best laptop for video editing and gaming 2012 image
Eli Lawd
I am looking for something rather specific, so I will just list as much information as I can.
The first thing is that I don't want it to be blatantly designed as a computer meant specifically for gaming and no other purpose. There are several reasons for this, most of them stemming from it being a college computer. First, I don't think my parents would be very happy with me getting a "Samsung Series 7 Gamer," or something similarly named. Second, it has to be able to reasonably accommodate practical things such as word processing, video editing, multimedia, and programming applications as I intend to major in computer science and be doing a lot of things along those lines. Therefore I also donât want it to be very flashy like some gaming computers are, and have a lot of features strictly for gaming such as red-glowing WASD keys.
Obviously, a "gaming laptop" is a bit silly because everyone knows that if you want to game you need a desktop. That said, I don't plan on spending too much time gaming, because, like I said, I'm going to be in college. Also, I can't exactly take a desktop to my classes, or anywhere else I want to study. So yes, it has to be a gaming laptop.
I don't want to do any computer building or modifying- I don't plan on making my own from scratch, and I donât plan on modifying it after I buy it. So I need to have exactly what I want straight out of the box. I donât really know how to, and I donât have the time to teach myself how.
Now let's talk about more performance based things. I am not really too worried about battery life, because I just don't see why someone wouldn't buy a perfectly good computer just because it can't run without a plug for 6 hours on end.honestly, 2-3 hours is just fine for me.
In terms of how powerful it is, I would be perfectly happy to be able to run any AAA game released in 2012 on medium graphics with 40 FPS. However, I want something that is going to be able to last me for a good 4 years at the minimum.
More specifically, I want something along these lines:
Processor: Something at least on par with Intel i5, hopefully something nicer but again I donât want to pay $3500... quad core would be nice, but duo is fine, I donât know too much about the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge stuff so I canât comment. It doesnât have to be Intel, something equivalent will do, but I prefer Intel for my processors.
Memory: I would like a laptop with 16 GB RAM, but as long as it has at least GB itâs fine.
Hard Drive: Honestly I donât care too much about this. Do I need 2 TB of hard drive space? No, but it would be nice. My last desktop was I believe a Dell XPS 630 with 1 TB of space in 2007, and it lasted me 5 years and I donât think I used half of it. So 1-2 TB is fine, I donât need to go overboard though if it ups the price.
Video Memory: Not too picky here but at least 1000 MB RAM would be good
Graphics/Video Card: I donât think I can settle for anything less than a high end nVidia GeForce because letâs be honest itâs the gold standard for gaming at the moment.
Optical Drive: These seem to be a lot less common on new laptops nowadays, so if it has one, great, but if not, it wonât be a dealbreaker.
Fans: I know some people are picky about loud fans, but personally I could care less. Just as long as it doesnât burst into flames Iâm fine.
OS: I canât decide between W7 and W8. I have heard that W8 is not so good for gaming, but I have also heard that people who say that are just uninformed. And I know that W8 has many ups and downs but for the most part the good outweighs the bad. So I would like to hear some more opinions.
For price range, anything between $1000-$2000 is fine. I think something closest to about $1500 would be best, but if the perfect computer happens to be $1950 thatâs no big deal. On the other hand, just because something is only $1200 doesnât mean itâs bad.
One final note is that I would like it to be built within the past year, though I assume that's a given.
I have looked through a lot of PC review guides online and have not yet been able to find what I'm looking for, so I figured that someone on this site might be able to provide me with some assistance.
So can anyone help me out? Thanks!
Just for those who are "Windows 7 is so much better Windows 8 is just for tablets" I assume that you also know that future versions of DirectX will not include Windows 7 support... however I don't know how much of an issue that is.
Answer
1st choice I would say alienware http://www.alienware.com. also you can have one built to your specs http://www.dell.com or http://www.hp.com. try http://www.newegg.com
1st choice I would say alienware http://www.alienware.com. also you can have one built to your specs http://www.dell.com or http://www.hp.com. try http://www.newegg.com
What processor is better AMD trinity or Intel Ivy bridge ?
alberto
I will be using it for school, light to medium gaming, video editing, its ether between the i5 or the A10
The i5 3rd gen ivy bridge cpu with 8gb ram and 750gb storage
AMD trinity apu quadcore A10-4600m with 6gb ram 640gb storage
I5-3210m Intel
Answer
Don't listen to the AMD fanatic, dedicated cpu with dedicated graphics dominates performance at any price point and has been the only logical choice for laptops to desk tops for many many years. Integrated graphics sucks and has a near zero upgrade path. For a non gaming solution Ivy is the best, for a gamer Sandy or Ivy plus a discrete GPU is best.
The Intel Trigate 22nm Ivy is by far the better CPU, with a OK GPU, and when needed just add a mid to high end GPU for true DX11 gaming that Trinity can NOT do because its CPU is way too lame to DX11 game.
Performance Analysis
With the addition of numbers for the Intel Core i3-2100 and Core i5-2400 in some of our benchmarks, it's plain to see that even with a price cut, the FX-8120 struggles in most of our tests. In very multi-threaded tests such as Cinebench and WPrime, it just about manages to hold its own against the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 - slightly ahead in WPrime, a little behind in Cinebench and noticeably faster than the cheaper Core i3-2100. The Core i5-3570K is much faster in both tests, but then it costs around £30 more.
