StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm about to buy a new laptop, having spent years in the wilderness of Linux and missing things like games and flash websites.

I'm looking to get an Alienware m11x from the Dell website. It has an option wherein I can spend some extra money and get an i3 processor as opposed to the Core 2 Duo one which is their default.

The games I play are things like Civilisation, Hearts of Iron, and the Total War games. I know Empire Total War is a resource machine, but does it require me to get an i3 in order to have it not suck?

Could you perhaps give a link to the laptop in question? I've looked on Dell's Australian website, and the lowest-spec M11x that I can see has a Core i5 processor.

In any case, what you really need to look for is a laptop with a decent graphics card. The Core 2's chipset integrated-graphics are pretty hopeless, and while the Core i3's on-board graphics chip is just about workable for most games, it's still not exactly ideal. I'd probably go for an i3 overall, since it has Hyper-Threading and better power management, but if you want do any serious gaming, a good graphics card is a must

As a sidenote, is there any particular reason why you're looking at an Alienware machine? From what I understand, they don't exactly have a good reputation for value.

DaveJB wrote:Could you perhaps give a link to the laptop in question? I've looked on Dell's Australian website, and the lowest-spec M11x that I can see has a Core i5 processor.

Link. It's the one on the left.

As a sidenote, is there any particular reason why you're looking at an Alienware machine? From what I understand, they don't exactly have a good reputation for value.

I know bugger all about computer hardware, and this seemed good. If I could find something better for a better price, I'd be there in a heartbeat. I'm greatly hamstrung by my own lack of knowledge in this field.

I should add, I'm buying from Alienware because I've bought from Dell before and they've provided me with reliable machines. I'm petrified of getting a POS and being stuck with a paperweight.

No, on a gaming laptop it is almost certainly not worth paying extra for, in my opinion. The Core 2 Duo has more cache and can actually hold its own against the newer i3/i7 processors when it comes to gaming (where the GPU is far more important). Core i3 may get you better battery life, and will be faster at transcoding media, but that's about it.

Gandalf wrote:I should add, I'm buying from Alienware because I've bought from Dell before and they've provided me with reliable machines. I'm petrified of getting a POS and being stuck with a paperweight.

Funny you should say that; my dad got a shiny new Dell Studio XPS notebook about six months ago and it turned out to be a real lemon. I suspect it's got a faulty motherboard, because only one USB port works, Bluetooth is broken, and wireless performance is shit. I have no experience with Alienware though.

Core i3s offer better performance over a Core 2 Duo, but I wouldn't waste money on an Alienware; they're generally vastly overpriced. For about $300 less you could get an Asus with a Core i7, 1gb graphics chip and 4gb ram. According to various sites it's capable of handling most games with ease.

General Zod wrote:Core i3s offer better performance over a Core 2 Duo, but I wouldn't waste money on an Alienware; they're generally vastly overpriced. For about $300 less you could get an Asus with a Core i7, 1gb graphics chip and 4gb ram. According to various sites it's capable of handling most games with ease.

Not a ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730, even a Mobile 5870 will have issues with modern games at laptop resolutions at high.
Any game made this year your going to be play at medium or reduce resolution appropriately. In ye-olden days a mobile Geforce was close to a desktop Geforce. That died around the Gefore 4. Everything since then has been one or two generations removed. IE the 600$ mobile part is equivalent to the 140$ desktop part. The main reason is power, you can get Desktop replacements with full up(Or close) desktop versions of the latest ATI or Nvidia cards and battle lifetime for said laptops is roughly thirty minutes or less.

A ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730 is no where near a desktop 5750 for example it's much closer to the budget Radeon HD 4550 in preformance. As I said mobility graphics for power reasons alone are way behind their desktop counterpart. Even the "HD 5870" name the same as it desktop counterpart is closer to a Radeon HD 4770 than any bloody 58530 let alone a 5850 or an out and out 5870.

Mr Bean wrote:

General Zod wrote:Core i3s offer better performance over a Core 2 Duo, but I wouldn't waste money on an Alienware; they're generally vastly overpriced. For about $300 less you could get an Asus with a Core i7, 1gb graphics chip and 4gb ram. According to various sites it's capable of handling most games with ease.

Not a ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730, even a Mobile 5870 will have issues with modern games at laptop resolutions at high.
Any game made this year your going to be play at medium or reduce resolution appropriately. In ye-olden days a mobile Geforce was close to a desktop Geforce. That died around the Gefore 4. Everything sins then has been one or two generations removed. IE the 600$ mobile part is equivalent to the 150$ desktop part. The main reason is power, you can get Desktop replacements with full up(Or close) desktop versions of the latest ATI or Nvidia cards and battle lifetime for said laptops is roughly thirty minutes or less.

A ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730 is no where near a desktop 5750 for example it's much closer to the budget Radeon HD 4550 in preformance. As I said mobility graphics for power reasons alone are way behind their desktop counterpart. Even the "HD 5870" name the same as it desktop counterpart is closer to a Radeon HD 4770 than any bloody 58530 let alone a 5850 or an out and out 5870.

Why would you even want to play a modern game on a laptop at high resolution? The difference between high and medium on a laptop screen simply won't be significant enough to be worth bothering with.

General Zod wrote: Why would you even want to play a modern game on a laptop at high resolution? The difference between high and medium on a laptop screen simply won't be significant enough to be worth bothering with.

Have you played a game lately? This is no 1998 where it's just pretty textures. Cranking things down to medium(Depending on the game all things are possible) means bodies decay instantly, environmental effects are turned off, shadows are reduced to dark circles at most in a game like Bioshock. Not as bad as the giant blocks some games low settings give you. But the last few years of gaming has been focused not only on getting pretty graphics but also adding all those thousand and one touches that make the game something other than unending blank corridors between giant rooms. Rust, dripping water, wind blowing trash across your field of vision. Never mind cloud and explosive effects, vegetation ect.

