EVGA's SC17 Gaming Laptop, Priced At $2,699, Arrives Mid-April

Status
Not open for further replies.

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26
Laptop made only for spec freaks but at the same time pointless ... 32 GB ram on an laptop ... 4k at 17" useless pixel density and not even 1 GTX 980Ti can drive games at 4k with fluidity but let alone a 980M ....
 

wewum

Reputable
Aug 30, 2014
422
0
4,810
6
@ohim

Because the screen is so small, you can just turn down the resolution to 1080p when you game, and back up to 4k when you browse the web and play less demanding games.
 

Russell Elfenbein

Honorable
Dec 8, 2013
4
0
10,510
0
The Gigabyte P35X v3 has been out for over a year with the same GPU. I own it and I can tell you that if you want performance, you will need a better GPU. Why didn't they go for the laptop version of the desktop GTX 980? crazy.
 

hitman400

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2012
91
0
18,630
0
I feel like at this price tag, they could squeeze in at least a 512GB SSD.
These PCI-E based SSDs are 2 or 3x faster than typical SSD's. You are right though, $2,700 and only 256? I speculate that most of the cost went into the unibody design, IPS display, and heat management to bring the laptop down to 1" thickness.
 

dorianh94

Honorable
Sep 27, 2013
75
1
10,645
3
Not worth the money. If they priced it below 2,000 $, then it would be a competitor but, there is still one deal-breaking problem. Thin high end gaming laptop IS NOT a good thing unless it has some kind of hybrid/water cooling and this laptop doesn't. Some people are asking why not put a stronger GPU into it, since it's a 4K laptop. Well, the answer is simple....it's barely able to cool 980M, let alone anything stronger. If they placed it somewhere around 1,600$ and put a 970M into it, it would be a much better buy but this is just ridiculous. Thought EVGA would be somewhat wiser that that.
 

Nyhil116

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2011
18
0
18,510
0
Honestly if they had made this a QHD display at 2200 I would have gave my Dell XPS to my wife and bought this... But my desktop has 2 980ti's in SLI running a 4K screen and it can't always produce playable frame rates; depending on the graphics settings of course. 4k is awesome if you're pushing a monitor 45" or larger, not a 17" screen. Resolution guidelines should be roughly this:

<21" = 1080p or 1440p if feeling froggy
22"-36" = QHD 1440p
>40" = UHD 4K or as I like to call it 2160p

On a side note, calling these new UHD TV's 4K really bothers me as they are not 4K, they are 4x the pixels, they have 4x the screen area, but they are not 4K. Changing the labeling system from height (720p, 1080p, 1440p) to a new system just to make the numbers bigger is a disgusting marketing tactic which takes advantage of the general publics lack of knowledge on the subject, and not only that but the TV's aren't even 4K pixels wide... Unless we are rounding to the nearest thousand.
*steps off soap box*
Thanks for reading :)
 

spagalicious

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2011
613
0
19,360
141


My thoughts exactly. My main gripe with theses 'desktop replacement' laptops is that there isn't really anything gained other than the mobility aspect. And with the 980m and 6820HK, I'd imagine it also uses a fair amount of power. Which requires the user to be plugged in anyways. Spending $2700 on a desktop gets you one hell of a rig that would last years.



Yes but scaling varies from display to display. 1920x1080 could look fuzzy, less sharp compared to the displays native resolution. Personally, I don't mind swapping between 4K desktop and 1080/1440 gaming. But some may.
 

ATL_Tech_Guy

Reputable
Feb 20, 2014
14
0
4,510
0
So... this breaks ground as the "thinnest" power user / gaming laptop .. with 4K and a subwoofer.

And yet still no "true" 17" 4K touch screen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY