Hey, here's one thing that would be really useful... a nice chart of all the crazy Intel mobile processors organized by speed and features. It gets a bit confusing looking at a laptop site that lists Pentium IVs and Pentium-Ms and whatnot with all their 3-digit numbers like 760+, 780. What is ideal for gaming?
Why is there such a bitch and whine crowd for reviews? It's like Siskel and Ebert, if you don't like their reviews, go find one you like. Wait, do you pay for this service? I can see pointing out technically inacurracies to a point, but the majority of this complaining seems counter-productive.
Is there a world wide recognized standard for reviews for geek gear or something? I'm not talking comparative analysis for the metric nazis here. Apparently, what a kid did out of fun and interest of the hobby years ago and gained worldwide notoriety for it has become, for better or for worse, a watering hole for all the "what if..." wannabes.
Make your own website and speak of things in the manner you want if you didn't like how it was said here.
To be semi-on topic, I can see why they reviewed it the way they did. And if I didn't, why whine about it?
If there is a bad review or information here, I should read/hear about it from Tom's or some other site, not a comments thread from hell. C'mon.
Honestly, the forums have mods, maybe the comments section should too.
Following your point of view, why should Anantech allow a comments system if people are not allowed to comment?
I hold Anandtech to a higher standard than most because over the years I've enjoyed their articles and trust the site more than others, and I'm sure many people are the same, so when AT post an article which does not appear up to scratch it receives criticism.
As pointed out already, most people are aware that an FX desktop will beat a P4 notebook which is all this article shows - by comparing like for like we would have useful figures which showed the performance loss going with the mobile graphics card.
We are simply providing feedback. In this case it is mostly negative but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
I remember AT a few months ago did a review of a computer case that looked like a transformer robot! There was a lot of feedback of people complaining about AT doing reviews of these boxes that seemed like they were designed by kids for kids.
After the complaints, Anand himself posted in the forum and agreed with the viewpoint and promised that he would not allow any future reviews of these "toy" cases and focus more on "adult" cases.
Here is the link that I'm referring to that proves constructive criticism is good for everyone.
Now some people in this thread must get insulted at criticism somehow and resort to name calling which really detracts from the quality of the discussion. :(
IMHO, why is Tom's Hardware more important than our opinions? We are the ones who validate the acurracies or lack thereof of their reviews. Maybe our tone is a little harsh, constructive critsism goes much further than flames, but we have to hold the reviewers to a certain standard, otherwise, how do we know what products to buy? We instill a certain level of trust to the reviewers, and we expect that trust to be returned with fair reviews.
Nothing Personal Jared and Crew. You guys are still the best on the web IMHO, but everyone makes mistakes.
Now that you have reviewed a laptop, how about looking at others. Such as Eurocom laptops (http://www.eurocom.com">http://www.eurocom.com) and click on "Model Listings" for all of their models. They do have a laptop with the Go 7800 GTX and you choise of Proc. Intel or AMD (including the FX chips) (F-Bomb series for AMD chips and Phantom for Intel.) For the almost the same price has the revied model. Also interesting is their all-in-one Notebook PCs which uses 3.5 inch drives instead of 2.5inch. Also, all laptops are upgradable including proc, memory and hard drives. I was also told that they are working on SLI and may have it available soon. Despite the name, they are a Canadian builder (not reseller). It's worth a look. I've used their laptops before.
Eurocom are a Clevo reseller (as is Hypersonic) and many others - the Eurocom site actually copied text directly from one of the UK Clevo sellers (Rockdirect), they forget to change the laptop name though!
why not keep all of the other components the same?
The relative performance of the desktop to the mobile part would be much clearer if you used a P4 3.8 (etc.) for the desktop benchies. As it is, we know that a high end desktop will perform better than a high end laptop.. no @$#() it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
i did a double take when i first saw the processors used... however, at high resolutions such as the ones used, the game wouldn't be very cpu limited. it still might account for a 3-5 frame difference though...
in the second to last article it claims that the power draw for the X1800XT is higher than that of the X850XT. but according to your initial X1800XT review, power draw for that part is lower than the X850XT. i can only imagine that what you really meant is the X800XT mobile part.
as was stated early on, far too warm and too big to sit on your lap for any time. they probably shouldn't be called notebooks either. 13 lbs would put your leg to sleep. no, these should be called portables.
what i really want, and no one really seems to provide, is a truely mobile notebook computer with good gaming capability. there is a big gap between the x300 type graphics you get on a laptop with good mobility and the 6800gt/7800gt/x800 graphics you can get on a portable that weighs as much as 2 text books and is too big to possibly open on an airplane or a cramped college desk. the acer ferrari/travelmate 8100 laptop is about as close as it gets (x700, under 7 lbs, 15" screen) but i find the warranty to be a bit lacking.
hmmm... looks like a latitude d810 with better gfx... i wonder why you can't get that gfx card in a d810? i wonder how much it would be to order the gfx card as a spare part for your d810? actually... comparing prices between the M70 and d810 it isn't that different
Because they don't cost $500+ for just the GPU. Those are the budget offerings for laptops. If you want a $1000 lappy with okay graphics, that's what you'll get.
I'd totally pay $1800 for one of those. Sadly, it probably retails for almost three times that much. Laptops are the ultimate rip-off. Shame, 'cause it'd be nice to finally replace the desktop with something still decent for gaming. It's simply not worth paying three to four times as much though. $1500 will get you a high end AMD-based system with a real 7800GTX.
We need a review of the Dell Inspiron XPS. You can get that with the cooler Pentium M and the 7800GTX and only costs about $2100. You don't get the dual hard drives for Raid 0 but for less than half the price, I could live with that.
Now that would be interesting, a 3.8 Pentium vs. a Pentium M in a gaming laptop.
Nah, it's more like $3500-3800 for a decent Dell for gaming. Still way out of phase with reality. A laptop should cost the price of a desktop plus maybe $250-500 max premium for the mobile design costs. A $1500 desktop will blow away a $3500 laptop. That's just not right to pay three times as much and come away with less. Yeah, you can carry it around. You carry around your Less that you can't game so well on, and I'll stick with gaming on a desktop in the meantime. Besides, if you're really gonna game on that laptop, it's gonna be plugged in to an outlet and sitting on a desk not on your lap, so really when it is mimmicking a desktop it's even more apparent how much you get ripped off for the laptop.
Actually, Dell has coupon deals all the time. Most recently they had a 35% off coupon which drops 1 grand off the Inspiron XPS with the 7800GTX!
No question that a gaming laptop won't be as fast as a gaming desktop but... Sometimes gamers can't always be at their desks when the need arises. For example, airplanes, camping, road trips, at work, staying with the inlaws, etc. (I could go on!)
quote: With our desktop system using an AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 rather than an Intel part, we can definitely expect that the numbers will favor the desktop system
Redo! So why not us a system that is more comparable then? Also, more benchmarks please.
Although I don't like to be in the minority opinion most of the time, I have to be this time. The comparison was intended to show what this notebook that you would buy pre-built could do compared to the desktop system you would build yourself. I think the FX-55 system fits the bill as a control model quite well. First I need to know what the 7800 Go can do compared to a desktop system, then I need to know how several 7800 Go systems do compared to each other. That is the only way to get all the facts in this case. I must say that this does call for a DTR 7800 Go comparison, tho. I hope one is scheduled in the near future.
So, we're comparing a $3000 complete desktop system against a $5000 laptop. HOW UNFAIR!
As Derek has already pointed out, we wanted to compare the best that both platforms have to offer. We didn't even use an FX-57 but went with an older FX-55. We ARE becoming GPU limited at 1920x1200 4xAA, though, even with these super GPUs. The performance hit from enabling 4xAA makes that very clear. Our CPU could be twice as fast, and the 1920x1200 4xAA numbers aren't going to go up very much.
way to go on the defensive...how hard would it have been to get a P4 3.8 system together? Honest, we would have waited another day or two if time is so important.
Anyways, about the lappy. Nice, but why in god's name would you use a prescott in a mobile system? That just boggles my mind. A 2.4GHz Turion or a high end Pentium M would perform damn fine, and make the thing about 3 pounds lighter and get a hell of a lot more battery life.
And if you're looking for a decently priced gaming lappy, ABS makes some decent ones for around $1300-1400, Pentium M 1.7 1GB DDR2-533, 60GB HDD, 600gt Go, 15.4" widescreen, etc. Does about as well as my 9800pro based system in games.
