Laptops vs Desktops vs i7 vs core 2 quad

I'm going off to college next year and I want a gaming laptop or desktop. I don't know which to choose. The desktop has a i7 processor with the x58 motherboard so i can upgrade to the i9 in the future. While as the laptop has the portability and i don't see the need for 6 cores in the near future until maybe 5 years or so. 2 cores were good for a while. Also I hear that the i7 weren't as good at gaming as the core 2 quad's. I'm thinking of the i7 950 not the 920 or 940. I wan't the desktop or laptop able to play games for the next few years. Also, alienware rated its m17x with a full bar at gaming than it's i7 desktop which got a little bit less than a full bar. My main concern is with the cpu's. The Gpu's for both are fine. What do you guy's think?

Just remember the number one rule for buying a new gaming PC:

Desktop>Laptop Always

I cannot emphasize this enough.

You can get the Clevo D900F also known as the Sager NP9280. It is a laptop but it has an i7 CPU... it can go all the way up to an i7 Extreme. That Laptop is great for doing your college work and for playing games. A set up that matches my gaming needs was going cost me around $3900 but I am sure you can customize yours to be much cheaper. Go to XoticPC.com and check one out :)

Just remember the number one rule for buying a new gaming PC:

Desktop>Laptop Always

I cannot emphasize this enough.

psn8214

What about in like 2000 years where all computers are at maximum gaming potential and make it to real life graphics capable, of doing infinite calculations a second, while being the size of a quater. only then will Pc=laptop

wait like 6 months for amd to realease their new processors that will be much etter than core i7's

In certain benchmarks the AMD Phenom II has beating the i7. i7 is overrated.

technology has no limits they will always be able to make it faster and better. Desktop wins especially if you build it your self (which you should)

I read that AMD will be releasing a 12-core cpu next year. That thing must take alot of power and cooling.

How about you get a Netbook for school and spend the rest on the best parts for a desktop you can get

The most important part is that you build it yourself, all of those companies that sell prebuilt systems rip you off.

Don't spend $2000 for $600 worth of parts.

If you have unlimited money, you can't go wrong with an I7. It is a phenomenal processor, but as was mentioned in this thread, it is highly overpriced. If you don't care to go on forums and say you spend $xxxx buying a gaming PC then I guess the PII 955 will do for you. It will perform the same in games and very close to I7's in compression, encoding etc. Instead of spending lots of $$$ on overpriced X58 mobos you could get yourself a nice quad crossfire 4890, which will, I swear, max any game at 24xAA and 1920x1200. But it is your choice. Spend $1000 on an I7 extreme edition, or spend $1000 on quad crossfire setup that will rape games?

For Core2 architecture, you definetelly won't be happy in gaming. Lack of L3 cache and no integrated memory controller make the response and memory bandwidth minimal, which then leads to microstuttering in gaming ang lower minimum fps. So it is either PII or I7.

To prove that I am not just a fanboy full of BS:

"In our previous testing with the 8.12 drivers, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates in the 23~24fps range on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results or higher on the others. Guess what, we still noticed that problem with the 9.3 drivers. However, the hitch and pausing we encountered previously was mitigated somewhat in our new tests. It was only in intensive ground scenes with numerous units that we really noticed the problem and it was primarily with the Q9550 platform. Both Phenom II systems had extremely stable frame rates along with very fluid game play during the heavy action sequences." -AnandTech

"What about the game play experience? As we mentioned earlier, the Intel Q9550 platform had some problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing - not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and online. The i7 platform would behave in the same manner at times, but the game play experience with it has certainly improved with the 9.3 driver set and BIOS upgrades. The problem is very likely driver related in some manner (as the man who helped to start DirectX once put it, "the drivers are always broken"), but nevertheless this continues to be a problem on the two Intel platforms." -AnandTech

And that is what matters. Not just the numbers and frames, but the gameplay experience.

If you have unlimited money, you can't go wrong with an I7. It is a phenomenal processor, but as was mentioned in this thread, it is highly overpriced. If you don't care to go on forums and say you spend $xxxx buying a gaming PC then I guess the PII 955 will do for you. It will perform the same in games and very close to I7's in compression, encoding etc. Instead of spending lots of $$$ on overpriced X58 mobos you could get yourself a nice quad crossfire 4890, which will, I swear, max any game at 24xAA and 1920x1200. But it is your choice. Spend $1000 on an I7 extreme edition, or spend $1000 on quad crossfire setup that will rape games?

Slig0

Just noticed that you said that Core2Duo's aren't sufficent for newer games. Alot of games and programs still can't use four cores and some people would be offended if you said they were inferior to Quads

I bet my E8400 would beat most Quad cores (4ghzx2 is alot faster that 2.6ghzx4 in most situations

For Core2 architecture, you definetelly won't be happy in gaming. Lack of L3 cache and no integrated memory controller make the response and memory bandwidth minimal, which then leads to microstuttering in gaming ang lower minimum fps. So it is either PII or I7.

Slig0

Core 2 looks good to me there, how about you?

Wow, looks good there too, hmmm.

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

For Core2 architecture, you definetelly won't be happy in gaming. Lack of L3 cache and no integrated memory controller make the response and memory bandwidth minimal, which then leads to microstuttering in gaming ang lower minimum fps. So it is either PII or I7.

opamando

You're both making rather irrational bipartisan claims against the other's processor of choice. One takes issues with the Core 2 architecture because ONE Anandtech article see some minor framerate stuttering - which btw they look to the drivers, not the architecture, as the culprit - and takes it a universal problem against the whole line. The other takes a couple graphics-intensive benchmarks and declares Phenoms suck over a couple FPS difference? Again btw, some of the Phenoms outdid some of the Core 2s as well, which hardly counts as suck.

Desktop>Laptop Always

psn8214

Depends on the Desktop/Laptop in question. Laptop could be more than desktop if the laptop is high spec and the desktop low spec. There are some pretty good laptops but you will spend a lot of money on those.

ive just got a new gaming lap top and its much better than my old desk top, its even better than my dads desk top which is pretty new

it plays all the games, none have really tested it yet

core 2s are still pretty good got the price

Yes, of course, ignorant Intel fanboys are to be expected. I said my arguments, and I said that the numbers do not matter, but the stupid Intel fanboy still posts them. Gosh you are all stupid.

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

For Core2 architecture, you definetelly won't be happy in gaming. Lack of L3 cache and no integrated memory controller make the response and memory bandwidth minimal, which then leads to microstuttering in gaming ang lower minimum fps. So it is either PII or I7.

opamando

Core 2 looks good to me there, how about you?

Wow, looks good there too, hmmm.

Haha, what an unintelligent fanboy.

"In our previous testing with the 8.12 drivers, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates in the 23~24fps range on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results or higher on the others. Guess what, we still noticed that problem with the 9.3 drivers. However, the hitch and pausing we encountered previously was mitigated somewhat in our new tests. It was only in intensive ground scenes with numerous units that we really noticed the problem and it was primarily with the Q9550 platform. Both Phenom II systems had extremely stable frame rates along with very fluid game play during the heavy action sequences." -AnandTech

"What about the game play experience? As we mentioned earlier, the Intel Q9550 platform had some problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing - not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and online. The i7 platform would behave in the same manner at times, but the game play experience with it has certainly improved with the 9.3 driver set and BIOS upgrades. The problem is very likely driver related in some manner (as the man who helped to start DirectX once put it, "the drivers are always broken"), but nevertheless this continues to be a problem on the two Intel platforms."-AnandTech

Numbers do not matter, Core2 introduces a ton of microstuttering and low minimum fps. Even the first Phenoms that are, honestly, pretty bad, handle games better than Core2. Sigh... NO INTEGRATED MEMORY CONTROLLER LEADS TO STUTTERING!!!

[QUOTE="opamando"]

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

For Core2 architecture, you definetelly won't be happy in gaming. Lack of L3 cache and no integrated memory controller make the response and memory bandwidth minimal, which then leads to microstuttering in gaming ang lower minimum fps. So it is either PII or I7.

chefkw

You're both making rather irrational bipartisan claims against the other's processor of choice. One takes issues with the Core 2 architecture because ONE Anandtech article see some minor framerate stuttering - which btw they look to the drivers, not the architecture, as the culprit - and takes it a universal problem against the whole line. The other takes a couple graphics-intensive benchmarks and declares Phenoms suck over a couple FPS difference? Again btw, some of the Phenoms outdid some of the Core 2s as well, which hardly counts as suck.

Drivers? For CPU? Boy you really do need to see that doctor, don't you? Well, then the problem wiht drivers didn't pass me either, because I had both top end and low end Core2's and their stuttering kills the will for gaming. In COH, when long ago I had an E4600, the fps would drop to 15~20 on 8800, then get back to around 100. On my friends PC which has twice less RAM, Athlon x2 5000+ the fps is rock solid. Gosh how much I hate fanboysm...

Well right now AMD's phenoms don't have DDR3 so I think that's why people dislike them. But now this year AMD is suppossed to release a new cpu that will.

Oh, darn. Phenoms don't have DDR3 and people have a reason to disslike them: because they suck. But, haven't you heard of Phenom II???

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131363

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674

Look at the specs.

[QUOTE="opamando"]

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

For Core2 architecture, you definetelly won't be happy in gaming. Lack of L3 cache and no integrated memory controller make the response and memory bandwidth minimal, which then leads to microstuttering in gaming ang lower minimum fps. So it is either PII or I7.

chefkw

You're both making rather irrational bipartisan claims against the other's processor of choice. One takes issues with the Core 2 architecture because ONE Anandtech article see some minor framerate stuttering - which btw they look to the drivers, not the architecture, as the culprit - and takes it a universal problem against the whole line. The other takes a couple graphics-intensive benchmarks and declares Phenoms suck over a couple FPS difference? Again btw, some of the Phenoms outdid some of the Core 2s as well, which hardly counts as suck.

I have advised plenty of people to go with AMD here recently, but this guy slig0 is trying to claim that Core 2's are no good for gaming, any one with common sense knows this is not true.

Don't you just love how the guy with an AMD avatar calls everyone else who tries to show him the truth a fanboy. Heck he will just now admit that the i7 is better than the PII.

[QUOTE="chefkw"]

[QUOTE="opamando"] Wow, what ignorance. You do realize Core 2's will handle games for YEARS to come. It was phenomes that suck for gaming not Core 2's. I7 is not much better than Core 2's in games, LOL. Please go do some research before posting.

opamando

You're both making rather irrational bipartisan claims against the other's processor of choice. One takes issues with the Core 2 architecture because ONE Anandtech article see some minor framerate stuttering - which btw they look to the drivers, not the architecture, as the culprit - and takes it a universal problem against the whole line. The other takes a couple graphics-intensive benchmarks and declares Phenoms suck over a couple FPS difference? Again btw, some of the Phenoms outdid some of the Core 2s as well, which hardly counts as suck.

I have advised plenty of people to go with AMD here recently, but this guy slig0 is trying to claim that Core 2's are no good for gaming, any one with common sense knows this is not true.

Don't you just love how the guy with an AMD avatar calls everyone else who tries to show him the truth a fanboy. Heck he will just now admit that the i7 is better than the PII.

First, the I7 is not better than PII. What do you care about my avatar? It is better than a large G in the middle of a circle. Aw, I guess you don't even know how to change your avatar, do you, you poor thing :( I say that Core2 isn't good for gaming because I am not on your (un)intelligence level. People like you only know to read numbers. When it comes to play experience, AMD bashes every Intel below I7. I have explained that phenomenon with reasonable arguments countless times to ignorant fanboys like you to prove that I am not only a fan of AMD, but unintelligent people like you just don't get it. Lol, you to show me the truth... To me, who have owned both processors... Actually, I do not care if you all like Intel. It is your choice. I am just trying to prove on every corner that you aren't right. But it results in this... People calling me a fanboy without any arguments to back their proof. You are actually a fanboy, lol.

Yes, of course, ignorant Intel fanboys are to be expected. I said my arguments, and I said that the numbers do not matter, but the stupid Intel fanboy still posts them. Gosh you are all stupid.

Slig0

ONE Anandtech article see some minor framerate stuttering

No, that is only an example to back my opinion and experience, which is the sam sluggish microstuttering hell. What else can I do? I have had both processors and know which plays better. I cannot do anything else to prove that i am right. You don't need to believe me, I honestly do not care what people with IQ 2 think about AMD or Intel.

Okay, I will ask opamando and CS45F kindly to never ever again talk to me. You just post your thoughts, I will mine. You guys are just... annoyng.

[QUOTE="cs45F"][QUOTE="Slig0"]

Yes, of course, ignorant Intel fanboys are to be expected. I said my arguments, and I said that the numbers do not matter, but the stupid Intel fanboy still posts them. Gosh you are all stupid.

Slig0

Yes. But how many Intel fanboys are here that you do not say such a thing to? Do not talk to me ever again. Fanboy.

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="cs45F"] I wouldnt be talking your the biggest AMD fanboy on this forum.cs45F

Yes. But how many Intel fanboys are here that you do not say such a thing to? Do not talk to me ever again. Fanboy.

I have nothing better to do, and I'm glad it's that way. I got moderated for saying "get a life" once on Tom's. A shame they don't do it here :D. Oh well, I might get a message for annoyng users. If no one else wants a fanboy fight from me, I think that this thread is concluded.