any computer tecks out there
 

I looking at new laptop or upgrading desktop
looking to see what a decent video card would be is any suggestions

or if looking at laptops something that could be used for gaming what's a good choice (toshiba ,Acer hp ) need a dedicated vid card though. I heard hp fall apart and crashes a fair bit and the toshiba's are a few bucks and acer well I don't know much about them. Just looking for some models to narrow the search.

Seen one already that has (bluetooth, hdmi, webcam,and a blu ray player.

heck what else can one get or need?

Acer lappy's is all my boss has sold at his computer store for years.There no.2 in sales in the world.Just my 2 cents.

dbl post

Don;t get a HP, especially for gaming LOL. How much do you have to spend?? If you want an awesome gaming laptop, check out Alienware.com If I ever do another lappy, it's gona be one of them. Only thing I miss from my big OC'd tower is the graphics and gaming. Now I gotta settle for the X360 I guess......

I hate to say it, but I think gaming laptops are the worst of both worlds. They are usually much bigger for the screen, heavy from the extra hardware and have very short battery life. My usual recommendation (other than buy a console for games) is to buy a power desktop for gaming and a netbook if you need to be portable. Heck, buy both it would still be cheaper. That, and I see a lot of fancy gaming laptops that are usually dead in under a year due to overheating problems.

Think in terms of numbers -- a desktop with 8 or 16 Gig or ram ($10 per Gig nowadays) is easy to do, with dual hard drives, and dual head video (2 screens yippee) is not that much money. If you want that in a laptop, you are going to pay. I don't even think I've seen a laptop that goes over 4 Gig of ram, let alone 1TB of drive space. And yet, you can buy a 42" LCD TV and hook you're hdmi as the screen instead of a puney 16" or 18" laptop screen.


Disclaimer: this is coming from a guy that runs BIG machines that no laptop on the planet could do what I need to run :) So laptops are just for portability for me.

I agree with wolf, buy a good desktop for gaming for less money than a laptop. The laptop is only good for portablity, plus you can make the desktop config anyway you like it a lot easier and cheapier then a laptop.

Just my 2 cents as I have both a desktop and a laptop and I use my desktop way more.

If you are stilling looking for a laptop, here a site to check out: http://reviews.cnet.com/gaming-laptops/

I have bought lots of laptops for business and a couple for gaming.

If your interested in gaming on a top then look at the Dell XPS.
http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/prod...ref=lthp&s=dhs

These tops are POWERFUL, stable and Dell of course has great support. Keep in mind gaming laptops are HEAVY and not normally suitable for lugging to work everyday unless you have strong arms. They are portable of course so you can take over to your buddies place for a round of HALO.

Expensive
 

The main downside to this -- price

By the time you get this up to a single-quad core, with 4 GB of ram, 17" display and a mirror 500G drive it is a $4000 US laptop, plus taxes, shipping and such.

My work desktop machine ---
Dual Quad core CPU (8 cores)
32 GB of ram, 4000 GB of raid drive, and a hardware raid controller, dual hot swap power supplies comes in at under $3000.
You could build a similar desktop for about $1000 with a 22" screen.

What is the point if they are just too heavy to carry anywhere. Why pay all the extra to cram all that hardware into a laptop case?

Side note: this is from a guy that is currently whining about only having a 700 CPU cluster with 1000Gb of RAM :(

Do you really think a quad core is worth the extra bucks for gaming? Most of the benchmarks I've seen give an edge to CPUs with bigger cache than number of cores as current games don't multi-thread well. I bet you'd get better results on a dual core with 6mb cache and using the money you save to get SLI video cards or at least a better single card.

Given that cluster you manage you probably have a much better understanding of threads than I do so I'm curious if you agree or not.

This isn't going to make any difference whatsoever but since I like to put my $.02 in...

I have a Dell Inspiron 1521 laptop with 1.5GB RAM and 100 GB HD, dual core 1.8GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 processor, and integrated ATI graphics. The graphics subsystem is currently set to use around 250MB of my system memory for graphics.

IME, WoW plays very nicely, graphics are smooth and pretty (though I have them turned down somewhat for when things get 'flashy' on the screen... I hate lag :twised:), but I had to tweak the ATI settings to get everything to look good and work smoothly. The changes I made improved performance in all graphics intensive programs, so this helps, though I still can't play Medal of Honor 4 with any sense of decency.

I use this as my regular computer, and would actually be playing WoW right now if I could find a game card... But the fact is I paid $600 for my laptop, and it's awesome for what I paid. The only upgrade I've made is an extra 512MB of RAM, when I switched out the 512 for a 1GB chip.

I would have bought a desktop BUT I hate having wires hanging everywhere. So I'm saving up for an iMac :lol:

Sorry to hijack the tread a bit. But the dual/quad question is always fun. Once upon a time the single cores were MUCH higher clock rate than the dual. Not so much anymore. Yes, games don't multi-thread that well yet, but most are getting better (most GPU's are 64/128 core). Anyways, usually it depends on the CPU. Intel's quads go through a single FSB and memory controller. Where on a server board with 16 memory slots and 2 AMD quad core. Each core is connected to 2 memory slots and interleaved. So, even though the DDR is 667, you are using all 16 in parrallel. SO the memory bandwidth is MUCH higher, and you need a NUMA aware OS to really get the best performance. With most games, the L1 cache size doens't matter that much anymore as they just are not big anough to hold anythign but tight looped code for the number of CPU's.


Of couse multi core is always better when you are running a massivly parrallel program spread across a cluster (interconnects are the slow part not the CPU's) so 100 quad cores is a lot faster than 400 singles (less interconnects and less switch hops)

I am also working to bring online another 4000 or so CPU's in the next few weeks. :) that should be enough for now.