Mr Bean wrote: Have you played a game lately? This is no 1998 where it's just pretty textures. Cranking things down to medium(Depending on the game all things are possible) means bodies decay instantly, environmental effects are turned off, shadows are reduced to dark circles at most in a game like Bioshock. Not as bad as the giant blocks some games low settings give you. But the last few years of gaming has been focused not only on getting pretty graphics but also adding all those thousand and one touches that make the game something other than unending blank corridors between giant rooms. Rust, dripping water, wind blowing trash across your field of vision. Never mind cloud and explosive effects, vegetation ect.

I suppose that depends on the game you're playing and whether or not the developers suck at optimizing their engine. I can pop in something like Arkham Asylum or Borderlands and I can't notice any significant differences between medium and high aside from one of them making the game run slower. Bioshock is also a few years old, so it's probably not the best example of something that would strain a new gaming laptop very hard considering I can run it on my two year old gaming laptop on high without any slowdown.

General Zod wrote:[Have you played a game lately? This is no 1998 where it's just pretty textures. Cranking things down to medium(Depending on the game all things are possible) means bodies decay instantly, environmental effects are turned off, shadows are reduced to dark circles at most in a game like Bioshock.

Gandalf says he likes Civilisation, Hearts of Iron and Total War. None of those are GPU intensive, nor do they need high FPS. They'll probably run fine with integrated graphics, and may benefit from a strong CPU more than a GPU (particularly Hearts of Iron).

But the last few years of gaming has been focused not only on getting pretty graphics but also adding all those thousand and one touches that make the game something other than unending blank corridors between giant rooms. Rust, dripping water, wind blowing trash across your field of vision. Never mind cloud and explosive effects, vegetation ect.

Most games are still designed to look good on an X360 and PS3, hardware five years out of date. Granted that's at 720p, on a laptop you'll be running on 1080p with additional effects, but even still a mobility 5770 is more than sufficient for the vast majority of games and gamers.

People who actually care about pixel-accurate soft shadows, 16x MSAA, GPU physics etc would probably be better off getting a mini/micro-ATX transportable PC. Cheaper, more reliable, more practical to replace individual components, and you can put a fast desktop graphics card in it.

Dell is kind of hit and miss when it comes down to reliablity. I had a Dell last for 6 years without a hitch, another one whose PSU burned out within 2 years (200W for 2.0ghz P4 + Geforce 3 system not going to last), and then a Studio XPS which has been fine for a year (though with a cranky Blu-ray writer).

Starglider wrote:

General Zod wrote:[Have you played a game lately? This is no 1998 where it's just pretty textures. Cranking things down to medium(Depending on the game all things are possible) means bodies decay instantly, environmental effects are turned off, shadows are reduced to dark circles at most in a game like Bioshock.

Gandalf says he likes Civilisation, Hearts of Iron and Total War. None of those are GPU intensive, nor do they need high FPS. They'll probably run fine with integrated graphics, and may benefit from a strong CPU more than a GPU (particularly Hearts of Iron).

I thought that Empire Total War was a complete monster with regards to system requirements?

Gandalf wrote: I thought that Empire Total War was a complete monster with regards to system requirements?

Not really, I'm running it fine on a P4 3.4 Ghz, a Radeon 4370 (I think ) and 1GB of RAM (DDR1, go figure). The loading times are a bit high, though.

PeZook wrote:

Gandalf wrote: I thought that Empire Total War was a complete monster with regards to system requirements?

Not really, I'm running it fine on a P4 3.4 Ghz, a Radeon 4370 (I think ) and 1GB of RAM (DDR1, go figure). The loading times are a bit high, though.

The Total War series are surprisingly lightweight processing wise. When I first tried Empire's demo I was amazed at how snappy and responsive it was. (Dawn of War 2 is a bit more intensive, but still not too bad.)

Gandalf wrote:

Starglider wrote:

General Zod wrote:[Have you played a game lately? This is no 1998 where it's just pretty textures. Cranking things down to medium(Depending on the game all things are possible) means bodies decay instantly, environmental effects are turned off, shadows are reduced to dark circles at most in a game like Bioshock.

Gandalf says he likes Civilisation, Hearts of Iron and Total War. None of those are GPU intensive, nor do they need high FPS. They'll probably run fine with integrated graphics, and may benefit from a strong CPU more than a GPU (particularly Hearts of Iron).

I thought that Empire Total War was a complete monster with regards to system requirements?

Maybe the gfx card...the AI certainly isn't wasting processing power.

Commander 598 wrote:Maybe the gfx card...the AI certainly isn't wasting processing power.

Well interestingly I remember on my old computer ages ago big battles in Rome:TW would chug with thousands of men, but while paused the game would be absolutely fine to move around with the camera, so there must be some thinking going on in there.

Steel wrote:

Commander 598 wrote:Maybe the gfx card...the AI certainly isn't wasting processing power.

Well interestingly I remember on my old computer ages ago big battles in Rome:TW would chug with thousands of men, but while paused the game would be absolutely fine to move around with the camera, so there must be some thinking going on in there.

Well I just upgraded my gfx card from a 256MB Geforce 8600 GTS to a 512MB Radeon HD 5670, which shares box space with a 2.6Ghz AMD X2 5000+ from late 2006. As a result I now get what appears to be (Because I'm not anal enough to actually care what the actual FPS is) pretty decent frame rate out of ETW with everything but AA on high...even shadows, this is as opposed to the somewhat playable low/medium settings (no shadows) I was running it on.