New laptop?

[Redrobes]

A small point to consider is that if you can do graphics on a proper graphics chip then it offloads it from the CPU and can save some power. In any case having a reasonable graphics chip will enable more apps to be run that need a little poke in that department. The ATI X300 or X600 or the NVidia Go series are both pretty good. The intel graphics chips are a bit duff. Basically graphics chips which share the main ram is not so good as those that have dedicated video ram.

If it needs to run half life 2 then you must have better than on board video and to run DVDs you need better than 800MHz or a dedicated MPEG decoder chip - though I reckon the half life 2 spec should be the more strenuous one to meet. If it can play that then I would think DVDs would be ok.

BTW... Bath as in the Spa ? Heh - just down the road...

 

[Ferret]

It'll just run noticeably slower (disclaimer: I've never tried to run Vista with only 1 GB, but reviewers are pretty consistent on this). It's about the equivalent of running XP (and Office 2000) with 256 MB; this will actually work, but it's not an enjoyable experience.

Right then....looking on Ebay, that's going to be the kicker I think. BUt I'm tryign to find some with those specs...

For notebooks, here's the CPUs in relatively recent systems from best to worst...

(best) Intel Core 2 Duo
AMD Turion 64 X2
Intel Pentium Dual Core 2050/2060*
Intel Core Duo*
AMD Turion 64
(worst) Intel Celeron M

If it has a CPU that's not on this list, then it's too old or very underpowered and you don't want it.

* These are actually the same thing with a different brand name

That's very handy. The Dell one is a AMD Turion 56 X2, and the one on ebay seem to have either the 64 X2/MK-36 or the Intel Centrino Core Duo T2450 (2.00GHz). One ofthe specs says this though: "Processor: AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile processor TL52 (2 x 1.6GHz)" Is that better than one of the 64X2s?

Almost all notebooks either have integrated graphics (and shared memory) or (relatively) low-end graphics cards. Reasonably current gaming graphics cards use too much power for anything you want to use unplugged for more than a few minutes.

So how do I know which one to pick?And also: A Graphics card that relies too heavily on the main CPU or a poor one that makes its own way? (that's the way it looks to me :\ )

A small point to consider is that if you can do graphics on a proper graphics chip then it offloads it from the CPU and can save some power. In any case having a reasonable graphics chip will enable more apps to be run that need a little poke in that department. The ATI X300 or X600 or the NVidia Go series are both pretty good. The intel graphics chips are a bit duff. Basically graphics chips which share the main ram is not so good as those that have dedicated video ram.

Ok...so the ones I can see are either the Nvidia Go (Much more expensive) or ATI X2300...there is one which says:ATi RADEON eXpress1100...what's that?! But basically I should look for those two you mentioned the ATIs and the Nvidia.

If it needs to run half life 2 then you must have better than on board video and to run DVDs you need better than 800MHz or a dedicated MPEG decoder chip - though I reckon the half life 2 spec should be the more strenuous one to meet. If it can play that then I would think DVDs would be ok.

On board video is like a virtual graphics card on the machine (somewhere), right? So I definitely need one, right? Well that's ok. But: 800MHz? Where does it say that on the specs? and a "dedicated MPEG decoder chip"?

BTW... Bath as in the Spa ? Heh - just down the road...

Ooh, a question I can answer!
Bath University, UK. I'm looking for a gaming group here

I can't find any laptops on Ebay Shops which meet both the Graphics and Memory requirements. I can Fine ones with Good graphics, and ones with good processors but not both together! Oh, I feel pretty lost! There are PLENTY which would be find with just 1Gb of mem, which I can upgrade...can't I?

I'm using this to try and find laptops, if anyone can help me spot a good deal.

 

[drothgery]

That's very handy. The Dell one is a AMD Turion 56 X2, and the one on ebay seem to have either the 64 X2/MK-36 or the Intel Centrino Core Duo T2450 (2.00GHz). One ofthe specs says this though: "Processor: AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile processor TL52 (2 x 1.6GHz)" Is that better than one of the 64X2s?

Sometimes people are rather impercise in giving CPU names on eBay.

Anything with Turion and X2 in it is a Turion 64 X2; AMD didn't make any dual-core 32-bit chips.

An AMD Turion 64 X2 TL56 is 1.8 GHz CPU of pretty much the same design as an Athlon 64 X2 desktop chip, tweaked to use less power; it'd be slightly slower than an Athlon 64 X2 3600+, slower than any Core 2 Duo, and about the equivalent of the similarly-clocked Core Duo T2400. A TL52 is the same chip, except clocked at 1.6 GHz.

A Turion 64 X2 MK36 doesn't exist; either the model number or the branding is wrong. An MK36 model number would indicate a single-core Turion 64.

Centrino is not a CPU name, and never has been; it's Intel's brand name for a combination of several things including an Intel mobile CPU (Pentium M, Core Duo, or Core 2 Duo), an Intel chipset, and an Intel wireless card. So in that case it's the Centrino Core Duo T2450 (2.00GHz) that's important.

So how do I know which one to pick?And also: A Graphics card that relies too heavily on the main CPU or a poor one that makes its own way? (that's the way it looks to me :\ )

There's really too much out there to give more than general guidelines. No reasonably priced notebook can play demanding, current games (at least, not anything in a form factor you could use in a coach class airplane seat). Older integrated graphics chipsets are okay for business apps under Windows XP, but may not be able to handle the new 'Aero' UI of Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate. The current ATi and Intel integrated graphics can handle the Aero UI in Vista, and maybe some older games. The dedicated video cards you'll see in reasonably current notebooks -- mostly low-end GeForce 7-series and Radeon X1xxx-series mobile parts (GeForce 8-series parts and Radeon 2xxx-series parts are just showing up now) -- can probably handle older games (like Half-Life 2), but don't try anything relatively new or any Xbox 360 ports out on them.

 

[Ferret]

So an ATI x2300 would run Half-life 2...well? Or badly?

And is there a lot of difference between 2.0, 1.8 and 1.6 ghz processor?

And finally can I repeat my question? One of the specs says: "Processor: AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile processor TL52 (2 x 1.6GHz)" Is that better than one of the 64X2s?

Thanks for the patience, this is really helping now!

 

[drothgery]

So an ATI x2300 would run Half-life 2...well? Or badly?

I don't know; I don't play PC games. By the specs on the game's page, I'd say it should be okay. A Radeon HD 2300 is a modern, low-end card; it's about the equivalent of a midrange card from when the game was new.

And is there a lot of difference between 2.0, 1.8 and 1.6 ghz processor?

Not really. If you're running something that's entirely CPU-bound (meaning that your processor is all that matters to how fast it runs), a 2 GHz CPU would be 25% faster than a 1.6 GHz processor of the exact same architecture (i.e. a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo vs. a 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo; it's not really practical to compare CPUs of different architectures by clock speed). But very few applications are; games depend heavily on your video card. A lot of other apps depend heavily on your hard drive and how much memory you have or how fast your network connection is. Many applications have to wait for human input often. Many use so few resources on modern hardware that even though one CPU might be a lot faster in theory, in practice you'd never notice.

And finally can I repeat my question? One of the specs says: "Processor: AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile processor TL52 (2 x 1.6GHz)" Is that better than one of the 64X2s?

I think you misunderstood me; an AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile processor TL52 (2 x 1.6GHz) is a Turion 64 X2. Its model number is TL 52, and it has 2 cores (like most modern CPUs other than extreme low-end chips with one and some extreme high-end chips with four) running at 1.6 GHz.

 

[Redrobes]

In terms of graphics again its a bit hard to be specific about the exact performance that a chip can give on an unknown machine but generally picking an ATI or nVidia type is better than the Intel or SiS type ones. Generally ATI and NVidia make high performance ones inc 3D stuff and the others are more generally suited or perhaps more limited to desktop applications that need to draw boxes, borders and fonts quickly. 3D stuff requires you to read memory very quickly and so having its own video ram means it can do that fast. If it has to go across a bus to reach the shared CPU memory then it will be slower doing that. I would imagine that the ATI chip which you are referring to would be at least reasonably good at 3D. I could not say for sure whether its good enough for half life tho.

As for Bath etc. I will PM / EMail though I'm not running a gaming group right now. I'm absolutely sure that the Uni will have a role playing club though. Staple diet for students right ?
I still have my foam sword from my Uni days with live action RPG. Masses of armored students charging around amok scaring tourists. Bit like the Holy Grail come to think of it...

 

[Ferret]

Thanks for all this guys/(galls?)! I'll be hunting for more stuff and see what I can find. If I have any more problem I'll pop back here!

Thanks again!

 

[seanmten]

Do Not go with the integrated intel Video cards.
I recently purchased the xps m1210 with the video card,
and i'm deeply dissapointed.
it can't run directx9, no 3d rendering.
nothing, half life 2 is probably out of the question.
just letting you know from personal exp. =]

 

[Rackhir]

So an ATI x2300 would run Half-life 2...well? Or badly?

Well the laptop you referenced at the begining uses a "ATI Radeon® Xpress 1270 HyperMemory (integrated)". That is basically a joke of a graphics card and others have mentioned the problems with shared memory (called HyperMemory in this case). The x2300 is essentially a slighly updated x1300 which is still a joke of a graphics card. That said it might still be adiquate to run HL2 since the game is 3 years old.

And is there a lot of difference between 2.0, 1.8 and 1.6 ghz processor?

Not anything horrific. Though there might be other system differences or differences between the processors other than just the clock speed. The 2.0 ghz might have a larger L2 cache which would give you a greater difference in performance than just the clock speed alone might indicate. The slower processors might have a slower system bus which could hurt performance vs the faster processor as well.

And finally can I repeat my question? One of the specs says: "Processor: AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile processor TL52 (2 x 1.6GHz)" Is that better than one of the 64X2s?

Well the 2 x 1.6 indicates that it is a dual core chip, like the 64x2. So there isn't going to be a performance difference on that score. All other factors being equal there probably isn't going to be much of a difference. Though the Turion is designed as a notebook chip and an Athlon 64 x2 isn't necessarily. Mostly though that would hurt battery life. Notebook CPUs are no longer necessarily slower than desktop chips (again all other things being equal).

 

[Ferret]

Thanks that makes it clearer still

So to sum it up, I want:

One of these:
Intel Core 2 Duo
AMD Turion 64 X2
Intel Core Duo

Mem:
2GB of ram

Graphics:
ATI X300 or X600 or the NVidia Go series


That about it then?