New Laptop: Hardware Recomendations

Rik

Howdy all

I'm in the market for a new notebook, and wanted some expert opinions on what type of rig I need to look for.

My primary usage for the notebook is for high poly modeling for environment / game level design. The highest priority is a rig that can run Unreal Tournament III, especially using UnrealEd III. I would assume quite a few of the PolyCount guys have a similar intention for their notebooks/PCs.

I'll be taking the notebook with me essentially everywhere, so portability and weight are a key. Obviously the smaller/lighter it is, the better. I don't think I'll need anything larger than the standard 15.4" widescreen.

If anyone has a specific brand or series they recomend, that'd be great. However, I can look for the exact one I'd like after I know what hardware specs I need. UT3 has a pretty demanding specs for the smaller notebooks I've seen. Recomended specs are:

2.4+ GHz dual-core processor
1 GB of RAM
NVIDIA 7800GTX+ or ATI x1300+ video card
XP SP2 or Vista

I know there's always been the debate of AMD vs Intel as far as processors go, and ATI vs NVIDIA; I've had different professors and coworkers recomend different rigs.

Long post, I know. I know that a lot of you guys are doing similar work; any help that you could give would be great. Obviously I want the biggest bang for my buck. I'm looking to spend right around a grand.

Let me know what you guys recomend. Thanks!

PolyHertz

If you're going to be running UT3 and want to stay below 17' notebooks, Geforce 8600 is really your only option. ATI cards dont seem to work too well these days with 3d modeling apps, and even though the 8600 is the most powerful current offering from Nvidia for 15' it still can only run UT3 at 800x600 or 1024x768 (depending on the variant) at useable speeds. Supposedly the 9700 is sceduled to be released soon in 15' Toshiba notebooks, but you'll have to wait and see on that one.

CPU listed is fine, but you'll want an absolute minimum of 2gb of ram (though I'd recommend 3 or 4, and ddr2 isn't exactly what I'd call expensive).

Also, haven't we had alot of these sort of threads lately?

Rik

Acutally I did a few searches for similar threads but didn't find any that were asking for the same information; most of what I found was more or less Vid Card A vs. Vid Card B. So...you know, my bad I guess?

As far as RAM goes, I didn't plan on anything less than 3Gb.

My concern with the graphics cards (whether ATI or NVIDA) is whether or not the card memory is shared or...I forget the word, but independent. You know, whether the card siphons power from your system or it runs solo. Integrated? Independent? Something along those lines.

So I'm going for 3 - 4Gb RAM
NVIDIA 8600+ GPU (although I'd like a larger resolution while maintaining high FPS)
Hard drive probably 200+ GB

I guess the only other key would be that type of processor to get. On my the PC I built, I've got an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Without over clocking, it runs at a steady 2,500Ghz). I like AMD quite a bit, even though they are now intertwined with ATI.

As far as the processor goes, dual core is an obvious, but as far as speed goes, what would be the equivalent speed for a notebook's processor? They've got the Athlon 64 X2 as well as the Turion series.

PolyHertz, I appreciate your quick response and help.

PolyHertz

The mobile 8600 gpu comes in two variations: 256ddr3, and 512ddr2. The vram they use is not integrated, though I believe some manufacturers have given the option to extend the memory in said manner through the bios. Obviously the ddr3 variant is the faster of the two, but the other will give you more texture memory, so it's sort of a 'pick your poison' type deal.

As for the processor, the Turion 64 X2 TL-68 is probably the closest you'll get to a Athlon64 x2 4800+ currently.

Rik

Perfect; thanks a lot PolyHertz.

I know a decent amount as far as hardware goes, but as far as the memory is concerned, the 256 DDR3 is faster simply because it is running 256 x 3, correct? Whereas the 512 DDR2 is a larger memory amount but runs slightly slower, correct?

My mind is a bit fuzzy, but when it comes to DDR, the number that follows is how many 'times' it uses the 256/512 memory amount, correct? So the former would act as 768Mb and the latter would run 512Mb.

Is that semi-correct?

StJoris

No,

"DDR (DDR1) has been superseded by DDR2 SDRAM, which has some modifications to allow higher clock frequency, but operates on the same principle as DDR. Competing with DDR2 are Rambus XDR DRAM. DDR2 has become the standard, as XDR is lacking support. DDR3 SDRAM is a new standard that offers even faster performance and new features.

DDR's prefetch buffer depth is 2 bits; DDR2 uses 4 bits. Although the effective clock speeds of DDR2 are higher than for DDR, the overall performance was no greater in the early implementations, primarily due to the high latencies of the first DDR2 modules. DDR2 started to be effective by the end of 2004, as modules with lower latencies became available.[5]

Memory manufacturers have stated that it is impractical to mass-produce DDR1 memory with effective clock rates in excess of 400 MHz. DDR2 picks up where DDR1 leaves off, and is available at clock rates of 400 MHz and higher.

RDRAM is a particularly expensive alternative to DDR SDRAM, and most manufacturers have dropped its support from their chipsets." Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR_SDRAM

Rik

StJoris wrote: »

No,

"DDR (DDR1) has been superseded by DDR2 SDRAM, which has some modifications to allow higher clock frequency, but operates on the same principle as DDR. Competing with DDR2 are Rambus XDR DRAM. DDR2 has become the standard, as XDR is lacking support. DDR3 SDRAM is a new standard that offers even faster performance and new features.

DDR's prefetch buffer depth is 2 bits; DDR2 uses 4 bits. Although the effective clock speeds of DDR2 are higher than for DDR, the overall performance was no greater in the early implementations, primarily due to the high latencies of the first DDR2 modules. DDR2 started to be effective by the end of 2004, as modules with lower latencies became available.[5]

Memory manufacturers have stated that it is impractical to mass-produce DDR1 memory with effective clock rates in excess of 400 MHz. DDR2 picks up where DDR1 leaves off, and is available at clock rates of 400 MHz and higher.

RDRAM is a particularly expensive alternative to DDR SDRAM, and most manufacturers have dropped its support from their chipsets." Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR_SDRAM

Ok, that explains quite a bit. However, I was questioning the difference/advantages of DDR2 and DDR3; I actually have never heard of DDR3. I work at a computer electronics store, and just haven't heard of or seen DDR3; never seen that listed on specs for a laptop. Excellent information though.