You're a dipshit! What is the purpose of this comment?
quote: but why in god's name would you use a prescott in a mobile system?
Because not everyone runs an AMD system. Next dumb question.
quote: ABS makes some decent ones for around $1300-1400
Not part of the test. Now go into your bathroom and look in the mirror. Is there an orange light in the middle of your forehead? If yes, pull the power cord out of your ass and plug it into the outlet. Come back when your brain is fully charged.
I'm sorry, maybe my supposed AMD fanboism is clouding my judgement, but please, PLEASE, give me a good reason why one would use Intel's hottest single core proc in a frickin' mobile chassis?! The thing probably draws more juice than a whole system with a pentium M in it.
And my brain is fully charged thank you very much. Might want to check your own though.
quote: but why in god's name would you use a prescott in a mobile system?
Because not everyone runs an AMD system. Next dumb question.
Uhh, Pentium-M? Next dumb answer.
quote: Now go into your bathroom and look in the mirror. Is there an orange light in the middle of your forehead? If yes, pull the power cord out of your ass and plug it into the outlet. Come back when your brain is fully charged.
This is about the most constructive reply I've read all day. In fact, you should win the Nobel prize for most constructive post of the year here.
Since this laptop was soley aiming at the hardcore gamer, why not use that 2.26ghz P-M in there? Battery life would go up, and heat output would drop. The difference in gaming power between the two would be small enough to not matter at such a high resolution. If they were truly worried about keeping the same amount of CPU power in there, they could have still used a low voltage 2.4ghz Turion. It would still be infinitely better in the heat and power department.
quote: Battlefield 2 did the worst ... at 1920x1200 with 4x AA enabled, it still achieved 38.2 fps, which is playable. ... The other 2 games have no trouble at all with AA enabled at 1920x1200 resolution.
So the Doom3 score at 39.7 fps qualifies as "no trouble at all", but poor BF2 is merely "playable"? I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere. 39 fps ftw!
Battlefield 2 did actually perform the worst at 19x12 with 4xAA. Worst out of the tests run does not necessarily mean it performance was unsatisfactory. Playable is playable ...
At the same time, Doom 3 remains playable down around 30 fps while BF2 really does need a little more help. With the fast paced multiplayer action of BF2, higher framerates often make or break the game. They are two different games judged on their own merits of playability.
I'm extremely sceptical about Anandtech's general remarks about FPS games being "playable" at 30-40 fps AVERAGE. Old CS is unplayable if the fps drops below 40 nowadays, and I get 30+ average in ET but sure as hell can't shoot straight when it drops to 10-20 in the heat of the fight or explosions. Average framerates are only an indication, you guys should hurry up with your benchmark tool which should give usefull fps numbers for actual experience. Until then I request that you stop putting your judgement on playablity between objectively measured numbers...
Oh, you were talking about BF. That's an exception as it's not a FPS but a simulation game.
Battlefield 2 is not a simulation imo...but it is playable somewhat in the 30 fps range....I managed to get pretty decent scores with only 15-35 fps (got top in a 64 person server).
I've seen the posts for other articles saying the Anandtech has dropped a bit in their reviews, and I was a bit sceptical of that, but with this one I just can't hold back. The systems are way too different to give much of a comment about anything. Yes, I realise we're comparing a desktop to laptop systems, but would it have been that hard to get a desktop system and put a P4 670 in it with 2GB of DDR2-533? These are desktop parts... not exactly uncommon... The Athlon 64 has been shown time and time again to be the performance leader for gaming, and there's no reason why this review couldn't have been done properly. You didn't even have the same amount of RAM between the systems - wtf is up with that? Other reviews have shown that some games do depend on RAM, while others don't, which is now adding more variation to the results.
It may sound arrogant, but this truely is a poor review... Can these reviews please be a little more scientific next time?
They're testing the graphics, not the systems. What you want is to minimize the effect the CPU has on performance here. Memory has VERY little impact above 1GB. 1 fps doesn't count.
Yes, they are meant to be testing graphics. As you say, they should be minimizing the impact any of the other system components have on the results. Hence my point of why not keep the cpu and the memory the same - whether it's 1GB or 2GB, equal memory would make the results more applicable to finding the difference between the chips.
I fully agree - the review appears to be aimed at comparing the desktop 7800 to the mobile 7800, not the notebook as a whole against powerful desktop. If it was a Pentium-m system I can appreciate it's more difficult to match a desktop system but using an FX-55 against a P4 670 makes the performance figures almost useless, we have no idea if the performance differences are due to the faster processor or differences in the 7800.
quote: due to the faster processor or differences in the 7800
I disagree. Although the 3.8 is slower than a FX-55, neither video cards would be CPU bound in those systems. And the difference in memory sizes doesn't have that great of an effect on performance.
The comments on the benchmark seem to imply AT are comparing the 7800s, not a complete system. If the latter was their intention, the review should have been written to reflect this.
This is a high-end notebook and it should be compared against a high-end desktop system. While it may not be a good indicator of raw graphics power, it does show what you'll get with this notebook compared to an uber-fast desktop system. Frankly, I'm impressed with the numbers that the GeForce Go 7800GTX put out in a system with obvious limitations.
quote: This is a high-end notebook and it should be compared against a high-end desktop system. While it may not be a good indicator of raw graphics power, it does show what you'll get with this notebook compared to an uber-fast desktop system. Frankly, I'm impressed with the numbers that the GeForce Go 7800GTX put out in a system with obvious limitations.
This was our take on comparing the systems -- gamers will really want to know if a notebook will be able to perform as well as the highest end desktops. The tradeoff in performance is important even if mobility is helpful. That's a lot of money to drop on a notebook, and I could build our desktop box for much less.
The point is this: just because it's got a desktop processor and a Go 7800 GTX does not mean it will perform the same as the highest end desktops out there.
"gamers will really want to know if a notebook will be able to perform as well as the h1ighest end desktops."
Well, judging by the number of complaints I would say you're out of touch with your audience! Gamers already know that a high end desktop will be faster than a high end laptop. Give us a little credit please!
i agree. i've always thought there are two ways to go about making a review fair: use as similar components as you can, other than the one being tested, and get as similar a price out of each setup as you can. obviously, these types of notebooks cost probably as much as a high end desktop, so i think this comparison is fair and give you a good idea of what you give up if you choose to spend $2500+ on a portable rather than a desktop. of course, the portable is portable, so has all those benefits.
a thought for portable/notebook reviews: a subjective review on using the system to take notes in class (on a little college desk), lugging around campus (whether it fits in backpacks, lockers, etc), that sort of thing.
Well there are two reviews much more useful that AT will hopefully conduct with this laptop soon:
*Comparison against the previous desktop replacement gaming laptop which I believe sported some sort of high-end ATI Mobile GPU. This shows how it compares to what else is up for comparison to potential buyers. Let's see just how much this new GPU boosts performance versus the previous champions.
*Comparison with a desktop with the same CPU, RAM count, and a real 7800GTX, to get a better idea how much performance is lost if someone goes with a laptop instead of a desktop for their next upgrade. Let's see just how much performance is lost and price is increased for the same parts in a laptop, because it's a joke how much they charge for those things. (okay the last bit is just my opinion.)
I have to agree. When I saw the desktop system I didn't understand what the point of the comparison would be. Also why not wait to throw the Dell machine in? Then compare the differences between the two, with heat, speed, and battery life.
No, Clevo have produced a chassis which offers the Pentium-m and 7800go which should be available from Sager in the US although I don't know the name of the chassis. Similar to the Dell XPS M170 it's a 17 inch laptop around 3.8kg weight with the usual notebook options.
In the UK, it's available as the Rock Xtreme CT and Evesham C720 although many will probably follow.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
52 Comments
Back to Article
yacoub - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Hey, here's one thing that would be really useful... a nice chart of all the crazy Intel mobile processors organized by speed and features. It gets a bit confusing looking at a laptop site that lists Pentium IVs and Pentium-Ms and whatnot with all their 3-digit numbers like 760+, 780. What is ideal for gaming?timmiser - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
I agree. And maybe a simple benchmark number that gives you a general idea of how much faster/slower is a 2.2 GHz P-M vs. a 3.8 GHz P4, etc.Kung Lau - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Why is there such a bitch and whine crowd for reviews? It's like Siskel and Ebert, if you don't like their reviews, go find one you like. Wait, do you pay for this service? I can see pointing out technically inacurracies to a point, but the majority of this complaining seems counter-productive.Is there a world wide recognized standard for reviews for geek gear or something? I'm not talking comparative analysis for the metric nazis here. Apparently, what a kid did out of fun and interest of the hobby years ago and gained worldwide notoriety for it has become, for better or for worse, a watering hole for all the "what if..." wannabes.
Make your own website and speak of things in the manner you want if you didn't like how it was said here.
To be semi-on topic, I can see why they reviewed it the way they did. And if I didn't, why whine about it?
If there is a bad review or information here, I should read/hear about it from Tom's or some other site, not a comments thread from hell. C'mon.
Honestly, the forums have mods, maybe the comments section should too.
/rant off
Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Following your point of view, why should Anantech allow a comments system if people are not allowed to comment?I hold Anandtech to a higher standard than most because over the years I've enjoyed their articles and trust the site more than others, and I'm sure many people are the same, so when AT post an article which does not appear up to scratch it receives criticism.
As pointed out already, most people are aware that an FX desktop will beat a P4 notebook which is all this article shows - by comparing like for like we would have useful figures which showed the performance loss going with the mobile graphics card.
John
timmiser - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
We are simply providing feedback. In this case it is mostly negative but that is not necessarily a bad thing.I remember AT a few months ago did a review of a computer case that looked like a transformer robot! There was a lot of feedback of people complaining about AT doing reviews of these boxes that seemed like they were designed by kids for kids.
After the complaints, Anand himself posted in the forum and agreed with the viewpoint and promised that he would not allow any future reviews of these "toy" cases and focus more on "adult" cases.
Here is the link that I'm referring to that proves constructive criticism is good for everyone.
http://www.anandtech.com/casecooling/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/casecooling/showdoc.aspx?...
Now some people in this thread must get insulted at criticism somehow and resort to name calling which really detracts from the quality of the discussion. :(
Leper Messiah - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
IMHO, why is Tom's Hardware more important than our opinions? We are the ones who validate the acurracies or lack thereof of their reviews. Maybe our tone is a little harsh, constructive critsism goes much further than flames, but we have to hold the reviewers to a certain standard, otherwise, how do we know what products to buy? We instill a certain level of trust to the reviewers, and we expect that trust to be returned with fair reviews.Nothing Personal Jared and Crew. You guys are still the best on the web IMHO, but everyone makes mistakes.
gmyx - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Now that you have reviewed a laptop, how about looking at others. Such as Eurocom laptops (http://www.eurocom.com">http://www.eurocom.com) and click on "Model Listings" for all of their models. They do have a laptop with the Go 7800 GTX and you choise of Proc. Intel or AMD (including the FX chips) (F-Bomb series for AMD chips and Phantom for Intel.) For the almost the same price has the revied model. Also interesting is their all-in-one Notebook PCs which uses 3.5 inch drives instead of 2.5inch. Also, all laptops are upgradable including proc, memory and hard drives. I was also told that they are working on SLI and may have it available soon. Despite the name, they are a Canadian builder (not reseller). It's worth a look. I've used their laptops before.Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Eurocom are a Clevo reseller (as is Hypersonic) and many others - the Eurocom site actually copied text directly from one of the UK Clevo sellers (Rockdirect), they forget to change the laptop name though!John
gmyx - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Thanks, I just learned something! They are still very good laptops. And I still think they (Eurocom or Clevo or other) should be looked at.jediknight - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
why not keep all of the other components the same?The relative performance of the desktop to the mobile part would be much clearer if you used a P4 3.8 (etc.) for the desktop benchies. As it is, we know that a high end desktop will perform better than a high end laptop.. no @$#() it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
cryptonomicon - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Wouldn't it have made the benches slightly more accurate if the same processor was used?Don't tell me intel doesnt give parts to AT to review anymore..
