ok wife needs a new laptop after breaking the old one.
circa £800.
she is looking for a decent 17" widescreen HD laptop to replace the Dell she had.
will we notice any difference between an iCore 5 and 7 ?
am looking for 4 gig ram min. and a proper dedicated graphics card with min 1 gig ram. seen some offering 3 gb.
she will be doing games, browsing as well as watching movies and streaming tv etc.
she also says she'd like a tv tuner card - are these any good ? i remember when they came out and we all the rage....then they seemed to fade into obscurity just like betamax....
not bothered on make really.....but have been looking at the Dell website for a like for like replacement Dell XPS 17.
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/xps-l702x/fs
The highlighted one with a currently offered free upgrade to a FULL HD screen and 8gb ram seems worth a serious look ?
I think the Dell looks good value to me, although for me a 17in screen is to big.
Stupid question, but does it have to be a laptop? If its used at a desk most of the time I would strongly consider a desktop and getting more bang for your buck.
I ask because a big screen laptop an mentions of gaming to me would suit a desktop rather than laptop.
One thing to note with laptops when buying one with games in mind, are those intel 3000 graphics chips. A LOT of games do not support it. You'll notice that the top end gaming laptops have that chip along with a dedicated graphics card.
Actually, now I managed to load the tech spec page I can see it's got a semi decent dedicated one :)
The new Ivybridge has Intel 4000 Graphics which are a league above the 3000, http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/127603-does-ivy-bridge-replace-discrete-video-cards-for-gaming. Still not serious gaming by any means but a lot better.
I think we need to know what sort of games - first person shooter or Facebook Flash games?
thanks all - more the Facebook type games or a few older tycoon type of game - rollecoaster 3 etc.
nothing that new like a big FPS etc.
my view was the dell with a dedicated 1-3 mb graphics card would do the job for her. and yes she wants a laptop so can take it away with us and to be able to use it in all parts of the house.
we already have 2 desktop pcs.
PS : what about the diff between an iCore 5 and 7 ?
About £90+, the 17 is a faster CPU for the same die design.
so not really a heck of a diff for browsing, FB games, some streaming of tv/you tube ?
As has been said, get a desktop rather than a laptop.
sorry but i've already stated that we do not want a desktop and the reasons why so not sure why you are telling me to get a desktop? ???
trying to understand the best laptop to get for her and for it be useful for as long as possible.
ie are we going over the top with looking for an icore 7, will onboard graphics do the job ? and is 4gb of ram enough these days ?
the previous dell xps laptop we had was a 17" HD screen and it was lovely and clear. hence wanting the same size with HD support for the new one.
Principal difference between the i5 and i7 is the i7 has Hyper-threading enabled.
This means that a quad-core i7 appears to the OS to have 8 cores as the four processing cores can handle two threads each.
Basically, the bigger the CPU, the longer you're likely to get decent use out of the laptop. Same with a normal PC really. The more you initially spend, the longer it will last, failure aside. For what you're using it for though, I'd say you'd be fine with the i5, but personally I'd spend a bit more and go for the i7. Also now the ivybridge is out (I've been reading up on it today!) I'd try to get that one. Not a great deal of difference, and from what I've read, the only difference is they run slightly hotter and aren't as good for overclocking as the sandybridge CPU. Oh, and the onboard graphics that it comes with has direct x 11 support, which is something to fall back on if your graphic card (dedicated) ever failed.
Even older games will work fine on an Intel Graphics chip. I'd recompensed getting an integrated ATI (Now called AMD graphics) or NVidia chip though, just in case. This is because most software does not support intel graphics chipsets.
An i5 will be fine, as I don't think most laptops last long enough to make it around to the next upgrade cycle. They are too prone to being dropped or splashed by cups of coffee. :laugh:
Quote from: Technical Ben on Apr 30, 2012, 08:56:47
Even older games will work fine on an Intel Graphics chip. I'd recompensed getting an integrated ATI (Now called AMD graphics) or NVidia chip though, just in case. This is because most software does not support intel graphics chipsets.
An i5 will be fine, as I don't think most laptops last long enough to make it around to the next upgrade cycle. They are too prone to being dropped or splashed by cups of coffee. :laugh:
"recompensed" Ben, is it a dodgy spellchecker?
;D
Meant Recommend. It was still early in the morning for me. I missed a "m" I think and clicked the first thing in the spell checker. I could not even hit the right button with the mouse before I've had my coffee. :laugh:
Now we know when to get you to sign contracts. ;D
By the time it gets to signing the contract, most of us have passed the point of turning back. :laugh:
;D I just passed my sell by date...
I'm looking to get somemore omph out of my i7 920.
Fit a sub-woofer to it. ;D
A big heat sink will help. I can get an extra 0.5GHZ out of my silly AMD Phen' 720. :P
Got a big heatsink, I had a quick play last night, I had it running at 3.4Ghz up from 2.66Ghz, a lot of them will do 3.8 and a few 4.0 on air cooling.
Sounds similar to my AMD chip. ;D
Quote from: Technical Ben on Apr 30, 2012, 23:20:21
Sounds similar to my AMD chip. ;D
Hot enough to fry an egg, but without the Intel i7 performance you mean ;)
In all seriousness though Moore's law is popping its head up again as to how long silicon can keep advancing to physics gets in the way http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/30/moores_law_ends/
I think it slowed a lot recently, the bigger jumps in processing speed seems to be increasing the number of cores per chip
Although doesn't Moore's law more specifically relate to the number of transitors per chip?
Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2012, 08:38:56
Although doesn't Moore's law more specifically relate to the number of transitors per chip?
I think that's why Intel went for the 3D structure in increase that, but still there is a limit.
Quote from: Glenn on May 01, 2012, 08:35:34
I think it slowed a lot recently, the bigger jumps in processing speed seems to be increasing the number of cores per chip
That's not down to tech but demand AFAIK. It's more about power consumption currently. Granted, you can always find a use for more GHZ, but most people don'tneed it for word or internet browsing. So the market is swinging over a bit. However, things like 3d chips might keep mores law going a little longer. :)
[edit]
As Gary said! :D
It might be demand and the market more than technology and science that drives the speed of the PC.
Apparently Moore's Law will come to a halt in 10 years http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/30/moores_law_ends/
Take a look at the 2nd post. ;)
Why was that you?
Sorry the 2nd post on this page, #26
Sorry.
didn't read the thread through.
There was always an upper limit (physically) to how small you can make something. However, then you just keep making it bigger or more efficient/simple and keep Mores Law going from there. It's a bit like a car engine. There is an absolute limit to how many mile per gallon you can do. After that you're throwing out the spare wheel and mother in law to save fuel or getting a smaller car.
Some folks might prefer to use the mother-in-law AS a spare wheel ;D
Quote from: Technical Ben on May 01, 2012, 18:56:25
After that you're throwing out the spare wheel
Don't have one of those - just a can of gunk and a compressor.