|
Hey guys
I'm unfortunately forced into buying a laptop for SC2 as I will be doing a lot travelling abroad in the near future.
The laptop will be used exclusively for SC2 gaming (well almost).
So what I need your help with is determining whether or not this laptop that I found can run the game at low or high+ settings respectively - with absolutely 0 lag/100% smooth experience. I really can't stress the 0 lag/smooth part enough, I'm allergic to lag, it completely ruins my game experience. By the way I'm not talking about the lag that occurs in 200/200 fights, that will slow down even a big budget stationary. I basically wan't a lagfree/smooth experience early/mid-game. Obviously I'm assuming a solid internet connection :-)
The laptop:
1020 dollars
Acer Aspire V3-771G
Intel Core i5 3210M / 2.5 GHz - Turbo speed 3.1 GHz / Dual core / L3 - 3 MB
8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1600 MHz
500 GB HDD / 5400 rpm
17.3" 1600 x 900
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M - 2 GB DDR3 VRAM
You might say, why not just get a more powerful laptop if you want to be sure, which is a good point, but money plays a part aswell :-)
Thanks guys!
|
how much are you putting in the laptop?
|
It's 1020 dollars, but that's not the issue here, it's strictly a performance question.
In Denmark it's about as good a deal as you can get at this level of horsepower, question is if it's enough :-)
|
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.
Do you have any options?
|
I have the second that - GT 630 is weaksauce. Find a Denmark reseller that hold the Clevo W150ER/Sager NP6165 with a GT 650M. That should be able to run SC2 on high at 1366x768, or 1080p on low.
http://www.xnb.dk/
http://www.mm-vision.dk/
http://www.novabook.dk/
Also, the Clevo W110ER/Sager NP6115 is an 11" inch screen, $200 cheaper, and 768p will be the native resolution so 1366x768 at high on SC2 won't be as blurry as the W150ER.
|
Will the laptop run the game smooth / lagfree with all settings on low?
Like i already wrote, im trying to find out whether or not this exact laptop is able to run the game smooth at high+ / low settings respectively.
Thanks
|
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions.
|
The GT630M is ok but it is usually found in much cheaper laptops! You need to look round for a much better deal, the spec in that laptop is actually crap for $1000
|
Actually, you almost got it right  . Get this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215404
but with an i5 processor. GT630 is ok for laptops, but GT640 is newer generation and much better for the price. You don’t want to carry a 17,3’’ laptop around. Also, don’t expect it to be extremely durable, you’d need a Lenovo Thinkpad and they usually don’t have good graphics cards.
|
Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P.
GT630M and the crap DDR3 version of it - the DDR5 version, if the Acer has it, will perform better, and even this one shows almost playable FPS on high.
650M lowest version gets 35 fps on ultra @ 1080P (which is probably a DDR3 version). Whine about notebookcheck's benchmark system all you want, but no amount of flaws is going to reduce it to "1080P on low" like the above person is suggesting.
If you want a better website's benchmarks of gaming on a 640M (which is weaker than a 650M) go here. The 640M can play Skyrim on medium @ 1080P with FPS to spare, and skyrim is much more intense than SC2.
OP, to answer your question, yes a 630M can easily play SC2 on any resolution on low easily. It's a rebranded 540M (sometimes 550M iirc) which I believe was recognized to play SC2 decently on medium @ 1080P.
+ Show Spoiler + Anandtech bench of the 540M on Starcraft 2 at 1080P on low, it gets 90 FPS. Performance should be exactly the same or better as well. I know the bench says 1366x768, but look at the L502X, and it lists 1080P. At the listed resolution though, it gets 120 I believe.
+ Show Spoiler + SC2 on ultra @ 1600x900 gets just over 30 FPS. On 1080P, it's just under 30 FPS, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that.
Please don't say these "it can barely play low" without proof >.>
Edit: He lives in Denmark, he can't buy from Newegg. That might be why price seems high as well, prices aren't comparable across countries.
On July 02 2012 01:07 Filter wrote:
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions.
Advice like this is just blatantly wrong, do you have any proof to back it up?
dust will ruin any computer. You should clean your computer of dust even if you have an Alienware.
On July 02 2012 00:32 Thezftw wrote:
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.
Do you have any options?
Your issue is the whole "not looking at any charts or specifications" seeing as it ISN'T trash. It definitely is weaker than most, but it's more than enough to handle SC2. Giving advice is a terrible idea if you have no better knowledge than "it's laptop GPU, so it must suck."
|
On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:
Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P.
...
Absolutely, just bear in mind people buy laptops only to find out that they’re not good enough for a particular new game. If the OP expects a lot of travelling then for example ThinkPad Edge E430 would be just fine, but as a gamer I’m reluctant to expect another gamer to invest into a laptop barely good enough for SC2.
|
Well yeah, but that's what these threads/benchmarks online are for. OP asked this thread so that he WOULDN'T be surprised about the laptop not being good enough for a particular game, but tons of the people here dismissed it and said "it sucks" some of them without even doing any research.
An Edge E430 would actually work because the HD4000 can play SC2 fine. But he has more money than that, and it's not "barely good enough," I think all of the charts I posted prove that 630M can more than handle SC2, just not at ultra (Unless you were referring to the Edge, which does kind of "barely" take SC2, although you would need to define barely). Now, if OP plays more intensive games than SC2, that's something else to evaluate entirely, but because SC2 is so simple on the GPU side, even laptops can handle it very easily. (I don't know an IGP out there that can't play at some variation of low settings and X resolution, except for maybe the C-50/Atom processors)
I mean, giving advice is fine and all, but please use some kind of research to back it up. It does suck that the laptop marketing scheme is so convoluted that a 7970 performs like a 7870/50 (don't remember which), but performance isn't quite as bad as people make out now, especially with power envelopes being reduced overall and stuff (allows you to narrow the gap much more easily... I mean the fastest laptop CPU out there performs at stock 3770 speed w/o Turbo. Obv it is much more expensive, but it's just to illustrate a point.)
|
On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P. GT630M and the crap DDR3 version of it - the DDR5 version, if the Acer has it, will perform better, and even this one shows almost playable FPS on high. 650M lowest version gets 35 fps on ultra @ 1080P (which is probably a DDR3 version). Whine about notebookcheck's benchmark system all you want, but no amount of flaws is going to reduce it to "1080P on low" like the above person is suggesting. If you want a better website's benchmarks of gaming on a 640M (which is weaker than a 650M) go here. The 640M can play Skyrim on medium @ 1080P with FPS to spare, and skyrim is much more intense than SC2. OP, to answer your question, yes a 630M can easily play SC2 on any resolution on low easily. It's a rebranded 540M (sometimes 550M iirc) which I believe was recognized to play SC2 decently on medium @ 1080P. + Show Spoiler + Anandtech bench of the 540M on Starcraft 2 at 1080P on low, it gets 90 FPS. Performance should be exactly the same or better as well. I know the bench says 1366x768, but look at the L502X, and it lists 1080P. At the listed resolution though, it gets 120 I believe. + Show Spoiler + SC2 on ultra @ 1600x900 gets just over 30 FPS. On 1080P, it's just under 30 FPS, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Please don't say these "it can barely play low" without proof >.> Edit: He lives in Denmark, he can't buy from Newegg. That might be why price seems high as well, prices aren't comparable across countries. Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:07 Filter wrote:
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions. Advice like this is just blatantly wrong, do you have any proof to back it up? dust will ruin any computer. You should clean your computer of dust even if you have an Alienware. Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:32 Thezftw wrote:
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.
Do you have any options? Your issue is the whole "not looking at any charts or specifications" seeing as it ISN'T trash. It definitely is weaker than most, but it's more than enough to handle SC2. Giving advice is a terrible idea if you have no better knowledge than "it's laptop GPU, so it must suck."
The OP is looking for basically 0 frame drops outside of the large battles, benchmarks from a site listing no other specs don't really cut the mustard. You're overlooking not only the original post but the rest of the computers specs. The only thing you look at is what that specific card scores on a particular benchmark. Nowhere on that site does it measure that particular laptop, either under stress or after a prolonged gaming session.
That particular laptop is nothing more than a budget performance machine. It's not designed for games, it's built for photoshop, video editing and people like you that only read the specs while discounting the rest of the machine. That laptop will NOT have sufficient cooling to handle a 2 or 3 hour sc2 session let alone a longer one. It's designed to hold up for short busts of required performance like home videos for youtube.
The i5-3210 is also a dual core chip that gets stressed to four cores, again designed for performance with general use. That's actually the worst case scenario when you start talking specifically about sc2 because it will cause a huge amount of stress on the cpu while gaming because sc2 can't use four cores. Windows sees that i5 as a quad core, but in reality it's a dual core meaning sc2 is basically working off 1 core (all be it turbo boosted) but the laptop won't be able to handle that for very long.
In terms of dirt and dust, it happens. Without disassembling a laptop you'll never get all the crap out of and most laptops have poor cooling to begin with. No amount of careful maintenance will help with that, and that will drop performance. What performs great out of the box will see a dip as time goes on.
You also start comparing the 640m and 650m chipsets which are not really relevant to the op's question.
What I'm trying to say is don't post uniformed opinions based on review sites testing chipsets in perfect conditions. The 630 chipset itself is fine, the laptop when taken as a whole and looking at the op is not what he is looking for. Want to find proof? Tell the OP to buy that laptop and play 8 hours of sc2 on, then test his framerate. It'll be garbage by that point.
Edit: And if you really want proof my laptops running an i5-2410 and gt525, according to your charts an i380 with gt525 is supposed to get 75% of the performance of the machine at the top of the charts there (Which has a far superior cpu to the op's question laptop) and I get 40-45 fps for most of a multiplayer game, as I play more games on it that drops by a large margin. My laptop is designed to be a powerful portable machine in bursts, not a gaming laptop just like what the op posted. My laptop is extremely well maintained and still performs exceptionally well for what I use it for but it is not designed for games, does not have the cooling for them and is built for power in short bursts.
|
Add that to the fact that those benchmarks have absolutely no value since all of them were tested with i7's, not low end i3's.
|
On July 02 2012 03:08 Filter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P. GT630M and the crap DDR3 version of it - the DDR5 version, if the Acer has it, will perform better, and even this one shows almost playable FPS on high. 650M lowest version gets 35 fps on ultra @ 1080P (which is probably a DDR3 version). Whine about notebookcheck's benchmark system all you want, but no amount of flaws is going to reduce it to "1080P on low" like the above person is suggesting. If you want a better website's benchmarks of gaming on a 640M (which is weaker than a 650M) go here. The 640M can play Skyrim on medium @ 1080P with FPS to spare, and skyrim is much more intense than SC2. OP, to answer your question, yes a 630M can easily play SC2 on any resolution on low easily. It's a rebranded 540M (sometimes 550M iirc) which I believe was recognized to play SC2 decently on medium @ 1080P. + Show Spoiler + Anandtech bench of the 540M on Starcraft 2 at 1080P on low, it gets 90 FPS. Performance should be exactly the same or better as well. I know the bench says 1366x768, but look at the L502X, and it lists 1080P. At the listed resolution though, it gets 120 I believe. + Show Spoiler + SC2 on ultra @ 1600x900 gets just over 30 FPS. On 1080P, it's just under 30 FPS, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Please don't say these "it can barely play low" without proof >.> Edit: He lives in Denmark, he can't buy from Newegg. That might be why price seems high as well, prices aren't comparable across countries. On July 02 2012 01:07 Filter wrote:
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions. Advice like this is just blatantly wrong, do you have any proof to back it up? dust will ruin any computer. You should clean your computer of dust even if you have an Alienware. On July 02 2012 00:32 Thezftw wrote:
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.
Do you have any options? Your issue is the whole "not looking at any charts or specifications" seeing as it ISN'T trash. It definitely is weaker than most, but it's more than enough to handle SC2. Giving advice is a terrible idea if you have no better knowledge than "it's laptop GPU, so it must suck." The i5-3210 is also a dual core chip that gets stressed to four cores, again designed for performance with general use. That's actually the worst case scenario when you start talking specifically about sc2 because it will cause a huge amount of stress on the cpu while gaming because sc2 can't use four cores. Windows sees that i5 as a quad core, but in reality it's a dual core meaning sc2 is basically working off 1 core (all be it turbo boosted) but the laptop won't be able to handle that for very long.
Somebody let me know wtf it is that I just read.
btw I don't think anybody is implying you look at benchmark scores while turning off your brain and ignoring the test hardware and which games may be more CPU or GPU limited in which scenarios.
|
On July 02 2012 03:21 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 03:08 Filter wrote:On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P. GT630M and the crap DDR3 version of it - the DDR5 version, if the Acer has it, will perform better, and even this one shows almost playable FPS on high. 650M lowest version gets 35 fps on ultra @ 1080P (which is probably a DDR3 version). Whine about notebookcheck's benchmark system all you want, but no amount of flaws is going to reduce it to "1080P on low" like the above person is suggesting. If you want a better website's benchmarks of gaming on a 640M (which is weaker than a 650M) go here. The 640M can play Skyrim on medium @ 1080P with FPS to spare, and skyrim is much more intense than SC2. OP, to answer your question, yes a 630M can easily play SC2 on any resolution on low easily. It's a rebranded 540M (sometimes 550M iirc) which I believe was recognized to play SC2 decently on medium @ 1080P. + Show Spoiler + Anandtech bench of the 540M on Starcraft 2 at 1080P on low, it gets 90 FPS. Performance should be exactly the same or better as well. I know the bench says 1366x768, but look at the L502X, and it lists 1080P. At the listed resolution though, it gets 120 I believe. + Show Spoiler + SC2 on ultra @ 1600x900 gets just over 30 FPS. On 1080P, it's just under 30 FPS, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Please don't say these "it can barely play low" without proof >.> Edit: He lives in Denmark, he can't buy from Newegg. That might be why price seems high as well, prices aren't comparable across countries. On July 02 2012 01:07 Filter wrote:
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions. Advice like this is just blatantly wrong, do you have any proof to back it up? dust will ruin any computer. You should clean your computer of dust even if you have an Alienware. On July 02 2012 00:32 Thezftw wrote:
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.
Do you have any options? Your issue is the whole "not looking at any charts or specifications" seeing as it ISN'T trash. It definitely is weaker than most, but it's more than enough to handle SC2. Giving advice is a terrible idea if you have no better knowledge than "it's laptop GPU, so it must suck." The i5-3210 is also a dual core chip that gets stressed to four cores, again designed for performance with general use. That's actually the worst case scenario when you start talking specifically about sc2 because it will cause a huge amount of stress on the cpu while gaming because sc2 can't use four cores. Windows sees that i5 as a quad core, but in reality it's a dual core meaning sc2 is basically working off 1 core (all be it turbo boosted) but the laptop won't be able to handle that for very long. Somebody let me know wtf it is that I just read. btw I don't think anybody is implying you look at benchmark scores while turning off your brain and ignoring the test hardware and which games may be more CPU or GPU limited in which scenarios.
I'm tired, consider it a horribly programmed sentence that can be condensed into 10 words.
i5-3210's are two physical cores, that act as quad cores.
|
On July 02 2012 03:08 Filter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P. GT630M and the crap DDR3 version of it - the DDR5 version, if the Acer has it, will perform better, and even this one shows almost playable FPS on high. 650M lowest version gets 35 fps on ultra @ 1080P (which is probably a DDR3 version). Whine about notebookcheck's benchmark system all you want, but no amount of flaws is going to reduce it to "1080P on low" like the above person is suggesting. If you want a better website's benchmarks of gaming on a 640M (which is weaker than a 650M) go here. The 640M can play Skyrim on medium @ 1080P with FPS to spare, and skyrim is much more intense than SC2. OP, to answer your question, yes a 630M can easily play SC2 on any resolution on low easily. It's a rebranded 540M (sometimes 550M iirc) which I believe was recognized to play SC2 decently on medium @ 1080P. + Show Spoiler + Anandtech bench of the 540M on Starcraft 2 at 1080P on low, it gets 90 FPS. Performance should be exactly the same or better as well. I know the bench says 1366x768, but look at the L502X, and it lists 1080P. At the listed resolution though, it gets 120 I believe. + Show Spoiler + SC2 on ultra @ 1600x900 gets just over 30 FPS. On 1080P, it's just under 30 FPS, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Please don't say these "it can barely play low" without proof >.> Edit: He lives in Denmark, he can't buy from Newegg. That might be why price seems high as well, prices aren't comparable across countries. On July 02 2012 01:07 Filter wrote:
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions. Advice like this is just blatantly wrong, do you have any proof to back it up? dust will ruin any computer. You should clean your computer of dust even if you have an Alienware. On July 02 2012 00:32 Thezftw wrote:
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.
Do you have any options? Your issue is the whole "not looking at any charts or specifications" seeing as it ISN'T trash. It definitely is weaker than most, but it's more than enough to handle SC2. Giving advice is a terrible idea if you have no better knowledge than "it's laptop GPU, so it must suck." The OP is looking for basically 0 frame drops outside of the large battles, benchmarks from a site listing no other specs don't really cut the mustard. You're overlooking not only the original post but the rest of the computers specs. The only thing you look at is what that specific card scores on a particular benchmark. Nowhere on that site does it measure that particular laptop, either under stress or after a prolonged gaming session. That particular laptop is nothing more than a budget performance machine. It's not designed for games, it's built for photoshop, video editing and people like you that only read the specs while discounting the rest of the machine. That laptop will NOT have sufficient cooling to handle a 2 or 3 hour sc2 session let alone a longer one. It's designed to hold up for short busts of required performance like home videos for youtube. The i5-3210 is also a dual core chip that gets stressed to four cores, again designed for performance with general use. That's actually the worst case scenario when you start talking specifically about sc2 because it will cause a huge amount of stress on the cpu while gaming because sc2 can't use four cores. Windows sees that i5 as a quad core, but in reality it's a dual core meaning sc2 is basically working off 1 core (all be it turbo boosted) but the laptop won't be able to handle that for very long. In terms of dirt and dust, it happens. Without disassembling a laptop you'll never get all the crap out of and most laptops have poor cooling to begin with. No amount of careful maintenance will help with that, and that will drop performance. What performs great out of the box will see a dip as time goes on. You also start comparing the 640m and 650m chipsets which are not really relevant to the op's question. What I'm trying to say is don't post uniformed opinions based on review sites testing chipsets in perfect conditions. The 630 chipset itself is fine, the laptop when taken as a whole and looking at the op is not what he is looking for. Want to find proof? Tell the OP to buy that laptop and play 8 hours of sc2 on, then test his framerate. It'll be garbage by that point. Edit: And if you really want proof my laptops running an i5-2410 and gt525, according to your charts an i380 with gt525 is supposed to get 75% of the performance of the machine at the top of the charts there (Which has a far superior cpu to the op's question laptop) and I get 40-45 fps for most of a multiplayer game, as I play more games on it that drops by a large margin. My laptop is designed to be a powerful portable machine in bursts, not a gaming laptop just like what the op posted. My laptop is extremely well maintained and still performs exceptionally well for what I use it for but it is not designed for games, does not have the cooling for them and is built for power in short bursts.
