Origin PC Now Also Selling Intel X79-based Gaming Laptop

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]tical2399[/nom]I love how jackasses always assume that if you have the common sense not to blow money one something expensive just to impress others then you somehow can't afford it. How do you know he can't afford it???? Your "logic" is amazing so you're saying any one with money must automatically buy the most expensive option on the table even if it doesn't suit their preference or doesn't seem worth the money or it somehow proves they can't afford it? I make a good living and I can afford a good mid range german car (C class benz) but I would never buy one because (1) I only like American cars so it doesn't suit my preference and (2) I see no need for one. My tricked out 2007 Chevy Monte Carlo gets me to work, takes me out and back with no issues and only cost me mid 20ks.Why would I spend high 40 to low 50k on a benz other than just to prove I can buy one? That makes no sense.As far as your laptop beating most desktops out? Yea maybe some weak dell or something, there is not a home built desktop that wouldnt kill that laptop at a similar price.[/citation]

Considering the fact that most desktops don't even have a quad core, I'd say that several laptops can be more powerful than most desktops. Home built desktops will undoubtedly beat a laptop of the same price, but as a poster above said you also pay for mouse, keyboard, speakers, display, low size,weight, and mobility when you buy a laptop. Take all of that out of the equation and the difference isn't as large anymore. Any remaining price difference would simply be because it's a prebuilt machine.

If you want, you can build you own laptop from a bare-bones system. Probably can't build an x58 or x79, but you can build a decent laptop that most certainly beats most desktops. I can guarantee that a laptop with an x79 CPU and dual GTX 580ms or Radeon 6990ms can and will beat even many gaming desktops that have a weaker graphics setup than the Radeon 7950 or GTX 580.
 
[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]Let's not embellish. The GTX 560m of the G74 is a downclocked GTX 550 Ti. Not a bad chip, but not near top of the line either. That being said, if you upgrade to GTX 580m SLI then you are talking about more power than a single GTX 580 which is not bad at all - especially in a laptop![/citation]Actually, a single GTX 580 still trumps SLI GTX 580M's: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6990m-geforce-gtx-580m-deception,3118-9.html
 

scook9

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
826
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]Actually, a single GTX 580 still trumps SLI GTX 580M's: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 118-9.html[/citation]
From that link.....at the same resolution (1080p) they are .2% apart.......and you can overclock the GTX 580m quite well (over 100 MHz) to help make some of that up ;)
 
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]...Sounds like someone who is forever stuck with sub $500 laptops to me. I have the Asus G74 sandy bridge maxed out with close to the specs of this one for under 2 grand and it flies faster than most desktops out. Some of us do more with a PC than check email and tweet freggo.[/citation]

[citation][nom]wordword[/nom]I have the Asus G74 sandy bridge maxed out with close to the specs of this one for under 2 grand and it flies faster than most desktops out. Some of us do more with a PC than check email and tweet freggo[/citation]

These comments are so similar... I have to ask, are you the same person? Especially since I just checked the join date of wordword and wordword joined Tom's today.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]wordword[/nom]I have the Asus G74 sandy bridge maxed out with close to the specs of this one for under 2 grand and it flies faster than most desktops out. Some of us do more with a PC than check email and tweet freggo[/citation]

I run an IT company off of my PC with 3 locations in the US and 2 in Europe.
From a Windows 2000 PC...
Don't tell me you must have a 'maxed out' laptop costing 3Gs to do more than Twitter (I have neither Twitter nor Facecrap accounts).

But you are welcome to use that story with your wife so you can have some fun :D



 
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]I run an IT company off of my PC with 3 locations in the US and 2 in Europe.From a Windows 2000 PC... Don't tell me you must have a 'maxed out' laptop costing 3Gs to do more than Twitter (I have neither Twitter nor Facecrap accounts).But you are welcome to use that story with your wife so you can have some fun[/citation]

He/she said under two grand, not 3 grand and I guarantee that you can't play even a lot of older games on that Windows 2000 machine. Besides that, what do you do to run your company with that computer? what are it's specifications? I can't imagine your work being very performance intensive if you have an older machine with standard hardware for the time, or even the top hardware for the time.

I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do most of what I do with my cheap laptops on a machine that old. Just me web browsing with a few dozen tabs would use more memory than a lot of machines had back then. I couldn't make by with less than 2GB of memory with current web browsers and I use Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 just so it uses less memory than Windows 7 or Vista while still being newer than XP and having better support.

