Need some serious tech advice.

troyzer

Hello all.
Posted a few months back saying I was after a decent laptop around a grand. I was leaning towards getting one built for me and a guy linked me to a good site. Should mention it's going to be a bit of a portable gaming rig, mostly for RTS games only for PC because a lot of the multi platform games will be played on my PS4. I'm also getting this blank and installing my own OS. I have a spare Windows 8 license. I'd prefer Windows 7, but I'm not arsed spending a hundred quid when I can use 8 for free.
It's a serious piece of kit and now it's time to place the order (it's for my 21st).
It's the Optimus V 17.3" from PC specialist.
I'm getting it with the following specs
i7-4700mq.
8 Samsung 1600 MHz RAM.
2GB Nvidia GTX 765M.

So a bit of a beast so far, I plan on upgrading the RAM later on. It takes three modules so I can push it to 24 by the end of next year probably.

I just have a few minor details to clear up about it and was looking for some real balls out tech advice. I'm no slouch when it comes to computers so lay all the details on me.

Question number one, the 4700 is a Haswell (as the name suggests) which I know means very little in terms of a performance upgrade over Ivy Bridge. But whatever, that's what's on offer. It's in a laptop, so naturally I can't overclock it. It clocks at 2.4 GHz which to me sounds really low. It seems to be rock bottom in terms of minimum requirements for the most up to date games. I know clockrate isn't everything and that the fact that it's a quad core means clock rate per core matters even less. But is it really enough for future proofing me against future Total War or Civilisation games? It also features the turbo boost function. I've never seen it in action though, so I can't be sure if it's going to melt my laptop or if it's purely software. So is the claim that it can be boosted to 3.4 GHz bull**** or not? Is it practical over hours of gaming? And also, is it worth paying an extra 11 euro for Arctic Extreme thermal paste?

Question number two, it gives the option between a matte screen or a gloss screen. The gloss screen being an extra few euro. As far as I know, matte just reduces glare but with gloss you get more vibrant colours. I don't exactly plan on hauling it around and playing outdoors so is it better for me to try and maximise the visuals? The glare can't be THAT bad.

Question number three, it gives you an option to upgrade the wireless modules. Is it worth it? It comes stock with 150mbps capable receiver. Which is fine at the moment, but with fibre optic speeds increasing massively I don't want my laptop to be bottle necking further down the road. Probably irrelevant though, because who realistically gets even 30mbps nevermind 150mbps. Anyway, for an extra twenty euro you can get one capable of handling 300mbps. Worth it or not?

Question number four! Right, this is the main sore point for me.
I originally didn't consider SSDs for the laptop but everyone I've talked to said it really is genuinely worth the investment. So I had my heart set on a Kingston V300 with 240GB of storage. Not an enormous amount, but enough to get me going until I got a 1TB HDD for the second disk bay later on. But now I'm thinking differently. Game installs nowdays can take up nearly 50GB, and that's if I go all disc. If I go digital, that drive will immediately be eaten up. So does it make sense to go for a 120GB SSD with either a 750GB 7,200 RPM HDD or a 500GB 5,400 SSHD? Those are the other options and they work out roughly the same as each other but about 20 euro cheaper than just the 240GB SSD on it's own. That way I'm getting a really fast boot drive with a bit of storage for the most used software and the mass storage I need separately. Is this a better strategy? If so, should I go for the 750GB HDD or the 500GB SSHD? Or even just gut the whole idea of an SSD and just upgrade to 16GB of RAM from the get go (not really into that though).

Or should I start COMPLETELY from scratch with a totally new laptop?

http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/notebooks/optimusV-17/

Here is said laptop! With the original specs I said, the 240GB SSD, silver warranty, gloss screen, arctic thermal paste and a sleeve it comes to 1,126. That's without the OS remember. You're more than welcome to dick around with the configurator and suggest better variations. Although 1,126 is really stretching me budget wise, I don't even know if I can manage that. If I find out later on that I can only really afford a grand I'm just going to drop the SSD and take a platter drive.
Just remember to remove the OS option if you're making up your own configurations, it takes nearly a hundred euro off the price.

Thanks a million in advance for the advice! Apologies for the detail of the questions, I just want to be methodical and very well informed.
Thanks!

troyzer

A good example of my CPU worries is that Ghosts requires a CPU clocked at 2.66 GHz. Fair enough it's a core duo but still. Is the 4700mq going to be struggling to run some of the hottest titles on minimum?
It's recommended CPU is an i5 clocked at 3.6 which the 4700mq hasn't a prayer of reaching even though it IS an i7. Seems like I'd be better off going for the top shelf i5 from Ivy or even Sandy bridge.
Could be totally wrong though.

