally well in basic computing like word or excel and so on but were the difference seems to lie is in the 3d benchmark testing.

Anyway I’m not going to go on about this much more, if anyone else has anything to it would be great to hear your side.

Cheers

Joe
August 31, 2003 9:58:41 PM

The only bottleneck that notebooks suffer from is that of the HDD. The circumference of the platter is simply so much smaller than that of a desktop HDD that it cannot compare. But as far as a smaller system board goes... I doubt it. A smaller board would mean shorter tracks and thus slightly lower latency which could do nothing but improve performance (a couple of nanoseconds or whatever), but the difference would be inconsequential. The thing is - if you take a notebook system and put it next to a desktop system with the same configuration (i.e. Mobility Radeon 9000; P4 2.4GHz; 512MB PC2100 etc.), then made sure that all the clock frequencies were the same. You would get the same performance in 3D. I know for a fact that my "little" 1.6GHz Pentium-M notebook scores higher than a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 (on avg taken from futuremark; unless they have overclocked) and higher than an AthlonXP 2000+ (1667MHz) [the Pentium-M performs slightly faster clock for clock] with the same graphics.

On a system of averages, this makes quite a bit of sense: A similarly spec'd notebook performs the same as a whole bunch of similarly spec'd desktop computers.

In some ways you are correct in saying that the notebooks perform slower than similar desktops. But those are not the high end systems. The "Desktop Replacement" systems perform the same as the desktops that they are replacing.

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
September 1, 2003 8:59:26 AM

i do apologize, but you are ignorantly stupid (stupid - "Slow to learn or understand; obtuse."). there are no such things as "equally configured" PC and laptop. you can have anything equal, but one thing that will never be the same is the mobo (dzing-dzing: "chipset"), kapish? all lappies are made by the manufacturers which do not shine in the mobo business, they use other ones with heavy modifications to cope with space restrictions and heat. notebook will not have same configuration as pc for a long time to come, so there will not be same performance between them till that precious time comes, just deal with it, old fella.

but then again, you might argue: if you have lappy and pc from same manu-fart-urer, which makes crap all-in-one mobo for both of them, you are on the top of the discussion here then, but we are talking PC (home made PC) not the pc (came from same factory pc), kapish? even same configured lappy from different manufacturers have difference in performance, why do we have this talk about some kind of "same configuration" is out of reach by my poorly developed brain.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
September 1, 2003 9:04:09 AM

and it is really interesting how "shorter tracks" will have "thus slightly lower latency"? do you have any idea what speed electrons have? you think one or two inches will make a "couple of nanoseconds" of a difference? lol, so you want to say that older cpus have to be faster than the new once, caz they have less transistors to travel through? you are miseducated old fella, go read sports or something.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
September 1, 2003 9:34:42 AM

"I know for a fact that my "little" 1.6GHz Pentium-M notebook scores higher than a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with a GeForce 4 Ti 4200....." - lol, no comments here, my P3-1.13 notebook outperformed Athlon900 with twice as much memory and faster HD (4200 versa 7200) in DivX encoding by as much as 2.5 times with clock difference only in 200 MHZ, but it does not mean that now i have to argue with every body out there that P3 laptop is faster than any pc with Athlon up to 1.1GHZ and P4 up to 1.8GHZ, even it is true for some apps. and by the way, while you at it, quit saying that PC can be equipped with ..Mobility or ..GO graphics, that is rediculous even to imagine.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
September 1, 2003 10:40:56 PM

Hey 'blah', I don't dish out personal insults, and I don't expect to receive them. There is such a thing as equally spec'd notebooks-desktops "old fella", what do you call the ECS I-buddy? it is a notebook made up entirely of "desktop" components apart from the hard drive - it even has a standard lever-activated ZIF socket. And as a matter of fact, many notebooks especially those that use desktop CPUs use desktop chipsets ("dzing-dzing"). Furthermore, if you wish to be sooo specific, you could (unconvincingly) argue that a ShuttlePC cannot be equally spec'd to a standard desktop pc because it also uses a different/proprietary motherboard design. But we all know that that is not the case.

And what do you think a GeForce 4 Go 4200 is? It is a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 clocked down. There is NO DIFFERENCE, they are the exact same core. What do you think the Mobility Radeon 9000 is? It is a Radeon 9000 clocked down.. need I go on?!

<<<interesting how "shorter tracks" will have "thus slightly lower latency"? do you have any idea what speed electrons have? you think one or two inches will make a "couple of nanoseconds" of a difference?>>>

I was merely responding to another Poster's "miseducated" reasoning that the reason notebooks perform slower is because of shortened tracks, therefore I sarcastically (and theoretically) put forth on the table that shorter tracks could only mean lower latency even if there is no way to even measure the reduced time - try reading the entire thread before you go insulting other people with your supposedly higher intellect (and higher ego too).

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your little unfounded, baseless escapades as it would simply be a waste of my time, forum space, and everyone else's intellect.




"Kapish?"

RaPTuRe


Oh, one more thing (and I don't think that I am alone here), until you have something relevant to add, "shut up".

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
September 2, 2003 4:30:10 AM

lol, you are little out of scale, sorry.

""And what do you think a GeForce 4 Go 4200 is?""..""It is a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""""...""clocked down""...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""

LOL, it is ""clocked down"" how come...""There is NO DIFFERENCE""? go read the sports, fella, there is no brain power gets to be involved.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
September 2, 2003 4:59:28 AM

You are grasping at straws buddy! I will try to be specific now: There is no technical difference. Anyone who knows notebooks will also know that manufacturers are given the choice of what speed they would like the graphics card to run at. nVidia's technical spec's specify 200/400 (Core/Mem) as being the default, where as the Ti 4200's default is 250/500. i.e. If you clock the graphics cards to the same speed (ergo have a computer with equal specifications), they will score virtually the same.

I hope that was a bit more clear. Is that the only fact that you are going to quarrel?

RaPTuRe

And how can you say no brain power gets involved with reading sports? That is preposterous?! THINK about it my friend, what is CHESS?! Can you spell "S T R A T E G Y" ?

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
September 2, 2003 6:38:34 AM

gg, ""There is no technical difference"" - I thought we were talking "performance" here, and not "technicality". are you trying to get me lost? please spare my poorly developppped brain and don't confuse my few last gray cells.

"If you clock..." - can you spell "I F"?

and if you need brain power to read, hehe, that is tough.

by the way, come to yahoo/games i'll show you "S T R A T E G Y"

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
September 2, 2003 10:37:17 AM

Why all the personal attacks 'blah'? Last I checked, this was a civil, hardware forum. I'm not trying to confuse you, and I need not bother as you seem to be succeeding quite admirably on your own. I'm also not used to having to lower my intellect to converse with people who obviously have much more experience at being ignorant:

Take for instance a Pentium 100MHz. If I clock that Pentium to 200MHz it will perform like a 200MHz Pentium. ([Sarcasm])Kinda makes sense huh? ([/sarcasm]) Just like I explained in my previous post (this is where the actual reading of posts comes in ;)  ), the notebook manufacturer has a choice of what speed they would like to clock their graphics etc. So "IF" applies to this situation. This of course is beside the point anyway because my statement says that if you spec a desktop computer and a notebook the same, they will perform the same - We have already established that you CAN in fact do this contrary to your statement in one of your original posts.

So "technicality" is covered as you can configure notebooks/desktops to the same technical specification, and "performance" is covered as you can get the same performance out of an identical notebook/desktop.

I don't want to turn this into some sort of flaming war, because I don't see the point - Why waste these people's time with your ignorant babbelings and my continual responses. I mean if you are going to reply, at least stick to the topic. If you have something you wish to say to me, at least send a personal message - spare everyone else the waste of time.

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
September 2, 2003 3:12:54 PM

hey, RaPTuRe, no offence, i was just playing with you. you seam to be a very patient person, so i was trying to get you "off" the balance. i just like yer remarks like ""spare everyone else the waste of time"" and such.

anyway, back to the topic:

""I wanna ask if laptop can be as good as PC in performance"" - in theory it can. ""I f laptop can reach PC."" - in theory it can. ""And which are the best brand new models."" - big boys like Dell, IBM, HP, Sony, Toshiba make very good models, it depends what you want to do with it (through against the wall, or put on the shelf to wipe the dust off of it once in a while) and how much you have to "spare" for it.


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
September 2, 2003 5:36:03 PM

blah, my friend - you were stretching me thin! But I agree 100% with your post ^.

Rap

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
September 2, 2003 8:10:10 PM

thanks, i really feel bad now that you are so undisturbantly nice to me.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
!