© 2003-2024 Ironclad Games Corporation Vancouver, BC. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2024 Stardock Entertainment
Search
Forum Home | Login
onomastikon
onomastikon
Join Date 02/2006
+18

Which of these two chips / cards / laptops is better? Thank you!

August 3, 2013 4:44:07 PM from Elemental ForumsElemental Forums


I am a bit of a computer idiot looking to replace my 3.5 year old Vaio laptop. This one has an Intel Dual Core P8700 chip which claims to have 2.53 GHz, and has an ATI Radeon Mobility 4650 graphics card (I cannot find out how much dedicated memory), running Windows 7 Home Premium on 6GB of RAM.

I am looking at two replacements, and would like to know which you believe to be the one which offers "more" (for the $$).

1. The first is the Acer I found here  looking at the second one down for 1199 Euros. This has an i7-4702MQ chip at 2.20GHz, and I have no idea what that means. It seems odd, considering my ancient Sony had 2.53. Is 2.20 really standard for nowadays? Also, it has an GeForce 760M graphics card.

So I'd like to know if that combo (chip/card) is much inferior to

2. The Asus I found here . I'm looking to add 8Gigs of RAM and a 128 SSD to it, so those spex would be equal to the Acer above. This one has a Core i7 3630QM at 2.4 GHz and a GeForce GTX 670 MX card.

Are those graphics cards / chips comparable? I don't understand those benchmark sites.

All things being equal, I would prefer the ASUS's cooling system to the Acer's, but the Asus' price tag is significantly higher.

Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

 

Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
Seleuceia
Join Date 01/2008
+240
Reply #1 August 3, 2013 5:07:17 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

It seems odd, considering my ancient Sony had 2.53. Is 2.20 really standard for nowadays? Also, it has an GeForce 760M graphics card.

In general, the more modern a chip, the better it is...a 2.2 GHz chip today is going to be better than a 2.2 GHz chip from 5 years ago....how much is hard to say but don't think modern chips are slower just because they seem to have slower speeds...

You also have to consider the number of cores...most nearly all of the newer intel chips have 4 cores (some more) while your current processor has only 2 cores...it depends on what exactly you are doing, but in general a 2.2 GHz quad core is going to be better than a 2.53 GHz dual core (even if both were of the same generation)...you could think of it as 2.2 GHz x 4 cores = 8.8 awesomeness vs. 2.53 GHz x 2 cores = 5.06 awesomeness....it doesn't quite work out like that but you get the point...

As far as I can tell, you are better off with the Asus...some programs are single-threaded (SoaSE is an example) and in those cases the speed of an individual core (2.53 vs. 2.2) is very important (since the game can only use one)...if you are into gaming, you probably still have games that are single-threaded and thus benefit from higher speeds per core...

Another huge advantage of the Asus is the cooling system...I cannot stress how important that is to the longevity and performance of your computer...hot processors don't run as well and continually running hot hurts their longevity...if you want to get a very nice 4 years out of your computer, that Asus will still be running well while the other computer won't probably run nearly as well as it did the day you got it...

A GTX 670M, in my opinion, is more than good enough....having the better cooling system and faster processor is going to trump the slightly better 760M card...that faster processor lengthens the time that your computer is still exceeding requirements for new games/programs and the cooling system extends the longevity...it'll cost more but you should be able to then wait longer before buying a new computer...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
flagyl
Join Date 06/2008
+22
Reply #2 August 3, 2013 5:31:38 PM
from Elemental ForumsElemental Forums

If you look at this link

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html#

you will see that the PC from Acer actually has better performance than the PC from ASUS (look at the 9th and 10th entries, respectively). That said, the difference (using this particular benchmark) seems to be so small that I would use different criteria (such as cooling, as Seleuceia has already mentioned) to make a comparison. You can also compare the two processors by price (click the 'Compare by Price' link at the top and then use 'Crtl-F' to find your specific processor).