GarIT

You can overclock both CPU and GPU, I've done it loads of times, only ever on old machines to increase their life as its much more dangerous but it's never done any harm.

i5s are much better for gaming, i7s are for things like photo and video editing, rendering etc.

Clock speed (GHz) is the most irrelevant way or measuring processor performance. It worked before when every processor wad the same and just a different speed, the architecture of every processor is different now. You need to look up processors on passmark to compare them.

Buying an SSD for windows is the most pointless thing anyone ever did. If you are buying an SSD you need it for all your programs. Otherwise you are paying €100+ for a laptop that turns on faster. Don't drop the SSD performance wise its the most important part of the build. A HDD is always the bottleneck in any computer.

Screen is just preference, I find I can't game as long on a glossy screen before my eyes hurt.

I'd go for the 300mbps adaptor, if you're anywhere near a city you will be seeing 200mbps+ sometime in 2014.

troyzer

GarIT wrote: »

You can overclock both CPU and GPU, I've done it loads of times, only ever on old machines to increase their life as its much more dangerous but it's never done any harm.

i5s are much better for gaming, i7s are for things like photo and video editing, rendering etc.

Clock speed (GHz) is the most irrelevant way or measuring processor performance. It worked before when every processor wad the same and just a different speed, the architecture of every processor is different now. You need to look up processors on passmark to compare them.

Buying an SSD for windows is the most pointless thing anyone ever did. If you are buying an SSD you need it for all your programs. Otherwise you are paying €100+ for a laptop that turns on faster. Don't drop the SSD performance wise its the most important part of the build. A HDD is always the bottleneck in any computer.

Screen is just preference, I find I can't game as long on a glossy screen before my eyes hurt.

I'd go for the 300mbps adaptor, if you're anywhere near a city you will be seeing 200mbps+ sometime in 2014.

From what I've heard it's next to impossible to overclock a laptop. Mostly because CPUs don't let you, but laptops usually have awful cooling. Either way, it's not something I'm relying on. Why are i5s better? Surely a quad core beats a dual core regardless of application? Well, assuming they're well threaded. Although a poorly threaded piece of software is going to run badly on multi core CPUs regardless of whether it has two or four. I agree on the GHz measurement, I know it's mostly irrelevant. The problem is, most of the minimum specs of games are measured in it. So it's hard to compare CPUs in terms of suitability for gaming if you disregard the clock rate.

Well, I think I should probably go with the 240GB SSD then. I can always get a SATA drive later down the road (it takes two).

I'll need to see the real world differences between gloss and matte to really decide, might have a look in PC world.

Is it really essential though? It's twenty euro extra that's hard to justify. I'm on a supposedly 100mb UPC fibre optic plan, but I've NEVER seen it go over 30mbps. So when will the day come where a 150mbps receiver is bottle necking my connection? I can't see it happening anytime soon. Having said that, is it easy to upgrade it later on?

Cheers.

GarIT

troyzer wrote: »

From what I've heard it's next to impossible to overclock a laptop. Mostly because CPUs don't let you, but laptops usually have awful cooling. Either way, it's not something I'm relying on. Why are i5s better? Surely a quad core beats a dual core regardless of application? Well, assuming they're well threaded. Although a poorly threaded piece of software is going to run badly on multi core CPUs regardless of whether it has two or four. I agree on the GHz measurement, I know it's mostly irrelevant. The problem is, most of the minimum specs of games are measured in it. So it's hard to compare CPUs in terms of suitability for gaming if you disregard the clock rate.

Well, I think I should probably go with the 240GB SSD then. I can always get a SATA drive later down the road (it takes two).

I'll need to see the real world differences between gloss and matte to really decide, might have a look in PC world.

Is it really essential though? It's twenty euro extra that's hard to justify. I'm on a supposedly 100mb UPC fibre optic plan, but I've NEVER seen it go over 30mbps. So when will the day come where a 150mbps receiver is bottle necking my connection? I can't see it happening anytime soon. Having said that, is it easy to upgrade it later on?

Cheers.

Nearly all games are optimised to run on 2 cores. I don't really know why, they just are, any gaming pc building site will tell you to go for a good i5 over an i7.

It's not essential but I do think you should contact UPC, anyone I know on UPC 100mb has an average speed of around 105mb.

U_Fig

GarIT wrote: »

Nearly all games are optimised to run on 2 cores. I don't really know why, they just are, any gaming pc building site will tell you to go for a good i5 over an i7.

In terms of the i7s being pretty much the same as i5s for gaming that is true for the desktop processors but for laptops you'll see more of a benefit from a bump from an i5 to an i7. Also newer games are now starting to make benefit of more cores more and more and you will see after the xbox one and PS4 both having octocore CPU's more and more games will avail of the extra cores as game development seems to be moving towards this

Also in most games the GPU is much more important than the CPU

Overclocking on a laptop is not viable and is not advised

When looking at specs for games it will usually give the specific architecture (ie Haswell, Sandybridge, Ivybridge) and the recommended clock speed so looking at what GHZ a CPU is pointless unless they are the same architecture.

For the SSD it is a massive speed boost to the system I'd be inclined to go with the 240 and then add additional storage at a later stage if necessary for vids music files etc.. things that will not benefit from the SSD speed if needed.

You are much better getting a desktop for gaming as you would get a much better system for the money but you will sacrifice portability

U_Fig

GarIT wrote: »

Nearly all games are optimised to run on 2 cores. I don't really know why, they just are, any gaming pc building site will tell you to go for a good i5 over an i7.

In terms of the i7s being pretty much the same as i5s for gaming that is true for the desktop processors but for laptops you'll see more of a benefit from a bump from an i5 to an i7. Also newer games are now starting to make benefit of more cores more and more and you will see after the xbox one and PS4 both having octocore CPU's more and more games will avail of the extra cores as game development seems to be moving towards this

Also in most games the GPU is much more important than the CPU

Overclocking on a laptop is not viable and is not advised

When looking at specs for games it will usually give the specific architecture (ie Haswell, Sandybridge, Ivybridge) and the recommended clock speed so looking at what GHZ a CPU is pointless unless they are the same architecture.

For the SSD it is a massive speed boost to the system I'd be inclined to go with the 240 and then add additional storage at a later stage if necessary for vids music files etc.. things that will not benefit from the SSD speed if needed. what I would do though is check the price of the SSD on the site and maybe get it with a 1TB hdd or whatever then buy an SSD then off amazon or and move the HDD to the Second bay. it may work out cheaper since you will be installing the OS yourself anyway

Also the WiFi card being 150mbps is not a major issue they are easily upgraded in the future if need be pretty much like the Ram a case of 1 screw and a couple of aerials

You are much better getting a desktop for gaming as you would get a much better system for the money but you will sacrifice portability.

Harps

I don't know much about overclocking or anything too technical but I have an Optimus V with similar specs to what you're after including the 4700MQ. I've put the laptop through its paces in a few games and so far it's managed everything I've thrown at it.

Far Cry 3 is probably the most demanding game I've tried at I can get over 50 fps consistently on high settings. With everything on ultra (-aa) I get around 35 fps. Other games like Dark Souls, STALKER and Borderlands run with everything maxed at close to 60 fps.

For the hard drive I went with a 120gb ssd and 7200rpm 750gb HDD. I use Netflix and Google Music for my tv and music so storage want really a big consideration, I've installed windows and all my programs on the ssd and use the HDD for games which I've read don't benefit much from an ssd.

Screen wise, I went with the matte screen, it's got a noticeable graniness to it so if that's an issue for you then I'd advise going with the glossy one.

The only real issue I have with the laptop is the sound quality which really is horrible, its perfectly fine with headphones but the built in speakers are for too quiet and lacking in bass

troyzer

Harps wrote: »

I don't know much about overclocking or anything too technical but I have an Optimus V with similar specs to what you're after including the 4700MQ. I've put the laptop through its paces in a few games and so far it's managed everything I've thrown at it.

Far Cry 3 is probably the most demanding game I've tried at I can get over 50 fps consistently on high settings. With everything on ultra (-aa) I get around 35 fps. Other games like Dark Souls, STALKER and Borderlands run with everything maxed at close to 60 fps.

For the hard drive I went with a 120gb ssd and 7200rpm 750gb HDD. I use Netflix and Google Music for my tv and music so storage want really a big consideration, I've installed windows and all my programs on the ssd and use the HDD for games which I've read don't benefit much from an ssd.

Screen wise, I went with the matte screen, it's got a noticeable graniness to it so if that's an issue for you then I'd advise going with the glossy one.