Our image editing test was a real let down with the FX-8120. It came bottom of the graph, being trounced by a staggering 500 points by the Core i3-2100 - a CPU that costs just £90. Even the ageing AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition was considerably faster while the similarly priced Intel Core i5-2400 was nearly twice as fast. Clearly, if you do any amount of photo editing, the AMD FX-8120 represents particularly poor value.
With eight cores at its disposal, you'd think the FX-8120 might stand a good chance in our video encoding test. Sadly this wasn't to be and its score of 2,150 was over 400 points short of the Core i5-2400. Thankfully for the FX-8120, the Core i3-2100 was noticeably slower, with its two physical and two virtual cores not able to keep up.
Everything started to fall away from the FX-8120 again in our multi-tasking test, where it was yet again at the bottom of the pile, coming 100 points short of the much cheaper Core i3-2100, while the Core i5-2400 was nearly 50% faster - pretty damning result. Overall, it was no surprise to see the FX-8120 rock bottom, bettered by the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition and Core i3-2100 and trounced by the Core i5-2400.
Our game test lacks data for the two Sandy Bridge CPUs as we tested these some time ago, however, with the Intel Core i5-3570K retailing for just £30-40 more, it's clear from our results that the FX-8120 isn't a great buy for games either. The Intel CPU was 60 per cent faster in Arma II while costing around 30 per cent more - not a bad rate of return if you can afford the extra layout.
Conclusion,
Sadly, its more of the same bad news for AMD or anyone with a Socket AM3+ motherboard looking for a decent CPU for around the £150 mark. The FX-8120 just isn't a good choice when it comes to the kind of applications we run on our PCs. It's regularly outpaced by far cheaper Intel dual-core CPUs, while the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 is significantly faster in many of our tests. As it stands, the FX-8120 will have to be a lot cheaper for it to be worth considering over an equivalently-priced Intel setup, while owners of the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition can rest assured that
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/07/27/amd-fx-8120-review/8
Don't listen to the AMD fanatic, dedicated cpu with dedicated graphics dominates performance at any price point and has been the only logical choice for laptops to desk tops for many many years. Integrated graphics sucks and has a near zero upgrade path. For a non gaming solution Ivy is the best, for a gamer Sandy or Ivy plus a discrete GPU is best.
The Intel Trigate 22nm Ivy is by far the better CPU, with a OK GPU, and when needed just add a mid to high end GPU for true DX11 gaming that Trinity can NOT do because its CPU is way too lame to DX11 game.
Performance Analysis
With the addition of numbers for the Intel Core i3-2100 and Core i5-2400 in some of our benchmarks, it's plain to see that even with a price cut, the FX-8120 struggles in most of our tests. In very multi-threaded tests such as Cinebench and WPrime, it just about manages to hold its own against the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 - slightly ahead in WPrime, a little behind in Cinebench and noticeably faster than the cheaper Core i3-2100. The Core i5-3570K is much faster in both tests, but then it costs around £30 more.
Our image editing test was a real let down with the FX-8120. It came bottom of the graph, being trounced by a staggering 500 points by the Core i3-2100 - a CPU that costs just £90. Even the ageing AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition was considerably faster while the similarly priced Intel Core i5-2400 was nearly twice as fast. Clearly, if you do any amount of photo editing, the AMD FX-8120 represents particularly poor value.
With eight cores at its disposal, you'd think the FX-8120 might stand a good chance in our video encoding test. Sadly this wasn't to be and its score of 2,150 was over 400 points short of the Core i5-2400. Thankfully for the FX-8120, the Core i3-2100 was noticeably slower, with its two physical and two virtual cores not able to keep up.
Everything started to fall away from the FX-8120 again in our multi-tasking test, where it was yet again at the bottom of the pile, coming 100 points short of the much cheaper Core i3-2100, while the Core i5-2400 was nearly 50% faster - pretty damning result. Overall, it was no surprise to see the FX-8120 rock bottom, bettered by the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition and Core i3-2100 and trounced by the Core i5-2400.
Our game test lacks data for the two Sandy Bridge CPUs as we tested these some time ago, however, with the Intel Core i5-3570K retailing for just £30-40 more, it's clear from our results that the FX-8120 isn't a great buy for games either. The Intel CPU was 60 per cent faster in Arma II while costing around 30 per cent more - not a bad rate of return if you can afford the extra layout.
Conclusion,
Sadly, its more of the same bad news for AMD or anyone with a Socket AM3+ motherboard looking for a decent CPU for around the £150 mark. The FX-8120 just isn't a good choice when it comes to the kind of applications we run on our PCs. It's regularly outpaced by far cheaper Intel dual-core CPUs, while the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 is significantly faster in many of our tests. As it stands, the FX-8120 will have to be a lot cheaper for it to be worth considering over an equivalently-priced Intel setup, while owners of the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition can rest assured that
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/07/27/amd-fx-8120-review/8
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Can someone help me find a good gaming laptop between $1000 and $2000?
Rating: 97% based on 975 ratings. 4,7 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 97% based on 975 ratings. 4,7 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment