[di1in]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

For those looking at an Asus gaming pc with no budget restrictions. Heres something worth considering.

Asus Lamborghini VX7 multimedia and entertainment notebook | Bloggerisme [dot] Com Online Technology News, Specifications and Review

I personally have the vx6.

So where did you buy it from? It's not available on amazon.. i googled it and not a single shop was shown. I wonder how much the vx7 costs.

[di1in]

Originally Posted by anku94

3DE ? Never knew it existed. Just checked it out and the specs are kindda cool, but worth the additional $400 ? I dunno, the only difference seems to be a hybrid drive.

Thanks for the info.

Seems the g73sw is out as well - sandybridge version. Are they printing out new versions or something? 4 new models out in a single month. About sandybridge, what else does it offer besides DRM and the built-in graphics(which we probably wont use in these highend rigs)?

[tsk1979]

Actually, for regular use, and even gaming an i5 with a high end DDR5 card should be more than enough.
As for core i7, there are very few apps out there which can use 8 threads, or even 4 threads.
So unless you are the kind of guy who likes to run video processing alogrithms + CAD algos at the same time, along with playing a game, i5 is more than enough

[di1in]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Actually, for regular use, and even gaming an i5 with a high end DDR5 card should be more than enough.
As for core i7, there are very few apps out there which can use 8 threads, or even 4 threads.
So unless you are the kind of guy who likes to run video processing alogrithms + CAD algos at the same time, along with playing a game, i5 is more than enough

Are you sure about this, because if it's true then how come pcs with i7 processors show better fps when running games in those online reviews?

@anku94 but isnt the g53better value since the only difference for 200$ is a hybrid drive and 2gb ram.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by di1in

Are you sure about this, because if it's true then how come pcs with i7 processors show better fps when running games in those online reviews?

Some games utilise multiple cores, but may not use all the 8 cores. In fact there are very few applications which are aware of multiple CPU, and fewer still which can utilse them efficiently. The ones used for benchmarking are of the rare breed which do so.

I have a dual quad Xeon, and a dual core laptop, and have noted that most of my applications are not even aware of added CPU. Those that are aware, are mostly CAD and Image processing programs upgraded in the last couple of years. The best performance I have had is with C++ programs written specifically to utilise additional CPU, and then too I get about 7 times time reductions with 8 cores!

The best utility of multicore machines is when you have a lot of cpu intensive applications running simultaneously, and even there 64 bit OS and 64 bit applications are definitely better, or else specific problems which can be solved in parallel (for example CFD or Equation Solvers). Otherwise multicore is just a feature of little utility.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by di1in

Are you sure about this, because if it's true then how come pcs with i7 processors show better fps when running games in those online reviews?

@anku94 but isnt the g53better value since the only difference for 200$ is a hybrid drive and 2gb ram.

Of course it will show better FPS if you do not have a high end card.
If the card is sufficient enough, the FPS difference will be marginal.
Other factor is the slightly higher clock speed and higher cache.
But difference in real world applications, esp single threaded ones like encoding is not much.
Infact, if you pull up a benchmark comparison chart of i7-720 which pulls to 2.8GHz in turbo, and the core i5-460M which also pulls to 2.8GHz in turbo mode, you will see that the difference in performance for most CPU intensive applications is just 5-7%

Specifically lets look at Game Benchmarks.
3DMArk06 running on the CPU has a score of 3096 on the i7 and 2907 on the i5, which is actually around 5%. So a 5% difference in FPS is expected. But can you make out 40FS vs 42FPS in real world gaming? That is the question

the Benchmark where i7 whips the core i5 is the cinebench multi 32bit. and the 64bit R11 Cinebench
In the former i7 gets a score of 8774 as opposed to 6976 which is almost a 20% boost.

coming to the latter, has a score of 2.87 vs 2.17 which is again a jump of over 30% from the POV of i5

Thats why I said, its more to do with what you do. Just having a core i7 may not be useful unless you run apps which actually use it.
And believe me, if you want to play games latter than 2007 get a ATI 5870 or Nvidia GTX 460M. Nothing else will do.
With the 460M I play games like Halif life episode 2 with every graphics option from detail to shadows etc., etc., enabled at the highest setting, I can barely hit 65 degrees on the GPU temperature.

However, I m sure, Crysis will be quite a toaster on my supposedly top end machine

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Of course it will show better FPS if you do not have a high end card.

The reason is that most of the heavy processing for games takes place in GPU (the graphics card) and not the CPU. A single graphics card can have any where between 50 and 500 graphics cores, and the software ensures that all them can operate in parallel.

[devarshi84]

from my personal experience AMD still takes the cake when it comes to gaming due to the memory controller drawback on intel. Don't know about Core I series but the black edition definitely kicked dirt at intel and at a cheaper price point too.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

from my personal experience AMD still takes the cake when it comes to gaming due to the memory controller drawback on intel. Don't know about Core I series but the black edition definitely kicked dirt at intel and at a cheaper price point too.

Not any longer
Take a look at the benchmark list.
Mobile Processors - Benchmarklist - Notebookcheck.net Tech
However an AMD 2GHz powered processor equipped laptop is 50$-100$ cheaper all other things remaining same.

[di1in]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Of course it will show better FPS if you do not have a high end card.
If the card is sufficient enough, the FPS difference will be marginal

Can i understand that to mean that when the 2011 games are released and the nvidia 460 starts taking hits will the i7 be better at covering it's back?