The only real issue I have with the laptop is the sound quality which really is horrible, its perfectly fine with headphones but the built in speakers are for too quiet and lacking in bass

Grand, that's exactly the sort of info I'm looking for!
What did you go for in terms of RAM?
I don't necessarily want a laptop that can run everything on Ultra. I just want a laptop that'll still be able to run new games on medium or high two or three years down the road before I have to upgrade it.
I'm still split on the SSD. I have no idea what effect they have on game performance. If they have none like you say, then it's probably unnecessary to store them on the SSD. Everybody keeps saying that it'll improve performance but I'm still struggling to see what real world results that gives you. Even the boot up times are only marginally better. I'm not going to tear my hair out because I have to wait an extra ten seconds.
Does an SSD genuinely increase frame rate of games, load times etc?
Is it REALLY worth the extra hundred euro? I'm more than happy to get it if that's the case, but I haven't demonstrably been able to see the benefits.
The screen makes sense then, I'll go with the gloss. Don't really care about the speakers, I'll probably be using headphones anyway.
Did you go with the thermal compound upgrade? If you did, does it run cool?
Thanks!

troyzer

U_Fig wrote: »

In terms of the i7s being pretty much the same as i5s for gaming that is true for the desktop processors but for laptops you'll see more of a benefit from a bump from an i5 to an i7. Also newer games are now starting to make benefit of more cores more and more and you will see after the xbox one and PS4 both having octocore CPU's more and more games will avail of the extra cores as game development seems to be moving towards this

Also in most games the GPU is much more important than the CPU

Overclocking on a laptop is not viable and is not advised

When looking at specs for games it will usually give the specific architecture (ie Haswell, Sandybridge, Ivybridge) and the recommended clock speed so looking at what GHZ a CPU is pointless unless they are the same architecture.

For the SSD it is a massive speed boost to the system I'd be inclined to go with the 240 and then add additional storage at a later stage if necessary for vids music files etc.. things that will not benefit from the SSD speed if needed. what I would do though is check the price of the SSD on the site and maybe get it with a 1TB hdd or whatever then buy an SSD then off amazon or and move the HDD to the Second bay. it may work out cheaper since you will be installing the OS yourself anyway

Also the WiFi card being 150mbps is not a major issue they are easily upgraded in the future if need be pretty much like the Ram a case of 1 screw and a couple of aerials

You are much better getting a desktop for gaming as you would get a much better system for the money but you will sacrifice portability.

I'd prefer a desktop, but I just move around too much. I'll probably build a desktop when I'm properly working after I graduate and get my own place. Hopefully when Intel move to 5nm, by which time this laptop will be hopelessly obsolete. You've answered most of my questions though, I'm happy enough with my decision to go for the 240GB SSD. Although like I said, I still don't understand the real world benefits.

As far as the CPU goes, I remember reading somewhere that the next gen consoles are the best things ever to happen to multi core CPUs because now more games will be properly optimized. But the question still remains, will this particular CPU be useless two or three years down the road? The GPU is decent enough, it's not a battlefield slayer but it's still powerful enough to run my sort of games.

Cheers!

Harps

troyzer wrote: »

Grand, that's exactly the sort of info I'm looking for!
What did you go for in terms of RAM?
I don't necessarily want a laptop that can run everything on Ultra. I just want a laptop that'll still be able to run new games on medium or high two or three years down the road before I have to upgrade it.
I'm still split on the SSD. I have no idea what effect they have on game performance. If they have none like you say, then it's probably unnecessary to store them on the SSD. Everybody keeps saying that it'll improve performance but I'm still struggling to see what real world results that gives you. Even the boot up times are only marginally better. I'm not going to tear my hair out because I have to wait an extra ten seconds.
Does an SSD genuinely increase frame rate of games, load times etc?
Is it REALLY worth the extra hundred euro? I'm more than happy to get it if that's the case, but I haven't demonstrably been able to see the benefits.
The screen makes sense then, I'll go with the gloss. Don't really care about the speakers, I'll probably be using headphones anyway.
Did you go with the thermal compound upgrade? If you did, does it run cool?
Thanks!

I went with 8gb ram which so far at least has been perfectly adequate.

From the reading I've done, SSDs launch games faster and can load faster but in terms of performance there's no great benefit. Is definitely worth getting an ssd of some description though for the general performance boost over a HDD. I went with the fastest 120gb one, it would have been nice to go with a bigger one but I have no regrets considering how steep the price gets

I went with the Arctic paste yeah, don't know what difference it makes compared to the standard paste but I've had no heating issues at all so far, it does get hot when gaming obviously but never excessively so

If all you really want is RTS games to be playable with decent visuals then the Optimus should be perfectly fine for a few years yet

U_Fig

An SSD is by no means an essential part
it's more of a luxury.

The main benifit of an SSD is faster loading times for games and general boot times and seek times for files.. It is the biggest speed boost to a system.

It can improve performance in some games that require a lot of access to a drive to load textures mid game etc.. but the improvement is not that much really

If you are not convinced then by all Means stick to a HDD you can always add an SSD later.. I wouldn't sacrifice other parts to add an SSD but if it fits within budget then I'd say go for it