|
hmmxkrazee posted:My request on the other page got skipped over so I'll repost.. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...x_ya_oh_product Comes with Asus overclocking software that people are getting to 2ghz with no problems. GPU is waaay better than a 9400m. INcredible battery life... it's basically the holy grail of 13" laptops for moderate gamers who want awesome battery life and portability.
|
| # ¿ Jan 11, 2010 04:51 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 06:26 |
|
|
G-III posted:I was about to put an order for a ul30vt until I read reports from CES that the ulvt will be updated with the i7 processor and will still have the mystical 12 hour battery life of the current ulvt laptops. Damnit, looks like I'm going to have to wait a little longer. The lowest TDP of the i5/i7 series is 18watts compared to 10watts of the su7300 so they're going to have a lot of work to do to get the same battery life out of the same size laptop and battery. That said, I just got my UL30VT in and it is an incredible machine. My only complaint is the LCD is pretty low quality with really bad vertical viewing angles, but I will live with that in exchange for the awesome battery life, awesome form factor, and awesome performance. It can play L4d2 at native res no problem.
|
| # ¿ Jan 14, 2010 15:16 |
|
|
hmmxkrazee posted:How's the screen. Good enough for photoshop and digital imaging? I'm upgrading from a HP tx2500 tablet which had bad viewing angles and grainy screen so it can't be worse than that, can it? And I was okay with that screen. I use an IPS panel on my desktop so I might be kind of spoiled, but the LCD on the ULV30 series is seriously lacking... not so much so that I wouldn't recommend it, but it is definitely near the bottom of the scale of "acceptable"
|
| # ¿ Jan 16, 2010 09:47 |
|
|
Uziel posted:I didn't see this in the OP, but what is the deal with the i3/5/7 processors? Are one of them an equivalent to say a CULV processor in regards to battery life? There is a ULV i5 that is 18w max TDP, compared to 10 max TDP on the su7300 (the 1.3ghz core2duo ulv), but supposedly the power management is better, so with moderate use it consumes a similar amount of power, but offers more oomph when you need it. I havent seen the ULV i5 in any models yet though, only the much higher (35? I think?) TDP versions
|
| # ¿ Feb 5, 2010 19:26 |
|
|
toxick posted:How's the screen quality? I've seen some complaints about viewing angle elsewhere. The screen quality is about the worst I've seen on a modern laptop, but I still love this machine.
|
| # ¿ Feb 26, 2010 10:50 |
|
|
malefactor posted:ok found a place that still has the Viao Z with the i7 Do these have Optimus? I see no mention of it anywhere so I'm guessing no, but on such a high end laptop I'd expect to see it. We're so close to having a high performance, high portability piece of perfection here. greasyhands fucked around with this message at May 27, 2010 around 03:30 |
| # ¿ May 27, 2010 03:28 |
|
|
ZombiesAhead posted:Recommend a 14" or smaller notebook with: http://www.amazon.com/UL80Vt-A1-14-...75121013&sr=1-1
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2010 08:16 |
|
|
Someday posted:http://www.amazon.com/UL80Vt-A1-14-...75121013&sr=1-1 It's a total non-issue on those ULV laptops, they run very cool. The one issue with the Asus UL series is the screen- I don't know about the 14" but I have a 13.3" in the series and it's the worst screen I've seen in some time. The vertical viewing angles are awful.
|
| # ¿ Jun 6, 2010 10:56 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Build quality = money. Christ, shut the gently caress up, some people care about aesthetics and their hinges not giving out after a year.
|
| # ¿ Jun 14, 2010 07:50 |
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:
i dont think the degradation is that noticeable in-game, it's only text that looks markedly worse to me. And it's really nice having a huge 1080p desktop to work with, then just dropping the res down to play games. In conclusion, I disagree with you.
|
| # ¿ Jun 15, 2010 04:03 |
|
|
Has anyone made a 360m laptop with Optimus yet?
|
| # ¿ Jun 15, 2010 22:27 |
|
|
moonduck posted:I'm in the market for a laptop to play satellite to my desktop and I'm on a bit of a budget (being in college sucks). I've been eyeing the Asus UL30 and I was hoping someone here would have some firsthand experience with the machine. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated as well. It's an absolutely awesome laptop with a lovely screen with horrible viewing angles. I have the UL30VT Alzabo posted:
Why would enabling TRIM void your warranty?
|
| # ¿ Jun 16, 2010 08:13 |
|
|
Return Of JimmyJars posted:Need some help making a decision. I have a black Macbook MB063*/B from late 2007 that is getting a bit long in the tooth. I mostly use it for browsing the internet, playing WOW and some light photo editing. It currently has 1GB of ram and a 160GB 5400rpm drive. Should I drop down $150 to get a 320GB 7200rpm drive and 4gb of ram and just live with that or just save up another $500 or so and get something like the Studio 15? I'm mostly looking at upgrading due to long load times in WOW and Firefox. Even without swapping the drive, you'll see a profound improvement in load times on OS X going from 1GB to 4GB. If you want to save some money, I would just do that first and see if it satisfies you.
|
| # ¿ Jun 24, 2010 16:50 |
|
|
Bing is 30% cash back on HP right now if anyone is looking into the envy 14. Has anyone actually bought one? How hot does it run?
|
| # ¿ Jul 12, 2010 23:34 |
|
|
brainwrinkle posted:If anyone was waiting for my goon review of the HP Envy 14, here it is! how are the viewing angles, is there much vertical shift?
|
| # ¿ Aug 3, 2010 03:13 |
|
|
fishmech posted:One advantage of the refurb store is that you know every part in that computer has been tested just before being sold. People make this argument all the time, but it simply isn't true. Refurbs arrive with very obviously broken and defective parts all the time. I'm not saying don't buy refurb, but they aren't pristine perfect machines that some lackey has gone over with a fine toothed comb.
|
| # ¿ Aug 20, 2010 20:00 |
|
|
Fluue posted:I'm looking to get a new laptop in about 4 or 5 months to replace my current one before I head off to college. I'm having trouble finding something that will fit my needs without being ridiculously expensive. Ask again in 4 or 5 months as everything is going to be completely different.
|
| # ¿ Oct 4, 2010 00:36 |
|
|
rolleyes posted:I take it you're not that up to date when it comes to progress in processors, as clock speed means next to nothing in this case as you're comparing two completely different architectures. Also the i7 does not run at 1ghz - its base clock is 1.2Ghz with boosts up to 2.2Ghz on demand, and it has 4 cores. The i7 in the m11x is dual core.
|
| # ¿ Oct 22, 2010 23:26 |
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:I want to see benchmarks showing this difference. notebookcheck.net pretty clearly lays out the difference. It's a 40% drop in performance in 3dmark (I know, I know) going from GDDR5 to DDR3. http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mo...50.23069.0.html Using different generations of RAM as a performance/cost differentiator is nothing new and the difference has always been significant.
|
| # ¿ Oct 24, 2010 05:50 |
|
|
sangnom posted:Does anyone know of any laptops in the 12-13inch range that have both a non-Atom dual core cpu, and non-Intel graphics, switchable or not, that are cheaper than the Asus UL30vt? I am trying to stay under $600 and my options seemed to be limited to either Atom/Nvidia (Asus 1215n) or CULV/Intel (Asus UL30A) but not both. Save the extra money and get the ul30vt, it's a very nice machine and you'll be glad you spent the extra over the $600 competition.
|
| # ¿ Oct 26, 2010 01:39 |
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Well, Dell introduced the XPS 14 recently, so that's probably comparable. It's real new though, so I don't really have an opinion on it either way and there aren't many reviews. a really nice compact laptop with yet another 720p screen with no upgrade option 
|
| # ¿ Oct 28, 2010 18:10 |
|
|
Drevoak posted:What is the minimum cpu needed to play 1080p videos? If you're asking how a 1.6ghz atom compares to a 1.6ghz core2duo, they're not even in the same ballpark.
