fistofdoom Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 So I'm buying a new laptop since my old one is getting pretty outdated and can't do what I want anymore. Here are most of the specs, tell me what you think. MSI GE72 Apache Pro Gaming Laptop X 1 Case(MSI GE72 Apache, 17.3" FHD, Anti-Glare 1920x1080 [sKL]) Processor(Intel® Core i7-6700HQ Mobile Processor (4x 2.6GHz/6MB L3 Cache) [GE72]) Memory(8GB [8GB x 1] 2133MHz DDR4 SO-DIMM Laptop Memory - Corsair or Major Brand) Video Card(NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M 3GB GDDR5 [GE72] - SKL) M.2 SATA SSD Drive(None) Primary Hard Drive(128 GB SanDisk Z400S SSD -- Read: 546MB/s, Write: 342MB/s - Single Drive *Free Upgrade to 256GB SanDisk Z400S SSD* (Single Drive Only)) Optical Drive(6x Blu-Ray Burner/8x Dual Format DVD±R/±RW Drive + 24x CD-R/RW Drive [GE72]) Media Card Reader / Writer(Built-in SD Memory Card Reader/Writer [Laptop]) Sound Card(HD Audio with Creative Soundblaster Cinema) Network Card(Killer E2400 Gaming Network) Internal Wireless Network Adapter(802.11 a/c Wi-Fi + Bluetooth Combo [M.2]) Operating System(Windows 10 Home + Office 365 Trial [Free 30-Day !!!] 64-bit - *Newest Microsoft Windows*) Additional Software(NZXT CAM - Hardware Monitor Software - Preinstalled on your PC) External Hard Drives [uSB 3.0/2.0/eSATA](2.5" 1TB Hard Drive - ADATA HD710) USB Ports(Built-in 1x USB 3.1 Port Type C + 2x USB 3.0 Ports + 1x USB 2.0 Port [Laptop]) Webcam(Built-in HD Digital Web Video Camera [MSI]) Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Wellington Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 More than I'd like to admit. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 'Gaming laptop'... lol 1 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 'Gaming laptop'... lol Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Well, unless you actually use a ton of RAM on gaming or such, I'd pick something else. Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Well, unless you actually use a ton of RAM on gaming or such, I'd pick something else. Wut? He only has 8GB 2 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Wut? He only has 8GB That's crummy. In that case, just get something like a Lenovo G50. They're pretty good quality in my opinion. Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 It's mathematically proven 8GB is more than enough and any increase in RAM to 16GB or more has virtually no effect on gameplay. Hell, 4GB is enough, though on higher-end rigs you may want to go to 8 just for the two FPS increase for muh frames. http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page3.html At 1080p, a 970m will hit between 30 and 120 FPS on ultra settings on every AAA game out there. More intensive games like The Witcher 3 get around 26 FPS on ultra, and around 45 FPS on high. You'll get 170 FPS on the latest FIFA on ultra. EVOLVE, Battlefield Hardline, The Crew - all around 50-60 FPS. Tomb Raider gets 80+. Even Ryse gets around 45 FPS. And this is on ultra, which is usually filled with unnecessary graphics improvements that are virtually unnoticeable. You'll be paying way out the ass, but you'll at least have a very solid rig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) FPS bullshit and ignoring actually good game genres First off, Framerate is mostly decided by a GPU. Testing framerate by RAM instead of the GPU or, in the case of calculation heavy games (read Arma), CPU is legitimately retarded. RAM is a must for the strategy genre in particular. I actually had to update my RAM from 4gb to 8gb simply because I needed it. Plus, all of those games don't really need much RAM (except maybe GTAV) as they attempt to utilize your GPU VRAM (The reason is slightly complicated but can be summed up as "because consoles"). It's actually the reason why you see games like The Evil Within and Shadow of Mordor asking for 4GB and 6GB of VRAM respectively despite no single card (minus the titan which isn't even meant for gaming) actually having that much when they came out. tl;dr you're an idiot Edited October 14, 2015 by Metro 2 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 So my stuff is good. Gotcha. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 First off, Framerate is mostly decided by a GPU. Testing framerate by RAM instead of the GPU or, in the case of calculation heavy games (read Arma), CPU is legitimately retarded. RAM is a must for the strategy genre in particular. I actually had to update my RAM from 4gb to 8gb simply because I needed it. Plus, all of those games don't really need much RAM (except maybe GTAV) as they attempt to utilize your GPU VRAM (The reason is slightly complicated but can be summed up as "because consoles"). It's actually the reason why you see games like The Evil Within and Shadow of Mordor asking for 4GB and 6GB of VRAM respectively despite no single card (minus the titan which isn't even meant for gaming) actually having that much when they came out. tl;dr you're an idiot 1. "RAM is a must for the strategy genre in particular" - not true. What's more important is CPU and HD/SSD. Increasing your RAM will do virtually nothing for most strategy games except let them bloat; the performance difference between a game taking up 1GB of RAM on a 4GB system and 2GB of RAM on an 8GB system is negligible at best, and certainly not worth the cost increase. CPU and HDD/SSD speeds are the bigger bottlenecks by far, and are worth significantly more in investment than RAM. 2. They weren't simply "testing framerate by RAM" and ignoring GPU/CPU, they were testing framerate with different RAM configurations in the same CPU/GPU configuration. They were literally answering the question of if RAM affects framerate or speed of game performance - and the answer was no, it did not. There was a negligible difference from 4 to 8 and zero difference from 8 to 16. 3. "Despite no single card having 4GB or 6GB when it came out" - except for my R9 280x, which had 6GB of VRAM, and came out in April of 2014. So not only do you not know anything about benchmarking, you also don't know anything about graphics cards. 4. Yes, they attempt to utilize VRAM, in part because of the 8GB GDDR5 configuration on the PS4. Developers are lazy and would rather just use ballooning VRAM requirements rather than actually code properly, but the reality of it is that these games never actually use the whole VRAM amounts. The GTX 970 scandal, for example, was that the last 500MB of accessible VRAM would slow down significantly. Many people complained that their games were starting to hit 3GB, 3.5GB, and even max out the VRAM usage and were wondering if they should return their cards. However, the reason games were using so much VRAM was simply that they were caching different files and not actually accessing them and utilizing the full 4GB; it would show that there were 3880MB being accessed, but it wasn't true - it's just Windows' archaic form of putting any kind of use as being access or utilized, even if the VRAM isn't being actively used. In order for you to actually hit and utilize the entire 4GB of VRAM in a way that would cause a real performance drop, you'd need to be playing in 4K with maximum AA and supersampling on. You had to seriously stress the card in incredible circumstances to hit that 4GB of VRAM utilization, despite popular opinion being that it happens often. So we've established that you don't know anything about benchmarking, or video cards, or even history ... so please, tell me more about how I'm the idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) 1. "RAM is a must for the strategy genre in particular" - not true. What's more important is CPU and HD/SSD. Increasing your RAM will do virtually nothing for most strategy games except let them bloat; the performance difference between a game taking up 1GB of RAM on a 4GB system and 2GB of RAM on an 8GB system is negligible at best, and certainly not worth the cost increase. CPU and HDD/SSD speeds are the bigger bottlenecks by far, and are worth significantly more in investment than RAM. Once the game is running you won't see much of a difference between an HDD and an SSD since they're storage. I also never said that a CPU wasn't important, but RAM is most certainly important in the genre. There's actually a fairly noticeable jump when you upgrade your RAM in both turn based and grand strategy games. 2. They weren't simply "testing framerate by RAM" and ignoring GPU/CPU, they were testing framerate with different RAM configurations in the same CPU/GPU configuration. They were literally answering the question of if RAM affects framerate or speed of game performance - and the answer was no, it did not. There was a negligible difference from 4 to 8 and zero difference from 8 to 16. That's literally what I just said. That's probably the first and only time I've ever heard anyone say RAM affects frame rate. 3. "Despite no single card having 4GB or 6GB when it came out" - except for my R9 280x, which had 6GB of VRAM, and came out in April of 2014. So not only do you not know anything about benchmarking, you also don't know anything about graphics cards. My bad, I thought those games came out in 2013 but fine. the Titan and an AMD card had that amount. (tbh, while I do like AMD, I'd never buy their cards unless I was hard pressed for cash) 4. Yes, they attempt to utilize VRAM, in part because of the 8GB GDDR5 configuration on the PS4. Developers are lazy and would rather just use ballooning VRAM requirements rather than actually code properly, but the reality of it is that these games never actually use the whole VRAM amounts. Yea, and like I said, it's because of this that most multi-release games tend to focus on VRAM over RAM. The GTX 970 scandal, for example, was that the last 500MB of accessible VRAM would slow down significantly. Many people complained that their games were starting to hit 3GB, 3.5GB, and even max out the VRAM usage and were wondering if they should return their cards. However, the reason games were using so much VRAM was simply that they were caching different files and not actually accessing them and utilizing the full 4GB; it would show that there were 3880MB being accessed, but it wasn't true - it's just Windows' archaic form of putting any kind of use as being access or utilized, even if the VRAM isn't being actively used. In order for you to actually hit and utilize the entire 4GB of VRAM in a way that would cause a real performance drop, you'd need to be playing in 4K with maximum AA and supersampling on. You had to seriously stress the card in incredible circumstances to hit that 4GB of VRAM utilization, despite popular opinion being that it happens often. Uh, you do realize that you can't really use a 970 for 4k gaming, right? 1440p is a far better (and realistic) expectation. So we've established that you don't know anything about benchmarking, or video cards, or even history ... so please, tell me more about how I'm the idiot. Edited October 14, 2015 by Metro Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 "Once the game is running you won't see much of a difference between an HDD and an SSD since they're storage. " That's completely false. There is a significant difference in loading times and simple performance once you have an SSD. There are ample videos out there (such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN7QdNDVDTc) and plenty of discussion threads on various boards showing not FPS peak increases (which is determined by GPU/CPU) but a distinct lack of stuttering and no FPS drops when texture loads in. In addition, SSDs virtually eliminate texture pop-in. Further, SSDs will simply increase the "speed" (for lack of a better term) of many strategy games. Putting an SSD in a computer that plays EU4 or Civ 5 or any other game where the late-game slows down significantly will show you that you can save literal minutes off turn times just with an SSD upgrade; you can't do that with RAM, no matter how much you want to try. (There are plenty of discussions across the web, again, but just one example: https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1oa8ic/psa_get_an_ssd_my_loadingturn_times_are_reduced/not to mention my own personal experience of turn times going from 25 seconds to 11). "I also never said that a CPU wasn't important, but RAM is most certainly important in the genre." Yeah... no. The difference between 4GB and 8GB in any strategy game is _NOTHING_ compared to the difference between a Pentium and an i5. You're legitimately just talking out of your ass at this point; you've been proven wrong by both anecdotes and benchmarks, you've been incorrect on dates, and you have no idea about the CPU bottleneck in strategy games. tl;dr I may be an idiot but at least I'm correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 Keep going, I have more things to Google now. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Your computer's fine as long as you have the money to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Buy it, then try to run through Cherno ib DayZ on full settings, anything over 30fps and you have a winner! Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 I was tempted to splurge more but I kept myself from going too far. I think. Heh. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) "Once the game is running you won't see much of a difference between an HDD and an SSD since they're storage. " That's completely false. There is a significant difference in loading times and simple performance once you have an SSD. There are ample videos out there (such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN7QdNDVDTc) and plenty of discussion threads on various boards showing not FPS peak increases (which is determined by GPU/CPU) but a distinct lack of stuttering and no FPS drops when texture loads in. In addition, SSDs virtually eliminate texture pop-in. Further, SSDs will simply increase the "speed" (for lack of a better term) of many strategy games. Putting an SSD in a computer that plays EU4 or Civ 5 or any other game where the late-game slows down significantly will show you that you can save literal minutes off turn times just with an SSD upgrade; you can't do that with RAM, no matter how much you want to try. (There are plenty of discussions across the web, again, but just one example: https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1oa8ic/psa_get_an_ssd_my_loadingturn_times_are_reduced/not to mention my own personal experience of turn times going from 25 seconds to 11). First off. Civ5 is a 32 bit program. Of course you're not going to see an improvement from 8gb to 16gb because it's already limited to a maximum of 4GB. Now, if you're a normal person who does things in the back ground because holy shit is civ 5 boring you should have a decent amount of RAM. Second, EU4 and Civ 5 have texture pop in problems? lol k. SSD improves loading times, yes, but none of those people in the thread said anything like "Wow, an SSD is better than my ram boost!". The thing is SSD's have utterly collapsed in price in the past few years (just 4 years ago a dollar a GB was what you expected to pay for an SSD, now it's below 50 cents) Most people don't have SSD's as TB HDD's are still relatively common in newer computers. In fact, while 8GB RAM has been standard for a few years in "gaming computers" SSD's are still a "new thing" that are only now working down the line. And as much as I like to say "build your own PC" pre-builts (even gaming computers) are still popular for a lot of people. I've personally gone from both an HDD to an SSD and 4gb to 8gb and can state with absolute certainty that I received a larger jump from the RAM upgrade than the SSD upgrade in EU4. (This is assuming you're not running a 32 bit program and expecting to draw more than 4gb of RAM (That still makes me lol, I mean come on man, use something like GalCiv3, that's a shitty turn based strategy that isn't 32bit)) (Btw, Frostwood 256GB is utter trash too. You legitimately need more storage. I didn't even know they sell ultrabooks with under 500gb, let alone a "gaming laptop") Again, I'm not arguing and refuse to argue about framerate in regards to RAM. "I also never said that a CPU wasn't important, but RAM is most certainly important in the genre." Yeah... no. The difference between 4GB and 8GB in any strategy game is _NOTHING_ compared to the difference between a Pentium and an i5. I NEVER !@#$ SAID CPU WASN'T IMPORTANT! SHOW ME WHERE I !@#$ SAID YOU SHOULD BUY A !@#$ PENTIUM 4 AND A !@#$ 12 YEAR OLD ATI GRAPHICS CARD SO YOU CAN HAVE A MILLION !@#$ GB OF RAM You're legitimately just talking out of your ass at this point; you've been proven wrong by both anecdotes and benchmarks, you've been incorrect on dates, and you have no idea about the CPU bottleneck in strategy games. I was off by a year on a example, I am literally Hitler. tl;dr I may be an idiot but at least I'm correct. Edited October 14, 2015 by Metro Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Fist, I have an almost identical laptop and I love it. The only difference is the case, display, GC, and RAM. I have 16 GBs of RAM and a 960. 8 GB isn't enough for a few strategy games I play. I had to upgrade to 16 GBs. Edited October 14, 2015 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 (what is frostwood?) I aught to be able to upgrade in the future if I need to. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (what is frostwood?) I aught to be able to upgrade in the future if I need to. My bad FD Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (what is frostwood?) I aught to be able to upgrade in the future if I need to. Depending on how the computer is manufactured, good luck upgrading anything more than the storage or the memory. and RIP everyone with a macbook 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) Memory is probably the only thing that I would forseeably upgrade in the nearish future. So I'm fine. Edited October 15, 2015 by fistofdoom Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.