Older and weaker machines will not cut it for everybody and you don't even need to do particularly intensive things to show the difference from using a out-dated PCs and newer laptops, let alone newer PCs. Try having 80 or more tabs open in Firefox on your Windows 2000 machine, tell us how that goes when you also have some other things running concurrently too.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]He/she said under two grand, not 3 grand and I guarantee that you can't play even a lot of older games on that Windows 2000 machine. Besides that, what do you do to run your company with that computer? what are it's specifications? I can't imagine your work being very performance intensive if you have an older machine with standard hardware for the time, or even the top hardware for the time.I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do most of what I do with my cheap laptops on a machine that old. Just me web browsing with a few dozen tabs would use more memory than a lot of machines had back then. I couldn't make by with less than 2GB of memory with current web browsers and I use Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 just so it uses less memory than Windows 7 or Vista while still being newer than XP and having better support.Older and weaker machines will not cut it for everybody and you don't even need to do particularly intensive things to show the difference from using a out-dated PCs and newer laptops, let alone newer PCs. Try having 80 or more tabs open in Firefox on your Windows 2000 machine, tell us how that goes when you also have some other things running concurrently too.[/citation]

Actually a rather new built and I fail to see the point of having 80+ 'tabs' open.
I don't even have that many sites on my regular 'check 'list.
We do not buy off the shelf PCs bur do custom builds in house.
No overclocking either. If we need that 'extra speed' we get a bigger processor or Graphics card.
Win 2k for 32bit and Win XP for 64Bit does just fine I just don't see the point for Vista and glossy interfaces. All company desktops sport the standard dark 'blue' windows desktop.
No screen savers (savong what ?) or background images.

We have a few XP Boxes mostly for Adobe CS5 (Premiere HD video editing).

I don't know -nor care- if any of our systems can play games and most of my employees value their jobs too much to try finding out :)

Our Servers are running on Win Server 2003 with some rather busy websites.
Despite what M$ tries to tell everyone there is nothing in Win Vista or Win 7 that you 'must have'.

It's M$ that needs sales to come up with 90,000 paychecks !

I understand that some folks love to jazz up their machines and cases; and that's cool.
I just look at it from a business aspect.
Upgrading 50+ systems is expensive. No, not the OS or even the hardware. But the retraining of the employees and the resulting down times!


 
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Actually a rather new built and I fail to see the point of having 80+ 'tabs' open.I don't even have that many sites on my regular 'check 'list.We do not buy off the shelf PCs bur do custom builds in house.No overclocking either. If we need that 'extra speed' we get a bigger processor or Graphics card.Win 2k for 32bit and Win XP for 64Bit does just fine I just don't see the point for Vista and glossy interfaces. All company desktops sport the standard dark 'blue' windows desktop.No screen savers (savong what ?) or background images.We have a few XP Boxes mostly for Adobe CS5 (Premiere HD video editing).I don't know -nor care- if any of our systems can play games and most of my employees value their jobs too much to try finding out :)Our Servers are running on Win Server 2003 with some rather busy websites. Despite what M$ tries to tell everyone there is nothing in Win Vista or Win 7 that you 'must have'.It's M$ that needs sales to come up with 90,000 paychecks !I understand that some folks love to jazz up their machines and cases; and that's cool.I just look at it from a business aspect.Upgrading 50+ systems is expensive. No, not the OS or even the hardware. But the retraining of the employees and the resulting down times![/citation]

You really shouldn't hold business machines to the same bar as home machines that see more general and entertainment uses. Besides, there are great uses for many tabs being opened. For example, I sometimes have more than 30 tabs with Tom's forum posts that I'm helping out in and when I'm on Newegg designing a system or two, well I can have dozens more from that. Then I can also have a few dozen wiki tabs open on stuff I'm reading on (wiki might not be the best, but it can provide a starting point if you look through the references). That's just scratching the surface. I use all of them, just not always at the exact same time. I shift through the forum tabs several times a day and I go back to the Newegg and Wiki tabs whenever I feel like it, but they are still there. Then there's anything else I'm doing too.

It's simply more convenient and faster than closing and reopening them every time I wan to use them. Some people use even more than I do (I was chatting with a guy that usually has more than 700 tabs open, I didn't bother to ask why). Furthermore, I have all of this whilst other programs are running (a few large archives being extracted, a download or two, etc).

Your machines may be enough for your usage of them, but probably aren't enough for what I do. My laptop is currently starting to show weakness and will need to be replaced, probably with something that has an A8 quad core with 8GB of memory and a 500GB to 750GB hard drive and other moderate parts. I'm not a heavy gamer, but I do occasionally play some Unreal Tournament games and some Command And Conquer or Warcraft 3. None of these are particularly intensive, but I'd like to play at decent settings if I'm replacing my machines.