|
| # ¿ Nov 16, 2010 08:12 |
|
|
Toussaint Louverture posted:lovely screen compared to what? Almost every screen I see in the 14" range are the same resolution. There's more to a screen than resolution- Asus is notorious for using LCDs with terrible viewing angle problems. I have the ul30vt and it's an incredible laptop with one of the worst screens Ive seen on a modern laptop
|
| # ¿ Nov 25, 2010 08:45 |
|
|
Toussaint Louverture posted:I'm not worried about that, I'm typing this on an eee netbook. I don't mind vertical VA problems, that's what the hinge on the laptop is for. Yes, it can. I play l4d2 on mine all the time.
|
| # ¿ Nov 25, 2010 10:00 |
|
|
Dominoes posted:
Yes, you can do that with the SSD. You might even be able to put the hdd in the optical bay slot if you don't need the optical drive (this is totally model dependent and I have no idea about that model) If you end up getting that laptop, please let us know how the screen is. I'm in the market for a desktop replacement and want one with a high quality screen and Asus is, unfortunately, notorious for using poo poo quality screens. It's a real shame because their laptops are fantastic otherwise. greasyhands fucked around with this message at Dec 2, 2010 around 15:06 |
| # ¿ Dec 2, 2010 14:44 |
|
|
wiz crack posted:Great laptop, although I'm after 15", I can only see 17s? G53 is basically the same thing but 15"
|
| # ¿ Dec 3, 2010 01:22 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Reinstalling windows, basically. Before you go and do this know that, with some manufacturers (I know Asus from first-hand experience) it can be a nightmare getting all the proprietary stuff working right with a fresh windows install. Tracking down the correct programs, and in Asus' case the correct *version* of the program for your specific laptop (and they love to put the wrong version on your laptops software download page for some reason) can be a real pain. Sometimes it's easier to just go through and uninstall stuff even if it takes an hour.
|
| # ¿ Dec 9, 2010 23:11 |
|
|
Breaky posted:Never got an answer to the previous question. Can someone who has owned or used to own / use an ASUS UL80VT please let me know what they thought of it? Thanks! I have the ul30vt which is basically the same thing minus the dvd drive and a slightly smaller screen. It's one of the best laptops I've ever owned with one significant caveat- the screen is loving terrible. Like, godawful terrible. The viewing angles are like a cheap LCD from the late 90s. But the rest of the laptop is so perfect it doesn't matter. Also if it matters to you Asus never updates the video drivers and you can't just use the ones from nvidia.com due to the proprietary pre-optimus switchable graphics so you are stuck with drivers from like a year and a half ago. The only significant negative I've run into because of this is the new Flash GPU acceleration doesn't work on old drivers. Battery life is fantastic, though heavily dependent on what you're actually doing. I regularly squeeze over 8 hours out of mine with brightness down and wifi off. Good luck getting 10-11 hours in real world use though. Asus also includes software that boosts the cpu up to 1.7ghz, which makes for a nice performance gain without really hitting battery life significantly. You can take it up to ~1.9ghz with no problems using some third party software called setFSB, also. I didn't see your original post so maybe you are planning on buying used or something, but they have refreshed versions of this laptop out that have optimus (non-proprietary and can use generic nvidia drivers) and newer i3/i5 processors with very similar battery life. http://www.amazon.com/UL80JT-A2-Lig...99579666&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/U43JC-X1-14-I.../ref=pd_cp_pc_2 edit: aaaand I just read the next 5 posts... well, maybe someone else will find my post useful.. greasyhands fucked around with this message at Mar 8, 2011 around 10:25 |
| # ¿ Mar 8, 2011 10:21 |
|
|
Alicette posted:Here's the problem with that and the reason why I said don't bother suggesting a desktop. I literally can't have one. I live on a ship, like in the ocean. But only for half the year. If it ain't strapped down, it's getting hosed up. And I don't have my own little desk space to spread out all my crap. I have a locker the size of the one's you used in high school and a coffin rack to sleep in. That's why I need a laptop, regardless of weight. Even though I said I would prefer lightweight, I just meant, as possible. My current 17in asus is really not that heavy, I just don't want to go heavier. Goons in this forum have an impossible time imagining that other people's life circumstances might be different than their own, and they have a ridiculous aversion to 17" laptops. Here's a really nice one that will smoke games - http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np8170...rch-p-2971.html Here's one that will perform decently and has a few lbs shaved off - http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np5170...der-p-3000.html Only requirement of yours that I'm ignoring is the "must buy in store" requirement because you're going to get a much better one if you can figure out a way to have it delivered.
|
| # ¿ Mar 10, 2011 21:58 |
|
|
rrraaagggeee posted:Wow, again, he isn't always at school and his living situation doesn't lend itself to a desktop. He's playing games in lots of different places and wants/needs them looking their best. I don't understand why you guys think having a larger laptop that needs an outlet is such a GIGANTIC hassle that will leave you lonely for the rest of your life but whatever. There's a gaming club that regularly lans at his school too so that alone is like 15+ people all rockin big ones so I don't think his social life is a concern... If you or your friend needs a big laptop, get a big laptop. Manufacturers make 100 different 17" gaming behemoths because people like them and people buy them. I'm not sure why you are so concerned with getting the internet's approval. All of these SH/SC "what should i buy" threads have a real hivemind thing going on and you're not going to convince anyone otherwise.
|
| # ¿ Mar 31, 2011 22:14 |
|
|
That Sager looks pretty sleek for a gamer beast laptop, while the Asus looks like the kind of brick everyone sneers at.
|
| # ¿ Apr 4, 2011 05:39 |
|
|
kaworu posted:It's a good point, and I was going to spend the extra $50 on the 540m. But I read quite a bit about it, and the consensus really was that there was barely any difference between that and 525m at all, and it was one of the least important upgrades you could really get. Seems that they're almost identical and some of the reviews I read said that the only thing they noticed any difference whatsoever on was with the 3D television hookups. So it just seemed relatively unimportant. Yeah I generally don't get too worked up about Nvidia renaming parts and all the other bullshit they pull, but with this latest gen they've made 3 cards that are essentially the same thing. 525, 540, and 550 are all the same thing with varying CORE clockspeeds- they all have the same memory speeds so all perform essentially the same. The only thing more aggravating than that is the price difference between the parts- Dell charges $100 to go from 525 to 540, and you will see literally 0 real world difference. It's just plain rude.
|
| # ¿ Apr 6, 2011 07:44 |
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:It's not deceptive at all. That's how the market has worked for ages. Many models have the same architecture, but are given different clock speeds, or have some shaders locked. I'd like to see another example of the entire midrange line being the same chip with 3 different model numbers, the same memory speed, the same number of cores, and slightly different core clocks. It's absurd- it costs $100 to get an extra 72mhz on the core with no increase in throughput and no real world performance change. greasyhands fucked around with this message at Apr 6, 2011 around 21:40 |
| # ¿ Apr 6, 2011 21:04 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Athlon II X4 640, Athlon II x4 645, Phenom II x4 840? Differences: 640 runs at 3 GHz, 645 at 3.1, and Ph840 at 3.2, plus the 840 is in a purple box. That is a cpu.... we're talking about gpus, which have more differentiating characteristics than a cpu. Not to mention those are all within $10 of each other. That's just kind of AMD floundering around with an old architecture and having nothing to offer. Nvidia could very easily offer different memory speeds or type, offer more/less cores- but they don't. They seem to be banking their entire midrange strategy of this refresh on no one understanding what shitheads they are. The renaming they have done throughout their existence is annoying, but it is generally done with a slight spec bump, lower power requirements and a similar cost to the old part. So, while confusing to the consumer, it's not exactly anti-consumer. This new strategy involves significantly higher prices for the same part with a different name. I can't believe there are people defending it. greasyhands fucked around with this message at Apr 6, 2011 around 22:11 |
| # ¿ Apr 6, 2011 22:04 |
|
v
|
Faceless Clock posted:There is a real world performance improvement if you buy the 540M. What leads you to believe differently? Notebook check only has two benchmarks up for the 525M (3DMark 11), but those benchmarks show a notable difference between the 525M and 540M. You're not really even making the same argument as me. I don't have a problem with companies binning chips to hit different price points- as long as there is a noticeable performance loss/gain. I just have a problem with them occupying the entire midrange with the same thing yet numbering them as though they are significantly different. Who wouldn't expect a significant difference between a 525m and a 550m. Most people would I suspect, but with this generation of mobile chips there is very, very little performance difference but there is a huge price difference. That isn't standard. I'm going to guess a 12% clockspeed increase with no memory bandwith increase will result in something like a 5-8% performance increase in the most favorable benchmarks. That's so small as to be irrelevant in my opinion. Yet they want at least $100 for the "upgrade" The nvidia 400 series was bad, but they decided to up the shittness ante with the 500 series. 420/425 was the equivalent performance difference of 525/540- you don't think that's a lovely thing to do (it's worth adding that there is a huge performance difference between 520/525 and almost none from 525/540, makes perfect sense, right?)? A 42x series having only varying clock speeds halfway makes sense(and same goes for the 69xx series from AMD), but they decided to stretch the model numbers out across the entire possible line to trick people. The first number is the generation, the second number is *supposed* to be the tier, then the third/fourth number are the small differentiators within each tier (along with GT/GTS/GTX/whatever). Nvidia threw that out the window, and it just makes it that much more confusing for the consumer. You think its cool though, so whatever. greasyhands fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 03:41 |
| # ¿ Apr 7, 2011 02:56 |
|
|
kaworu posted:Well, I'm just glad I did my homework and always load up Dell's site with a healthy degree of skepticism. I don't really begrudge them those sorts of tactics, in a way, because if you're not smart enough to do the research and at least make some effort to educate yourself on what you're spending money on, then the onus is really on you for buying into questionable upgrades. Businesses are all about overselling goods and taking advantage of natural human tendencies. So you're ok with companies making things as labyrinthly nonsensical as possible because it's on you to solve their riddles?
|
| # ¿ Apr 7, 2011 04:42 |
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:durr durr Good lord dude, those 3dmark scores are from completely different laptops with completely different specs. Do you really think a 12% increase in core clock results in a 30%+ performance improvement? You're a good target audience for Nvidia, I guess. I *have* clarified why I think they perform the same. It's because they are the same chip and it's completely obvious what a 12% core bump does to performance (hint: It isn't anywhere close to a 30% 3dmark improvement, christ I cant believe I'm even having to point this out.) I already said my biggest problem was with how they changed the naming convention (and spelled it out in my previous post). Just look at the 420/425 benchmarks, as they are much more plentiful and it's essentially the same chip. This time, try to compare them on a similar platform so you can get an actual meaningful comparison. Faceless Clock posted:If you have a general problem with the way upgrade are priced, fine. I can understand that. But I certainly don't want people in this thread getting the impression that all of Nvidia's 5xxM cards are the same. That's not true, and someone buying a 525M with the idea that it's just as good as a 540M or 550M is fooling themselves. Sorry, but no they aren't- you are the one who is fooled. They are the same chip with very slight clockspeed differences. I don't really want to go round and round with you though, so I'm not going to keep arguing with you. greasyhands fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 07:19 |
| # ¿ Apr 7, 2011 07:15 |
|
|
Practically identical, yet with model numbers that imply substantially different. It's really not that hard to comprehend man. You can, in fact, derive everything you need to know about relative performance when comparing identical architectures at slightly different clock speeds by looking at spec sheets (certainly more so than you can by comparing them on two completely different platforms and thinking Nvidia fairy dust gives you a 30% performance improvement from a 12% clock speed bump), but you've got to be trolling with the stuff you're saying now(or are completely incapable of comprehending the fact that I'm disappointed with the way they named the newest generation, not the fact that there are performance differentiated parts) so... good job, I guess. You got me.
greasyhands fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2011 around 18:00 |
| # ¿ Apr 7, 2011 17:57 |
|
|
pinegala posted:I'm leaning toward this at the moment: http://www.amazon.com/N53SV-XE1-15-...4/ref=de_a_smtd I don't know about that particular model, but if screen quality is big with you, Asus is known for having some of the worst screens. I have a ul30vt, and I loving love it despite it having a screen they must have sourced from 1999
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2011 19:41 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 06:26 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm curious, whatever happen to external graphics cards? Did the idea flop? I wonder if you could use the thunderbolt interface and hook them up that way, it certainly has the bandwidth available. They flopped at the time, yeah, but with Thunderbolt I'm sure they'll show back up.
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2011 20:41 |
|