fishmonger12 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
i did a double take when i first saw the processors used... however, at high resolutions such as the ones used, the game wouldn't be very cpu limited. it still might account for a 3-5 frame difference though...timmiser - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
I'm thinking AT should just redo this just to prove their point!ElFenix - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
in the second to last article it claims that the power draw for the X1800XT is higher than that of the X850XT. but according to your initial X1800XT review, power draw for that part is lower than the X850XT. i can only imagine that what you really meant is the X800XT mobile part.ElFenix - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
as was stated early on, far too warm and too big to sit on your lap for any time. they probably shouldn't be called notebooks either. 13 lbs would put your leg to sleep. no, these should be called portables.what i really want, and no one really seems to provide, is a truely mobile notebook computer with good gaming capability. there is a big gap between the x300 type graphics you get on a laptop with good mobility and the 6800gt/7800gt/x800 graphics you can get on a portable that weighs as much as 2 text books and is too big to possibly open on an airplane or a cramped college desk. the acer ferrari/travelmate 8100 laptop is about as close as it gets (x700, under 7 lbs, 15" screen) but i find the warranty to be a bit lacking.
Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Dell have the Precision M70 which comes with a GeForce 6800 class card although since it's a Quadro you obviously pay a lot more for the machine.John
ElFenix - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
hmmm... looks like a latitude d810 with better gfx... i wonder why you can't get that gfx card in a d810? i wonder how much it would be to order the gfx card as a spare part for your d810? actually... comparing prices between the M70 and d810 it isn't that differentbbomb - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Didnt they just release the 6100 and 6150 GO mobile parts? And now a week later the 7800GTX Go part? Why did they even bother with the 6x series then?JarredWalton - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Because they don't cost $500+ for just the GPU. Those are the budget offerings for laptops. If you want a $1000 lappy with okay graphics, that's what you'll get.yacoub - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
I'd totally pay $1800 for one of those. Sadly, it probably retails for almost three times that much. Laptops are the ultimate rip-off. Shame, 'cause it'd be nice to finally replace the desktop with something still decent for gaming. It's simply not worth paying three to four times as much though. $1500 will get you a high end AMD-based system with a real 7800GTX.timmiser - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
We need a review of the Dell Inspiron XPS. You can get that with the cooler Pentium M and the 7800GTX and only costs about $2100. You don't get the dual hard drives for Raid 0 but for less than half the price, I could live with that.Now that would be interesting, a 3.8 Pentium vs. a Pentium M in a gaming laptop.
yacoub - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Nah, it's more like $3500-3800 for a decent Dell for gaming. Still way out of phase with reality. A laptop should cost the price of a desktop plus maybe $250-500 max premium for the mobile design costs. A $1500 desktop will blow away a $3500 laptop. That's just not right to pay three times as much and come away with less. Yeah, you can carry it around. You carry around your Less that you can't game so well on, and I'll stick with gaming on a desktop in the meantime. Besides, if you're really gonna game on that laptop, it's gonna be plugged in to an outlet and sitting on a desk not on your lap, so really when it is mimmicking a desktop it's even more apparent how much you get ripped off for the laptop.timmiser - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Actually, Dell has coupon deals all the time. Most recently they had a 35% off coupon which drops 1 grand off the Inspiron XPS with the 7800GTX!No question that a gaming laptop won't be as fast as a gaming desktop but... Sometimes gamers can't always be at their desks when the need arises. For example, airplanes, camping, road trips, at work, staying with the inlaws, etc. (I could go on!)
ksherman - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
How bout some pics of the lappydragonballgtz - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Redo! So why not us a system that is more comparable then? Also, more benchmarks please.
bldckstark - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Although I don't like to be in the minority opinion most of the time, I have to be this time. The comparison was intended to show what this notebook that you would buy pre-built could do compared to the desktop system you would build yourself. I think the FX-55 system fits the bill as a control model quite well. First I need to know what the 7800 Go can do compared to a desktop system, then I need to know how several 7800 Go systems do compared to each other. That is the only way to get all the facts in this case. I must say that this does call for a DTR 7800 Go comparison, tho. I hope one is scheduled in the near future.JarredWalton - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Let's take it one step further. The laptop as configured costs around $5000.FX-57 = $1000
7800 GTX = $500
Remainder = $500
24" LCD = $1000
So, we're comparing a $3000 complete desktop system against a $5000 laptop. HOW UNFAIR!
As Derek has already pointed out, we wanted to compare the best that both platforms have to offer. We didn't even use an FX-57 but went with an older FX-55. We ARE becoming GPU limited at 1920x1200 4xAA, though, even with these super GPUs. The performance hit from enabling 4xAA makes that very clear. Our CPU could be twice as fast, and the 1920x1200 4xAA numbers aren't going to go up very much.
Leper Messiah - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
way to go on the defensive...how hard would it have been to get a P4 3.8 system together? Honest, we would have waited another day or two if time is so important.Anyways, about the lappy. Nice, but why in god's name would you use a prescott in a mobile system? That just boggles my mind. A 2.4GHz Turion or a high end Pentium M would perform damn fine, and make the thing about 3 pounds lighter and get a hell of a lot more battery life.
And if you're looking for a decently priced gaming lappy, ABS makes some decent ones for around $1300-1400, Pentium M 1.7 1GB DDR2-533, 60GB HDD, 600gt Go, 15.4" widescreen, etc. Does about as well as my 9800pro based system in games.
bob661 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Because not everyone runs an AMD system. Next dumb question.
Not part of the test. Now go into your bathroom and look in the mirror. Is there an orange light in the middle of your forehead? If yes, pull the power cord out of your ass and plug it into the outlet. Come back when your brain is fully charged. You're a dipshit! What is the purpose of this comment?
Leper Messiah - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Wow, way to have a stick up your ass.I'm sorry, maybe my supposed AMD fanboism is clouding my judgement, but please, PLEASE, give me a good reason why one would use Intel's hottest single core proc in a frickin' mobile chassis?! The thing probably draws more juice than a whole system with a pentium M in it.
And my brain is fully charged thank you very much. Might want to check your own though.
Avalon - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
What is the purpose of this comment?
Uhh, Pentium-M? Next dumb answer.
This is about the most constructive reply I've read all day. In fact, you should win the Nobel prize for most constructive post of the year here.
Avalon - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Since this laptop was soley aiming at the hardcore gamer, why not use that 2.26ghz P-M in there? Battery life would go up, and heat output would drop. The difference in gaming power between the two would be small enough to not matter at such a high resolution. If they were truly worried about keeping the same amount of CPU power in there, they could have still used a low voltage 2.4ghz Turion. It would still be infinitely better in the heat and power department.peldor - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
So the Doom3 score at 39.7 fps qualifies as "no trouble at all", but poor BF2 is merely "playable"? I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere. 39 fps ftw!
DerekWilson - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
I believe you've missunderstood.Battlefield 2 did actually perform the worst at 19x12 with 4xAA. Worst out of the tests run does not necessarily mean it performance was unsatisfactory. Playable is playable ...
At the same time, Doom 3 remains playable down around 30 fps while BF2 really does need a little more help. With the fast paced multiplayer action of BF2, higher framerates often make or break the game. They are two different games judged on their own merits of playability.
Hope that helps!
Pannenkoek - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
I'm extremely sceptical about Anandtech's general remarks about FPS games being "playable" at 30-40 fps AVERAGE. Old CS is unplayable if the fps drops below 40 nowadays, and I get 30+ average in ET but sure as hell can't shoot straight when it drops to 10-20 in the heat of the fight or explosions. Average framerates are only an indication, you guys should hurry up with your benchmark tool which should give usefull fps numbers for actual experience. Until then I request that you stop putting your judgement on playablity between objectively measured numbers...Oh, you were talking about BF. That's an exception as it's not a FPS but a simulation game.
Jedi2155 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Battlefield 2 is not a simulation imo...but it is playable somewhat in the 30 fps range....I managed to get pretty decent scores with only 15-35 fps (got top in a 64 person server).Degrador - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
I've seen the posts for other articles saying the Anandtech has dropped a bit in their reviews, and I was a bit sceptical of that, but with this one I just can't hold back. The systems are way too different to give much of a comment about anything. Yes, I realise we're comparing a desktop to laptop systems, but would it have been that hard to get a desktop system and put a P4 670 in it with 2GB of DDR2-533? These are desktop parts... not exactly uncommon... The Athlon 64 has been shown time and time again to be the performance leader for gaming, and there's no reason why this review couldn't have been done properly. You didn't even have the same amount of RAM between the systems - wtf is up with that? Other reviews have shown that some games do depend on RAM, while others don't, which is now adding more variation to the results.It may sound arrogant, but this truely is a poor review... Can these reviews please be a little more scientific next time?
Phantronius - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Whine whine...bitch bitch.bob661 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
LOL! That's all I've been reading for the past week.bob661 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
They're testing the graphics, not the systems. What you want is to minimize the effect the CPU has on performance here. Memory has VERY little impact above 1GB. 1 fps doesn't count.Degrador - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Yes, they are meant to be testing graphics. As you say, they should be minimizing the impact any of the other system components have on the results. Hence my point of why not keep the cpu and the memory the same - whether it's 1GB or 2GB, equal memory would make the results more applicable to finding the difference between the chips.Johnmcl7 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
I fully agree - the review appears to be aimed at comparing the desktop 7800 to the mobile 7800, not the notebook as a whole against powerful desktop. If it was a Pentium-m system I can appreciate it's more difficult to match a desktop system but using an FX-55 against a P4 670 makes the performance figures almost useless, we have no idea if the performance differences are due to the faster processor or differences in the 7800.John
bob661 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
I disagree. Although the 3.8 is slower than a FX-55, neither video cards would be CPU bound in those systems. And the difference in memory sizes doesn't have that great of an effect on performance.Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
The comments on the benchmark seem to imply AT are comparing the 7800s, not a complete system. If the latter was their intention, the review should have been written to reflect this.John
bpt8056 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
This is a high-end notebook and it should be compared against a high-end desktop system. While it may not be a good indicator of raw graphics power, it does show what you'll get with this notebook compared to an uber-fast desktop system. Frankly, I'm impressed with the numbers that the GeForce Go 7800GTX put out in a system with obvious limitations.DerekWilson - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
This was our take on comparing the systems -- gamers will really want to know if a notebook will be able to perform as well as the highest end desktops. The tradeoff in performance is important even if mobility is helpful. That's a lot of money to drop on a notebook, and I could build our desktop box for much less.
The point is this: just because it's got a desktop processor and a Go 7800 GTX does not mean it will perform the same as the highest end desktops out there.
Note that this was also billed as a first look.
timmiser - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
"gamers will really want to know if a notebook will be able to perform as well as the h1ighest end desktops."Well, judging by the number of complaints I would say you're out of touch with your audience! Gamers already know that a high end desktop will be faster than a high end laptop. Give us a little credit please!
ElFenix - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
i agree. i've always thought there are two ways to go about making a review fair: use as similar components as you can, other than the one being tested, and get as similar a price out of each setup as you can. obviously, these types of notebooks cost probably as much as a high end desktop, so i think this comparison is fair and give you a good idea of what you give up if you choose to spend $2500+ on a portable rather than a desktop. of course, the portable is portable, so has all those benefits.a thought for portable/notebook reviews: a subjective review on using the system to take notes in class (on a little college desk), lugging around campus (whether it fits in backpacks, lockers, etc), that sort of thing.
yacoub - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Well there are two reviews much more useful that AT will hopefully conduct with this laptop soon:*Comparison against the previous desktop replacement gaming laptop which I believe sported some sort of high-end ATI Mobile GPU. This shows how it compares to what else is up for comparison to potential buyers. Let's see just how much this new GPU boosts performance versus the previous champions.
*Comparison with a desktop with the same CPU, RAM count, and a real 7800GTX, to get a better idea how much performance is lost if someone goes with a laptop instead of a desktop for their next upgrade. Let's see just how much performance is lost and price is increased for the same parts in a laptop, because it's a joke how much they charge for those things. (okay the last bit is just my opinion.)
Warder45 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
I have to agree. When I saw the desktop system I didn't understand what the point of the comparison would be. Also why not wait to throw the Dell machine in? Then compare the differences between the two, with heat, speed, and battery life.rqle - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Is dell the only one that offer PENTIUM M with the 7800GTX?Johnmcl7 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
No, Clevo have produced a chassis which offers the Pentium-m and 7800go which should be available from Sager in the US although I don't know the name of the chassis. Similar to the Dell XPS M170 it's a 17 inch laptop around 3.8kg weight with the usual notebook options.In the UK, it's available as the Rock Xtreme CT and Evesham C720 although many will probably follow.
John