I see no reason for you to upgrade your systems if they do their job well enough, but even my old XP laptop from 2003 or 2004 that has a P4 @2.4GHz with 256MB DDR can do regular work, especially if I give it an upgrade to 512MB. I don't use Aero or that crap, I have Server 2008r2 x64 running it's native interface. It is more intuitive than anything else Microsoft has and is about as fast as you can get without using older operating systems. Unfortunately, not all of my programs are supported by XP so it's an even easier choice. XP64 has fairly poor driver support compared to XP x32 and Vista/7 x32 so it's not even considered an option for my machines anyway. Windows 2000 isn't any better with current hardware support and it can't use enough memory.

There are nothing in Vista/7 that I must have that isn't in server 2008r2. I don't like to "jazz up" my machines, I go for performance and stability more than anything. Server 2008r2 has awesome multi-core performance compared to any other Windows OS. It is noticeably faster than XP, I tried XP on the same system. Considering that they are business machines, it's not a problem if they can run games or not, but if I want to shoot a few guys and drive off a cliff with a tank, then I want to shoot some guys and drive off a cliff with a tank and I need a decent computer to screw around on like that. Trust me on this, taking a small 6 player map and loading it up with 32 players and going for a free for all is pretty intense with the bots at the maximum difficulty in Unreal Tournament 2004. Like any home user, I like my computer to entertain me on the few occasions I'm craving some digital fun that involves explosions and the like.

For you, would I recommend upgrading? not in the least, it's unnecessary costs when your current stuff works for you. Me? Well, my machines simply aren't wuite enough for some things, so they need to get upgraded. It wouldn't matter if they were running XO, 200, or anything else, they need an upgrade. I refuse to buy/build a system that has Vista or 7 because they waste so many resources.

Even for my laptop, the only interface improvement I have running is clear type to make text more readable. Absolutely nothing else, all other settings like that are at minimums/off. I personally get my system as optimized for my work as possible and don't care for Aero or even default Vista/7 interfaces that waste performance. Server 2008r2's interface is faster than anything Vista/7 has natively and XP's seems inferior, less intuitive.

You might not need or even care for modern machines running a modern, optimized OS, but I do. Server 2008r2 x64 is simply better than XP. Sure, there are some issues, but far less than I have with XP. If only Microsoft thought to include the best of a previous OS instead of abandoning some features, it would be even better. I'll never understand why MS wants to screw some people over with every new release.
 

jbheller

Distinguished
Nov 1, 2011
59
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]LaHawzel[/nom]So, about that battery life...[/citation]
To be honest no gamer really gives a crap about battery life of a laptop. At a LAN party you will be sitting at a desk with power and at least a 100 meg ethernet port, so aprt from maybe 5-10 minutes battery life, the same as a small UPS gives you, its not a problem.

 

jbheller

Distinguished
Nov 1, 2011
59
0
18,630
0
I have had three mid-high end laptops over the last 8 years. They age very quickly and are pretty much non expandable in most cases.

Now I have just built an ITX formfactor gaming box. I take it to LAN parties on when I am travelling in a suitcase that is the legal maximum size to carry onto an airplane as hand luggage. I get a few strange looks from airport security but they let it go through.

I intend to have the system for a long time and as it takes completely standard desktop PC components, I will be able to swap and change parts around for many years to come.

 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]You really shouldn't hold business machines to the same bar as home machines....[/citation]

That was a long reply; and I appreciated it ! The thumbs up was from me.
I agree with most of what you said actually.
I did not mean to imply there is no need for souped up PCs. I have a game box sitting around too to 'shoot some guys and drive a tank off the cliff" :)

Only point I was trying to make is if you want that much graphics power, put it in a desktop machine with a nice multi-screen setup and a stomping sound system. I want to HEAR that tank too ;-)

I think that is a better way to spend a given amount of money than putting it into an overkill laptop to impress the business partners. I've been to many a business meeting where the other guys had fancy gear but didn't even know how to attach a word document to an email without the secretary lending a hand :)

 

deksman

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2011
222
15
18,685
0
Price is unjustified, and a single AMD 7970m is cheaper/faster/more efficient and needs less energy than a sli GTX 580M setup.

Overpriced.
Here's an idea: convert the 2 GTX 580m's into raw matter and assemble 2 7970m's... THEN we can talk.

Oh and for those who are uninformed, the GTX 675m is a renamed 580m (identical down to the manuf. process).

And still, none of that would even come close if these commercial companies used diamonds or graphene as a base material in microchip construction - the potential for efficiency, raw power, and thermal absorption/dissipation are light years ahead of silicon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS