StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My friend needs a laptop for college, and needs some recommendations. So, any ones you recommend? I'm thinking about Toshiba/IBM/Dell Latitude. Integrated graphics are OK, but she probably wants to play MMORPGs.

Nearly all laptops these days have built in wi-fi.

If she wants to play MMORPG’s then a graphic card would be a lot of help, built in systems (especially in laptops) suck balls.

Yeah, but integrated graphics aren't that bad- the ones in school seem to play BF1942 at a decent speed.

Laptop integrated is much worse than Intel chipsets.

Um... the Intel GMA900 seems to be the same one on Desktop PCs. And exactly how much better is a Radeon X300?

X300? A fair bit. An X300 is a Radeon 9550, which is worse-but-not-that-much-worse than the old Radeon 9600. I'm saying at least twice as fast as a GMA900 - please excuse me if it's not a good time for me to go hunting for benchmarks.

Ah, ok, X300 it is- looked here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipse ... ndup.html- not worth losing performance for 60$, given a 9600 is a bit faster than any of those listed.

Ok, what do you think about a Dell Latitude D610 with:
1.6GHz Pentium M (yes, I'm cutting corners on the CPU speed in order to save money on other components, since I'm trying to get it to cost below 1.5K)
SXGA+
Radeon X300
512MB of RAM
DVD+RW
80GB HDD
XP Home w/ media- I doubt the networking options in Pro will be useful, and it can be obtained via student discount anyway.
Intel® PRO/Wireless 2200 802.11b/g WLAN miniPCI Card (not sure what chipset is in the slightly cheaper Dell one, so just going w/ Intel).
6-cell battery

?

I lied ... ah here it is IBM T43 Review with X300 in T43; ignore the second benchmark it's wierd. The Acer 8103 has an X700 and the Asus a X600...

And here's a D610 Review. Your configuration seems pretty good ... I don't know whether your friend wants to squint at a screen with that resolution (interpolation sucks, it looks blurry). Depends on whether your friend does graphics work or has just plain good eyes. Is your 512MB one bar or two bar?

Two bar- it's doubtful she'll need more w/ 2D graphics work, (though now that I think about it, it can be switched to a 1GB and still remain under 1.5K).

Good idea about the RAM - the thing that redeems Dell is that laptops' are cheap enough so you can go for such upgrades. The extra 512MB will be useful you one moves from computer graphics work into print graphics work - A4 sizes at 300dpi, or roughly 3+ megapixels. I've been working at that size in the yearbook for a while and the G5's that have 1GB of RAM run way smoother than those with 512MB of RAM (though admittingly the CPU's do have .5ghz more).

Consider going for a 7200RPM HD if that is in your budget.

Well, that doesn't appear to be an option, unless one upgrades the laptop after buying it from Dell...

All the modern MMO's require "modern" systems to run well in big groups. Might I suggest something like this. It's in the 1.5k region, but has a real graphics card. If you want a solid gaming notebook, these folks offer a wide variety. However, much to my surprise, HP is Offering a surprisingly robust desktop replacement laptop that is within your price range. The only downside is that, from what I've read, the x600 gpu's are a little on the crappy side. And despite my loathing of all things compaq and HP, that's a pretty powerful system for the price.

As a note, one of my "professors" bought that HP laptop (with more bells and whistles mind you), and seems to like it. I know he plays SWG.

InnocentBystander wrote:As a note, one of my "professors" bought that HP laptop (with more bells and whistles mind you), and seems to like it. I know he plays SWG.

I still use my old HP, but it has an AMD processor instead of an Intel one.

From what I've read the AMD mobile processors are pretty crappy, so I'd go intel.

Desktop amd's are very good,

For laptops intel pentium M is supposed to be very good.

InnocentBystander wrote:From what I've read the AMD mobile processors are pretty crappy, so I'd go intel.

I didn't realize that AMD had a mobile line of processors, but their desktop line works fine in my machines and they're hugely faster than the Intel M series of processor--my two-and-a-half year old HP's 2400+ probably outperforms the majority of new Intel mobile processors in most benchmark tests, even though it doesn't offer nearly the battery life.

Yes, well intel M processors are designed for low power consumption, rather than say... processing. Fortunatly the high end laptops have desktop processors (though I havent' seen any with dual core, yet...).

Of course it's a little silly to compare desktop AMD processors (the best) to mobile Intel processors

Ossus no one can debate you on the speed of CPU's, but when you look at the power drain (GamePC test) PM's still have the laptop Athlon 64, the Turion, beat by almost 20%, and the desktop Athlon 64's even more so. Since Pu-239 seems to be going the "a little smaller and lighter" route, portability is factor - after all, some would definately choose a lighter and more managable laptop than a desktop replacement, especially when some feel that 6+ pounds is really breaking it. I love AMD, but I can't exactly say I recommend their mobile CPU's for thin and light laptops.

strongyl suggest avoiding a Dell. unless she's willing to shell out the cash for a high end one she won't really have anything too suited to gaming. from what i've heard though Averatec has some nice models out. relatively thin and light for cheap, with fairly decent specs.

InnocentBystander wrote:Of course it's a little silly to compare desktop AMD processors (the best) to mobile Intel processors

I would agree with you, except that AMD offers its desktop line in a variety of notebooks at prices comparable to the Centrino series (but hugely better performance). My HP, for example, only weighs in at 5lbs 12 ounces with one battery, and provided I'm not playing games or anything I can get about three hours of battery life out of it. And it's faster. For me, there's no question which one I'm going to stick with--three hours of battery life is fine in almost all situations, and I don't play games outside of the home, anyway.

I just don't see the need for a dedicated line of mobile processors. The additional battery life from my observations is of far less importance than the difference in performance compared to price. I think the mobile line of processors is a solution without a problem: I don't really care about what they offer because the trade offs in price and performance are far too great.

Really? I've never run into a vendor that sold anything but mobile AMDs. Do these motherboards support the big fancy pci express mobility cards and ddr2 ram?

InnocentBystander wrote:Really? I've never run into a vendor that sold anything but mobile AMDs. Do these motherboards support the big fancy pci express mobility cards and ddr2 ram?

No athlon 64 supports DDR2 RAM, becuase the memory controller is built into the CPU.

InnocentBystander wrote:Really? I've never run into a vendor that sold anything but mobile AMDs. Do these motherboards support the big fancy pci express mobility cards and ddr2 ram?

Mine doesn't, but as I said it's a fairly old system. New ones are probably compatible.

Edit: D'oh! Read Beowulf's post.