 

I didn't see the amount of RAM the ASUS had; that might play a role in your buying process (more is better). Also, what will you be using the PC for (work, consuming media, gaming, etc)? Answers to these questions may help you get better answers.

 

Hope this helps.

+1
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
Seleuceia
Join Date 01/2008
+240
Reply #3 August 3, 2013 5:40:13 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting flagyl,
reply 2
you will see that the PC from Acer actually has better performance than the PC from ASUS (look at the 9th and 10th entries, respectively).

That really surprised me...well, you learn something new everyday....

+1
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
onomastikon
Join Date 02/2006
+18
Reply #4 August 3, 2013 5:49:29 PM
from Elemental ForumsElemental Forums


Thank you very very much for this excellent and helpful reply. Two brief follow-up questions, if I may.

 

a. Why do some games (apparently the single-threaded ones) only use one core? What do the other cores then do when only one is used to process the (main) application? And why do some games use this single-threaded technology? (I do have SoaSE, although haven't played it in 2 years.)

b. You say the 670MX is (slightly) inferior to the 760M. Why does the Asus come, in general, default with slightly inferior parts such as a graphics card, when it otherwise seems to be superior for gaming? Is this a (slight) design flaw, or is it simply because, as you say, the 670M is enough?

I really appreciate your help

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
flagyl
Join Date 06/2008
+22
Reply #5 August 3, 2013 6:28:45 PM
from Elemental ForumsElemental Forums

Well, according to this site,

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1245&gid2=1212&compare=geforce-gtx-760m-vs-geforce-gtx-670mx

 

it looks like the 670MX is the better performer. Again, I would look at a bunch of other websites (they might use other testing criteria).

 

The nomenclature of CPUs and GPUs can sometimes be worse than the names that the CIA would use to name a secret operation . In this case I would GUESS that the 'X' in the 670 MX is the deciding factor.

 

I hope this helps and hasn't confused you as it has me .

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
harpo99999
Join Date 02/2008
+407
Reply #6 August 3, 2013 7:30:06 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

the single thread issue for games is how  the game/program was created (single thread is a lot easier to write AND debug)

but from MY reading of the specs for the two comps the acer has '4 GB Nvidia GeForce GT 750M' while the asus has 'Nvidia GEFORCE GTX670 MX 3GB', as the 750 is TWO model levels down but ONE generation up the asus would be the better GAMING comp assuming that both screens are the same resolution, refresh speed and colour accuracy

regarding the cpu ghz the core2duo had a MAX clock that it ran at unless it was put into wait/sleep states(for the WHOLE cpu), but in the i3/5/7 cpu range intel introduced 'turbo boost' that can increase the ghz for a single core while sleeping the other cores (which benefits single threaded programs) and again the acer is one generation later(this generation gap claims to benefit battery life).

as others have suggested, think about all the things you want the computer to do, and choose based upon the main (and if budget permits- peak load) uses of the computer.

hope this helps

harpo

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
onomastikon
Join Date 02/2006
+18
Reply #7 August 4, 2013 12:25:57 PM
from Elemental ForumsElemental Forums


Thanks so much!

Am I correct in understanding those first "benchmark" pages http://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html# to indicate that the difference between the 9th and the 10th performing chip is negligable (7968 vs. 7764, whatever thoses numbers mean, a difference of 2,6% or so), but the difference between my current one (which is listed at 1677) is quite large (46% ??) ?

 

Probabaly the Acer is lighter, and probably the battery life would be better, but I have no idea of the quality of the screen on either. Anyone know?

THanks tons!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
onomastikon
harpo99999
Join Date 02/2008
+407
Reply #8 August 4, 2013 6:46:10 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

personally I would use the percentage difference, but regarding the weight, I did not see any mention of the weight of the comps, regarding the battery life assuming that BOTH comps have batteries of the SAME capacity then the acer would be expected to operate on battery for a longer time, BUT it is possible that the computer manufacturer reduced the battery size to reduce the weight while still getting similar run times.

harpo

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time: