×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Best Gaming Laptop Money Can Buy

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the money-to-burn dept.

161

Parz writes "Gameplayer has gone live with their winners for the best gaming laptops money can buy as of Q3 2008. The analysis is broken into three sections to cater for three different budget requirements. There is a detailed explanation of why each laptop was selected, going into each hardware component individually. Regular Slashdot users will remember the site's article from a few weeks ago, which analysed the Best Gaming PCs that Money can Buy. Prices may vary depending on where you live."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

161 comments

Never use a laptop for gaming. (5, Insightful)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010587)

I always think that using Laptops for gaming is a bit of a silly idea. Every couple of months a new game comes out that requires more powerful graphics, and you can't upgrade the graphics cards in a laptop. So your top of the range laptop bought today will be a pale shadow of its former self when playing the latest game in a year's time. With a desktop PC, you can simply replace the old graphics card with a new one.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (3, Insightful)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010715)

You are right. Using a laptop for a primary gaming device, unless you have a lot of money to burn is a rather silly idea since you cannot upgrade it. I found when I was in college and doing a lot of gaming that having a desktop I could upgrade every two years for about $500-800 was the way to go, and it would give me another two years of being able to play the latest titles.

I recently purchased a fully-loaded Dell XPS 1530 laptop for Photoshop on-the-go functionality, and it has been fun being able to to play some older titles like Half-Life 2 again, but I don't expect it to be able to keep up with what is coming out.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010917)

Personally I find upgrading the graphics card to be the single most effective device to keep your system up to date for gaming. Generally any processor less than 4 years old is enough to run games at very nice frame rates. Having lots of memory never hurts either.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

dafrazzman (1246706) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011209)

There's still an issue in budgeting. I'll pay about twice as much to get myself a gaming PC and a capable laptop (one that can run apps and flash games well). While having the PC is nice for upgrading, having a gaming laptop will work well for about two years (by which time any "budget" laptop will be all but obsolete). Plus, there's the advantage of mobile gaming.

If you really use your laptop, it's worth it to get a nice one. If you play games only at home, however, there's obviously no sense in forking up for a laptop that will only be used on your desk anyway.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011505)

I've bought a laptop powerhouse once.. and got burned. 2800, and it was surpassed in just 1.5 years. graphic cards advancements are in form of new apis, so current generation games works very bad on previous generation hardware, as each chipset is optimized for it's own 3dmark benchmark. a middle end gpu could surpass the top of the line after just six month of advancements, for a quarter of the price. Now I've a 800 laptop, with a geforce8600 gt and just now after 1.5yr games started stuttering (and it's just merc2, crysis still runs fine, also grid).

there is just no match, for the price of the top of the line laptop, wich could last up to 3yr from now, you could buy 3 "good enought for the current gen laptop" each year. consider in the equation that each shift in the gpu paradigm, the previous gen became useles (t&l, pixel shaders, vertex shaders, now cuda and gpgpu...)

Does the original Gameboy Count? (2, Funny)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010763)

You can get one on eBay for like $6.50 [ebay.com] , with Tetris. What else do you need?

Except it's not PC games (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011007)

I can see your point, but the question and the context was about laptops that run PC games.

Portables like the original gameboy or the newer DS, are a bit of a fixed target: a game either runs on that one configuration, or it doesn't. There are no games written for a DS with an upgraded graphics card, or with more RAM.

PC gaming doesn't really have such fixed targets. All games try to surpass last year's in terms of graphics, if nothing else because screenshots sell, and the hardware requirements are occasionally outright silly. I can think of some games (e.g., EQ2) which were launched to match hardware specs that didn't even yet exist. E.g., seriously, to run EQ2 with full graphics details you needed a 512 MB graphics card, and that just didn't exist yet. (Well, ok, maybe except as a high-end, professional OpenGL card for CAD.)

Re:Except it's not PC games (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25013595)

to run EQ2 with full graphics details you needed a 512 MB graphics card, and that just didn't exist yet.

That's a good thing! It means the game will not look too outdated in a year, when that impossibly powerful hardware hits the mainstream.

People bitch and moan about Crysis, but that's a game that will continue to impress even a year or two from now, as GPU power increases as well as monitor resolution.

Conversely, just because you can't run a game at max settings on your current rig, doesn't mean the game sucks.

Re:Does the original Gameboy Count? (0, Troll)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011443)

You can get one on eBay for like $6.50 [ebay.com] , with Tetris. What else do you need?

How about something that will run games I actually want to play?

Re:Does the original Gameboy Count? (2)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011857)

Probably not many people on /. share my opinion ... but I'd much rather spend hours in front of Tetris, Super Mario 3, Dig Dug, Frogger, Sonic, the original WarCraft, Sim City 2000, or some other classic ... than waste my time and money on the latest and greatest resource hog.

Re:Does the original Gameboy Count? (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012965)

Whats your point?

I don't think that your $6.50 Gameboyrun WarCraft or StarCraft either; it won't even run Star Control.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

Windows_NT (1353809) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010791)

I dont see how you need a "bleeding edge" computer for the top games. I have a Inspiron 9300 with a Geforce Go 6800 and the only game I cant play on it is Crysis. HL2, Q4, and doom3 all work great on it.
Going out and paying thousands of dollars on a new PC is like buying the biggest meat grinder you can find because your girlfriend isn't doing it for you anymore.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011093)

Until you need one that requires DirectX 10. Then your Go 6800 won't be able to keep up.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (2, Insightful)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011937)

Let me know when a DX10-only game comes out...

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012679)

They said the same thing about DirectX 9-only games.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012975)

My point is that we're not in the 3rd generation of DX10-supporting cards, by the time DX10-only games come out pre-DX10 PCs will be so far out of date they couldn't play the game even if it was DX9.

"Windows NT" can already not play games a year old (crysis) on his 5 year old card, by his admission only games that are 3-4 years old work. By the time DX10-only games come out in a few years, only people with (then) 4-year-old PCs won't be able to play them.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

MyOtherUIDis3digits (926429) | more than 5 years ago | (#25013095)

They said the same thing about DirectX 9-only games.

True, but DirectX 9 didn't require an OS upgrade (using the word "upgrade" very loosely here).

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25012873)

Let me know when a DX10-only game comes out...

Halo 2.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (2, Informative)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010797)

My 1 year old notebook still plays all of the current games.

You're living in the past my friend.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010949)

I just got a laptop for gaming. It's a 1.13 GHZ P3 with 256MB of ram. I spent all weekend playing apple II and TG16 games on it. I had a blast.

It's not playing games on laptops that's silly. It's the obsession with playing the latest resource hogging games that's silly.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011205)

I just got a laptop for gaming. It's a 1.13 GHZ P3 with 256MB of ram. I spent all weekend playing apple II and TG16 games on it. I had a blast.

It's not playing games on laptops that's silly. It's the obsession with playing the latest resource hogging games that's silly.

Yeah...ok. I mean great, I'm glad you enjoy your retro gaming. Heck I even like firing up some of the older stuff now and then. But your kidding right? You think that modern games should be forced into near decades old hardware requirements?

I'm sure some games do squander resources but what your trying to equate your example too is silly. Could a game like Mass Effect be played on a 2600? Games like WoW could not even exist without todays modern internet infrastructure.

I guess your point is that it's about game play over graphics kinda and sure great point. But the way you go about making it is kinda /facepalm.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011221)

If you're buying a laptop for gaming, you can get better than that with only $100. Some of us are willing to pay more than that to get old games like warcraft 2 working smoothly. Besides, who's to say that those resource hogging games won't be fun enough? or that tomorrow's "non-resource-hogging" games won't need hardware this good?

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (2, Informative)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011933)

Some of us are willing to pay more than that to get old games like warcraft 2 working smoothly.

Hehe. Speaking of which, I played Warcraft II yesterday for a few hours on my Dell Inspiron 8100 that I bought in like 2001... for gaming.

It's suited my every gaming need since that time and I still play World of Warcraft on it. I couldn't play Doom 3 on it back then, but when I bought a gaming desktop a few years back, I just bought Doom 3 then.

It's a great machine for running my other older games I never got a chance to play, like Baulders Gate, Fallout 1 & 2, Warcraft 2, and Starcraft. And for playing casual Flash games.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010961)

I always think that using Laptops for gaming is a bit of a silly idea.

And a lot of other people would think using a DS or a PSP for gaming is also a bit of a silly idea, for much the same reasons. If developers choose not to to make games whose graphics scale down to the capabilities of two-year-old laptops, then they choose to let someone else sell products to owners of two-year-old laptops.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011473)

You're right of course. Instead of spending $5k on the newest top of the line laptop, you can spend a mere $1.2k on a pair of the newest top of the line graphics cards.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (4, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011747)

Which is why I for one will be doing my laptopish gaming on a Pandora [openpandora.org] . Close enough in shape and function to be on topic, after all it's like a DS-sized EEE with good gaming controls and keyboard theoretically usable enough to use the device both as a laptop and a gaming console.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (2, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011915)

Really, what is silly is that laptops don't have upgradable graphics.

--

I agree that it is silly. But for some people it is necessary.

I am a programmer who does a lot of gaming, and writes games on the side. I got hired to do development at a job that requires me to travel, so I had to get a laptop. Since I use the same tools at work and at home, I either ditch the desktop and use the laptop for everything (including games), or I try to install everything on both computers and keep everything in sync. That's a real big pain. So I opted to get a laptop with a GeForce 8600 GT Mobile, and use my laptop as my gaming PC.

It is a hassle. But for me, it is better than the alternative.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012363)

I had a Sager 5680 (3.2 GHz P4, Radeon 9600, 1 GB RAM, 80 GB 4200 RPM HDD) Sept 2003 to Jan 2006 and it played everything I threw at it at 1600x1200. Granted, I spent $3,150 on it at a time when I could have build the same in a desktop for approx $2,000.

True gaming laptops are a luxury.

Re:Never use a laptop for gaming. (1)

mistahkurtz (1047838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012753)

Good point. My big issue has always been heat. Laptops aren't made to do serious number crunching, rendering, etc. The hard drives aren't typically meant for constant use. I play wow on occasion, on my HP nc6400, and ventilation can be a serious problem. I've seen CPU temps nearing 80c.

This is a machine that's about 1.5 years old, has dedicated video card, etc. About the only other thing that I can think of to keep internal temperatures down is to upgrade from 2gb to 4gb of RAM and do away with the swap file.

I can only imagine a machine from a company like Acer or Dell, with cheaper components and typically shoddier internal layout and design. I'd love a laptop to play games on, but it doesn't seem practical, unless you consider your laptop a throw-away item. I've resolved to not care too much for mine anymore, and will use it till it dies. Which I would expect within the next 6 months or so, if I keep up the gaming.

Too much RAM? (1)

Azaril (1046456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010613)

Just browsing through quickly, it seems that at least the extreme models ship with 4gb of RAM + video card memory. Assuming they use 32 bit window - due to the better drivers, from what I've seen it benchmarks better than 64 bit, isn't this completly pointless?

Re:Too much RAM? (5, Funny)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010663)

This whole review is bullshit. I mean come on:

GPU - ATI 4870 X2
Price: ~$655
If Golem had a computer, this would be his precious.

The guy can't even spell "Gollum".
Geek license revoked!

Re:Too much RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25010733)

Geek license, feh. License to write revoked. I didn't make it past the first paragraph before gross violations of grammar conventions and misuse of English as a whole forced a stop.

Re:Too much RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011109)

Grammar Nazi much??

License to revoke licenses revoked.

Re:Too much RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011413)

There is a world of difference between "Grammar Nazi" and "refuses to put crap into brain".

Re:Too much RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011919)

two girls, one brain?

Re:Too much RAM? (2, Informative)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011761)

You may want to look that word up some time.

In addition to the obvious mythological reference, which has nothing to do with Tolkien, the Hebrew word 'Golem' means 'fool', 'stupid' or 'clueless'. So, with that in mind, the review can be read as "If a stupid, clueless fool had a computer, this would be it."

The only way you could praise it more would be to say that it has "more schmaltz for your schlemiel".

Re:Too much RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011953)

The use of the phrase "his precious" kind of implies that is IS in fact Tolkien's Gollum.

Fail

Re:Too much RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25012915)

Right. Except for the fact that he said "his precious" which is absolutely a reference to the Tolkien character.

Re:Too much RAM? (2, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25013217)

Considering the author had blatantly incorrect things like:

I would bet you all the money I have right now that he didn't know the Hebrew meaning for golem, and was in fact trying and failing to reference the Lord of the Rings character. It's very nice that you give him the benefit of the doubt, but the writer gives way too many places to doubt to make that even slightly noble.

Re:Too much RAM? (1)

Azaril (1046456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010667)

Sorry as an explanation as to why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32_bit [wikipedia.org]

"The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 or 2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 using two's complement encoding. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GB of byte-addressable memory."

Re:Too much RAM? (2, Informative)

dr_wheel (671305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010843)

Not completely. Sure, they won't see all of the ram with 32-bit windows. But, in my experiences, windows will recognize between 3.25 to 3.5GB in a 4GB system.

Ideally, 3GB would be the config to use for modern gaming PC's running 32-bit windows (gaming benchmarks seem to indicate that 3GB is better than 2GB for current-gen games). However, if you don't run matched pairs, your ram isn't in dual channel mode.

So what do you do? Run 4GB across 2 or 4 sticks. It's your best, albeit slightly wasteful, memory config for gaming. And if/when you decide to migrate to 64-bit windows, you're in good shape memory-wise.

From the article... (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010629)

"Your hardware wonâ(TM)t function without an OS, so what better choice than Microsoftâ(TM)s latest offering. Despite the constant criticism, Vista is a very stable, secure and enjoyable platform to work with. In collaboration with the latest gear, games will play at high speed and detail to whet your gaming appetite!"

Nice to see they are still paid by Microsoft marketing arm. That entire statement goes against everything every reputable gaming site and expert says..

Re:From the article... (1)

Windows_NT (1353809) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010847)

Despite the constant criticism, Vista is a very stable, secure and enjoyable platform to work with

Geez, Your funny

Re:From the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25010853)

Try again.

If you look up articles since SP1 was released it seems to paint a completely different picture.

Re:From the article... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25012243)

OK, and I've personally TRIED gaming on an SP1 Vista machine, and can personally tell you not to bother trying. The DRM and constant disk scanning ensures that you'll never be able to match the performance on a XP machine. Vista can actually drop a game's performance to something like 50% the speed of XP with all the extra crap it loads, and that's not even worst-case. The worst-case scenario is that Vista's extra memory usage forces you into a swap storm, which renders games unplayable.

Ans since several drivers were moved out of the kernel into user-space to allow the DRM to function, there's basically a permanent 10% speed cut. No Service Pack can fix that without essentially reverting to XP.

If you want to play current Windows games, you want XP, period.

Re:From the article... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010855)

I am normally the first person to put down these conspiracy theories. But being that all laptops that are good enough for gaming come with Vista as the default OS, and the increasing difficultly of getting a legit copy of XP. It seems like a pointless sentence, unless you will get $500 for it. As well it seems way to familiar to Microsoft current advertising of saying "NO WE DON'T SUCK THAT MUCH!".

Having used Vista on a fully capable system, it is not as bad as Slashdot says it it. But it is still not that great, and not worth getting of XP for, and still there are many little annoying problems you find when you start using normally.

Re:From the article... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012803)

I am normally the first person to put down these conspiracy theories. But being that all laptops that are good enough for gaming come with Vista as the default OS, and the increasing difficultly of getting a legit copy of XP.

Sez you. The best place I know of to get a decent gaming rig, Vigor Computing, is still very willing to ship with XP. I just ordered a gaming laptop from them with XP; I'll be getting it in a few days.

Re:From the article... (0, Troll)

sponga (739683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011457)

Does it not basically come down to FPS and compatibility?

If the game runs smooth and gets good FPS than nothing else matters

I have Vista and it runs fine but not at the release, but I choose to run XP to get that extra 10-15 fps even though it barely feels different. I am a PC gamer and was there for the fiasco that Vista was, with punkbuster never working right, bad drivers, slow fps and overall incompatibility with certain hardware. I can tell you as a real gamer and not the Tux Racing gamers around here that vast majority of the problems have been solved. It is very simple, hardware gets cheaper and over time the specs will catch up to Vista; I loathe the expensive Vista laptops my buddies have because it runs great but I am not gonna spend that kind of money until it gets cheaper like anything.

Go to Fatwallet.com/Slickdeals.net to look for a good gaming rig and get an honest opinion on what you get for your money, these guys are the experts at bang per buck. Your best bet for a good gaming rig that is cheap is to wait for a deal to popup checking everyday, sometimes it is a price mistake you might get a $400 laptop or other price matches.

Go visit any gaming forum and you would have seen the massive problems with Vista and games in the beginning, over time these complaints have dissipated and things are running normally again. The hardware makers and gaming companies took notice to the complaints over Vista and stepped it up with more support.

The article is kind of crap as it describes to use 64bit Vista but any gamer knows that is a stupid move right now for majority of games, also the gaming site is from .AU and no offense to the Australians but they have the most draconian prices for hardware, software, ISP and everything around there goes against Silicon Valley(whatever that means); not very credible.

Reputable FUD spewer? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011545)

Nice to see they are still paid by Microsoft marketing arm. That entire statement goes against everything every reputable gaming site and expert says..

If a gaming site rails against Vista... they aren't reputable.

Brainlessly spewing Slashdot's MS-hating FUD doesn't make one reputable. Adhering to the truth makes one reputable... and every REAL reputable gaming site acknowledges Vista is the best platform for gaming.

Oh... but perhaps you would prefer to get in on the Windows Mojave beta test? Let me know, I can hook you up for really cheap.

Re:Reputable FUD spewer? (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25014301)

Adhering to the truth makes one reputable... and every REAL reputable gaming site acknowledges Vista is the best platform for gaming.

Links/citations, please?

Re:From the article... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011879)

Nice to see they are still paid by Microsoft marketing arm. That entire statement goes against everything every reputable gaming site and expert says..

Nice to see random claims from fan boys who post bologna with nothing at all to back up the claim.

I use Vista Ultimate and can say without a doubt it sucks at a lot of things. Gaming is not one of them ... not even close

Re:From the article... (1)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012151)

ExtremeTech's recent post Sp1 reviews seem to paint the opposite picture you are trying to imply here.

Vista gaming is now on par with XP.

When devs begin getting more comfortable with DX10, it will improve even more. You can already see a difference between the first DX10 titles (no more than DX9 badly ported to DX10) to what has been recently released.

I know you're just trolling, but someone might actually be dumb enough to have read and believed your BS.

How about... (3, Funny)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010633)

A Beowulf cluster of Eee PCs glued to a go-cart. ...what? Can't a man dream?

Re:How about... (3, Funny)

Lord Aurora (969557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011157)

Only if Natalie Portman is driving.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25012933)

But "in a cart" implies a grocery store. Don't pay attention to the NECROTIC DOG PENIS.

zzzz (0, Offtopic)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010671)

but does it ru....

oh whats the point?

seriously, if it browses the net, reads email, and allows me to use office 'ware I'm happy. games are what I have a PS3 for.

Why bother with a notebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25010705)

I question the sanity of sticking SLI/RAID0 configurations with enormous screens in a notebook formfactor. You're essentially giving up on the idea of portability, particularly given that the battery in one of those things can't even keep the machine running for an hour.

Based on a couple experiences with Falcon Northwest and Alienware laptops, apparently the idiots who buy these things are willing to tolerate battery lifespans in the range of 20 minutes on a full charge.

At that point, why not just buy a fucking shoebox machine?

Just to play devils advocate (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010955)

It's more like a shoebox computer with a built in UPS, if the line hiccups or you accidentally disconnect, you don't reboot. Not that it's the correct way to do things, but thats how I basically use my laptop anyways.

Re:Why bother with a notebook? (2, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011565)

I question the sanity of sticking SLI/RAID0 configurations with enormous screens in a notebook formfactor. You're essentially giving up on the idea of portability, particularly given that the battery in one of those things can't even keep the machine running for an hour.

You still get portability. You just don't get to be unplugged. A notebook like this means that you can sit on your couch and play games, or move into your bedroom, or take your computer with you on vacation and play some, etc. Lugging around your desktop is probably not an option in many cases.

"The Best Gaming Laptop Money Can Buy" (4, Funny)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010711)

I have no money, is there a list of laptops for people with large piles of string?

Re:"The Best Gaming Laptop Money Can Buy" (1)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010775)

Ah it seems you have mostly red string we only accept blue string. Remember Counterfeiting string (aka dying the string) is against the law.

Re:"The Best Gaming Laptop Money Can Buy" (1)

Eg0Death (1282452) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011621)

Is it one long continuous piece of string or is it cut into short bits?

Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25010723)

Worthless Slashvertisement. The article talks about a Dell XPS, an Alienware and some off brand. Doesn't even mention Falcon NW [falcon-nw.com] of Voodoo PC.

Should have done best servers for the money (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010787)

Then perhaps the page would have withstood being slashdotted. Instead their poor server is a smoldering pile of nothingness - but hey their gaming laptops are 5up3r 1337 ! woot!

Re:Should have done best servers for the money (1)

fxer (84757) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011453)

anybody get a cache of the site before the server melted?

Re:Should have done best servers for the money (2, Insightful)

morcego (260031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25014001)

Don't waste your time.
There are no tests performed, no benchmarks, no comparisons.

The guy only went to 3 websites (Dell, Alienware and some other), read the specs, and said what he though of it.

Completely useless. Glad I use AdBlock. That site doesn't deserve a cent of advertisement money.

Reviews on spec (5, Informative)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 5 years ago | (#25010963)

It's obvious from the article that the reviewer didn't actually use the machines in question, and some of the choices are really questionable - he recommends a machine with Vista 64bit. Given the continued instability of a lot of 64 bit graphics drivers even on desktops, buying a laptop - where custom drivers tend to rule (and ruin) the day - with the OS seems like a massive waste of cash. I think this is a case of Reader Beware.

Re:Reviews on spec (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011437)

While I cannot say I spent any quality time with Vista, Window XP-64 is a rock solid gaming OS. With 8G of physical RAM, I've found I can alt-tab in and out of a game with my resource intensive apps running. Using 3.2G of RAM on the 32-bit version of XP, I had to be more cautious.

Granted, 4G RAM chips (since most laptops only have room for two) is a bit outside most (sane) folk's budget. While my laptop has 4G and a 64-bit OS, the video and CPU are not quite there for gaming.

 

Re:Reviews on spec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011617)

As a gamer which has been using Vista 64bit for the last 6months or so, I can't see any reason why people are so afraid of either Vista or 64bit. I've had no problems with either & I know when I stuff more RAM into my box, i won't have any problems.

Note - I use a desktop for gaming. "Gamer" laptops are way too big/bulky to be considered laptops IMHO.

Re:Reviews on spec (1, Interesting)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011839)

I don't know about that - I've got a Dell Inspiron 1520 with a NVIDIA 8600M GT, running Vista 64-bit. In the 6 months I've had the laptop, I've had one BSOD, IIRC it wasn't gfx related. Even getting tv-out to work is non-trivial with the NVIDIA drivers. I'm even using the latest beta drivers targeted for desktop PCs, just with a modded .inf file. One good thing about 64-bit Vista is that the drivers has to be signed by MS, otherwise you can't install them. Should (in theory) result in a more stable OS due to less buggy (more tested?) drivers...

Re:Reviews on spec (1)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012857)

BSOD isn't the problem; driver crashes are. Even on Vista 32 bit on the desktop I have relatively frequent driver crashes with an Nvidia 8600 GTS card. I'm sure it's gotten better since, but I bought a Dell Inspiron laptop years ago and discovered that I couldn't update my driver at all. That line was their main source of laptop income at the time. It's good to know that they have a machine that works, but yours, in my personal experience, is an exceptional case.

Biggest Mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011023)

...I ever made was purchasing a laptop as a gaming machine. Cooling issues, lack of upgradability, and with latest drivers and tweaked settings it performs worse then a 4 year older dell desktop with half the ram on mobo and on the graphics card. 9800M GTX with 512 ram, and more then 10 minutes of the new penny arcade game and it overheats enough to auto shut down. other games like bioshock it runs poorly with graphics turned all the way down and in low resolution (800x600, going to a non native resolution increased FPS considerably).

Again? (5, Insightful)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011033)

Regular slashdot users will remember the site's article from a few weeks ago, which analysed the Best Gaming PCs that Money can Buy.

Whereas regular Slashdot editors might remember how the last article was panned by readers, and might have ceased spamming us with articles from this site.

They might also remember to capitalise the name of their own site, but I guess all this is too much to hope for.

Re:Again? (1)

predakanga (788419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25014345)

Actually, quite a number of those "[pannings]" were for issues unrelated to the content, like the paging, or the website not working under Opera. They've come a long way in a short amount of time on things like that (particularly the web browser support - we now test under more than triple the amount of browsers we used to). The Slashdot onslaught, in part, prompted that, so I say, if further articles mean that the site improves further to become a better source of news for sites like Slashdot, all the better.

I reject these totally (4, Informative)

cephyn (461066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011057)

A gaming laptop review without reviewing one from Sager?

Ridiculous. I love my Sager, and the company is great.

http://www.sagernotebook.com/ [sagernotebook.com]

Re:I reject these totally (1)

der.gruene.v0gel (1278114) | more than 5 years ago | (#25014133)

How can Sager not be on here, or even, at the very least, in the Budget section?

I've had the NP2030-C (14.1") for two years, and it has been absolutely wonderful using it as both a gaming laptop (in WinXP) and to triple-boot XP, Debian, and FreeBSD.

Haven't had any trouble running games on Medium to Medium-High settings and getting 30+ fps. Also, all of the hardware works under Debian with free drivers (took about a year or so before the webcam driver [google.com] was developed enough to work).

I ordered mine through a company called PowerNotebooks.com [powernotebooks.com] , mostly for the option of "no OS preinstalled." The price was about half that of an Alienware of comparable specs at the time.

Also, Sager's and PowerNotebooks.com's support are probably the best I've ever experienced as far as technology goes.

Re:I reject these totally - Sager (1)

nevermore94 (789194) | more than 5 years ago | (#25014173)

I second this comment. I love my Sager NP2090 and even though it is almost a year old it would kick all of the budget laptops and keep up with most of the performance ones in this review.

I just finished my first play through of Supreme Commander at 1680x1050 and it never had a hiccup whereas it was sputtering all over the place on my fiance's new Dell Studio 15 at 1440x900.

why? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011369)

Its dissapointing that even though laptops have largely taken over from desktops for general personal computing use, still no laptop even comes close to the price/performance and especially upgradability of an atx case system.

If your primary motivation is high-GPU games like crysis, you're still way better served by a conventional PC box rather than a laptop.

Re:why? (1)

genericpoweruser (1223032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25013105)

I've always wished there would be such a thing as mobile-ATX. I would LOVE to be able to replace the PSU (even if the power cord was still proprietary), put in a better screen, better speakers, a better case, or mix two crappy/broken laptops to make one decent one.

It burns me up there's virtually nothing of the sort available.

Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011739)

Yeah, but is the laptop moist and chewy?

Laptops for games? (0, Troll)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011745)

Laptops are a STUPID idea for games.

If you want to play a game on a laptop, that instantly means you need a very high end machine. High end laptops are a total rip-off. They're approximately three times the price of their desktop equivalent. They're also sealed devices which are not upgradable (VERY BAD if you're a gamer, because that means your incredibly expensive machine will now only be useful for about a year). You can't upgrade the CPU or even upgrade the graphics card. Even the a very high end gaming laptop is well off the performance of even a fairly average gaming desktop at less than half the price.

I presume the only reason the poster requested a laptop is for portability. I would suggest that even a compact portable desktop machine is a much better buy. Yes, it's not going to be battery powered, but it will be FAR cheaper, quicker and more upgradable than any laptop.

the best one money can buy (4, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011869)

will heat up like the center of the sun, whir like a 747, weigh a metric ton and never be moved from the desk upon which it will sit, consume as much power as a low end desktop, and work for about 6 months to 1 year until thermal stress takes hold and it becomes worthless for any use. much like jumbo shrimp, conservative republican, and tactical nuclear weapon, this "gaming laptop" capable of running crysis for all of 20 minutes before thermaling out, is an oxymoron.

the gaming laptop was contrived as a marketing competition tool to push the limits of the laptop form-factor with complete disregard for longevity and end user functionality.

This list is a joke. I don't get it... (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25013083)

Even the "budget" laptops on their list aren't as powerful as the Gateway P-7811FX [gateway.com] , which leaves those laptops in the dust for a couple of hundred dollars less...

Seriously -- the Gateway has 9800M GTS graphics (compared to the puny 8400M models they listed in the "budget" section), comes with 4GB of RAM -- AND it costs a couple of hundred dollars less.

Those Budget Laptops SUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25013101)

Try a HP Pavilion dv7-1020us.

It retails for 1500, which is cheaper than all 3 "budget" laptops. It's on newegg for 1220.

It has a Blu-ray Drive, bigger hard drive, more ram, better video card...

Seriously? Who is this hardware guru? Give me your job.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...