[anku94]

Originally Posted by di1in

Seems the g73sw is out as well - sandybridge version. Are they printing out new versions or something? 4 new models out in a single month. About sandybridge, what else does it offer besides DRM and the built-in graphics(which we probably wont use in these highend rigs)?

It's a new architecture, offers processing speed boosts, not that you'd need 'em in most applications. Also comes with Turbo Boost 2, probably a more advanced implementation.

It's specially designed for some kind of video encoding, and tests have shown that in those tests, it beats the top-end cards by a TREMENDOUS margin. And those cards are supposed to have processing power of the order of 10 times that of a good processor.

Check out the TomsHardware review on Sandy Bridge if you wanna know more. Although be warned, there's too much in-depth analysis of the architecture there, I couldn't understand half of it.

Just went through parts of the review again, and hear this : there's a portion on the chip that does nothing but video. A precious portion dedicated solely to video processing. The result ? Check out the link

Quick Sync Vs. APP Vs. CUDA : Intel

Originally Posted by di1in

Are you sure about this, because if it's true then how come pcs with i7 processors show better fps when running games in those online reviews?

@anku94 but isnt the g53better value since the only difference for 200$ is a hybrid drive and 2gb ram.

You'll find a difference of few frames (2-3) while upgrading the CPU even if the graphics card is Radeon 5970 triple SLI. Games manage to take advantage somehow, insignificant though.

If the card is poor, the difference is more significant, especially at lower resolutions and settings. This also happens if the game is CPU intensive. I think Dirt 2 is one such example. Not sure though.

About the G series, I dunno, Asus's market strategy is good. You get what you pay for, at any price point. Also if the 3DE has all the flaws ironed out, it's worth it, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Aroy

The reason is that most of the heavy processing for games takes place in GPU (the graphics card) and not the CPU. A single graphics card can have any where between 50 and 500 graphics cores, and the software ensures that all them can operate in parallel.

Yups, and now there's a focus on using GPUs for heavy computing. They're massively powerful.

Originally Posted by devarshi84

from my personal experience AMD still takes the cake when it comes to gaming due to the memory controller drawback on intel. Don't know about Core I series but the black edition definitely kicked dirt at intel and at a cheaper price point too.

AMD offers unmatched performance/price, but it's hardly beaten Intel ever to the performance crown. As far as I know....

Originally Posted by di1in

Can i understand that to mean that when the 2011 games are released and the nvidia 460 starts taking hits will the i7 be better at covering it's back?

It won't get outdated so fast. Games are demanding, but they have to sell 'em as well, so they do work on mid-end machines with turned down settings. I think with a G-something, you can enjoy high-end performance for ~2 years before it becomes outdated.

Remember the 8800 GTX ? Ruled graphics for an year or more. It's still one of the high-end cards out there. As good as Radeon 5670 and GTX 285M. That's after there was the 9xxx series, the 2xx series, and now the 4xx series.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by di1in

Can i understand that to mean that when the 2011 games are released and the nvidia 460 starts taking hits will the i7 be better at covering it's back?

Technically speaking? Yes, you may get 24FPS instead of 22FPS on i5
Realistically, no.
That said the 460M should be good at high settings for current crop of games. But then, there are always games which are such that no card can run them on highest settings. For example, even today, crysis which came out in 2007 can toast high end cards.

[devarshi84]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Not any longer
Take a look at the benchmark list.
Mobile Processors - Benchmarklist - Notebookcheck.net Tech
However an AMD 2GHz powered processor equipped laptop is 50$-100$ cheaper all other things remaining same.

The bench instructions are mostly written for INtel CPU's and then AMD, Via and other cpu instructions are accomodated. Not that say that I don't trust them. Understandable since INtel has more than 80% marketshare.

But from personal experience with an AMD X4 cpu vis a vis an Intel Core2, I found the AMD machine to be better at playing Assassins Creed. The AMD box was $20 cheaper too. At similar price points though, the game changes completely.

PS: I don't have experience with I series and am speaking purely on my gaming experience on the two at a store for 5-10 minutes.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

The bench instructions are mostly written for INtel CPU's and then AMD, Via and other cpu instructions are accomodated. Not that say that I don't trust them. Understandable since INtel has more than 80% marketshare.

But from personal experience with an AMD X4 cpu vis a vis an Intel Core2, I found the AMD machine to be better at playing Assassins Creed. The AMD box was $20 cheaper too. At similar price points though, the game changes completely.

PS: I don't have experience with I series and am speaking purely on my gaming experience on the two at a store for 5-10 minutes.

Well you are right, if you do not consider the i series. However, today most intel laptops except for the extreme low end are equipped with i series, and they beat AMD fair and Square.
I am not sure where is AMD headed in the mid-high end laptop market. Their CEO also quit recently(or was made to quit).
However, if you are on a very tight budget a comparable AMD laptop will cost 600$ as opposed to an intel laptop which costs 650-700$, all other things remaining same.

Remember, I am talking purely from the mobile processor viewpoint. I have no idea about desktop processors, but then this is the laptop thread

[anku94]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Remember, I am talking purely from the mobile processor viewpoint. I have no idea about desktop processors, but then this is the laptop thread

While AMD is conspicuous by its absence in the mid-end and high-end laptop segments, it's awesome in the desktop segment.

Athlon X2/X3/X4 and Phenom X2/X3/X4 offer awesome performance on a budget. AMD sells the cheapest quad core, Athlon X4 for some 5000 rupees. But none of them are in the league of the i7 series.

If you're looking to buy a gaming computer for less than 50k, AMD is the way to go. With an exception or two, of course.