Do you even know what hyperthreading is? What you said makes absolutely zero sense. I'm not sure where you get SC2 running off of one core, it will utilize two physical cores, and not really need the hyperthreading. I want to explain where you're wrong, but I just can't make sense of your sentence. Having a dual core processor is definitely not the worst case scenario for SC2, are you saying it would be better to have a single core processor so that SC2 reads it as 2 cores and uses them, or are you saying you need 4 cores so that you can properly utilize 2?
I don't think benchmarks at 8 hours in are what he's looking for, and I still highly doubt that the laptop would go from playable on high to unplayable on low, no matter the temperature. The vast majority of laptop CPUs run at 75 celsius ish, but what people don't consider is the Tj max is like 105 for ivy bridge.
The reason I posted the info about 640M and 650M was because somebody above mentioned that the 650M could only handle low 1080P on starcraft 2. I was merely correcting him, I'm aware that it doesn't affect the OP.
You realize the point of benchmarks right? The specs don't matter. Almost all (if not all competent) benchmarks are designed so as to stress the particular piece of hardware in question. In this case, the scenario will put the GPU under more stress (bottleneck) than any other part of the laptop. I know SC2 is a CPU dependent game, but for the point of benchmarks, it is GPU dependent. (unless you're looking at CPU benches, but i think only Anand does that). That's why it's called a benchmark, and that's why you can rely on them without worrying about other specs. Now, if he had a C-50 paired with a GT630M, obviously there would be a discrepancy, but an i5-3210M is going to bottleneck long after a GT630M does. So, YES you need to look at the system, but in his case it doesn't matter.
Does the OP even play SC2 for eight hours? I don't think many people do that, and not people who "travel often" or whatever he said. That said, no normal laptop at that price is not going to lose performance to heat, therefore since it's a point that exists across the board, it's redundant and doesn't need to be taken into consideration. If there were a laptop with the exact same specs as his but it didn't throttle, then sure, but there probably isn't. He might be able to get a Sager I guess, but they don't save a ton on cost once you install the OS, and I don't know if he has sager's available in his area.
You're using arguments that affect every laptop, which is kind of stupid because no matter what the OP does he's going to run into. Dust WILL get into his system. But it will get into his system for every single laptop he could ever buy. And he will not be bottlenecked by 4gb ram, and he won't be bottlenecked by an i5-3210M before the GT630M bottlenecks him (unless disproportionate CPU settings I guess) so yes, the benchmarks are completely appropriate.
Did I miss anything? If I did, it's not because I have no answer for your argument, I'm sure I do, it was just a long post.
@Schreddert, that makes no sense... benchmarks are designed to stress the GPU, therefore CPU will have no bearing, unless you have a shit processor like a C-50 or an Atom. Which is never going to be paired with a 630M anyways.
Edit: L2 spell
|
On July 02 2012 03:27 Filter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 03:21 Myrmidon wrote:On July 02 2012 03:08 Filter wrote:On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P. GT630M and the crap DDR3 version of it - the DDR5 version, if the Acer has it, will perform better, and even this one shows almost playable FPS on high. 650M lowest version gets 35 fps on ultra @ 1080P (which is probably a DDR3 version). Whine about notebookcheck's benchmark system all you want, but no amount of flaws is going to reduce it to "1080P on low" like the above person is suggesting. If you want a better website's benchmarks of gaming on a 640M (which is weaker than a 650M) go here. The 640M can play Skyrim on medium @ 1080P with FPS to spare, and skyrim is much more intense than SC2. OP, to answer your question, yes a 630M can easily play SC2 on any resolution on low easily. It's a rebranded 540M (sometimes 550M iirc) which I believe was recognized to play SC2 decently on medium @ 1080P. + Show Spoiler + Anandtech bench of the 540M on Starcraft 2 at 1080P on low, it gets 90 FPS. Performance should be exactly the same or better as well. I know the bench says 1366x768, but look at the L502X, and it lists 1080P. At the listed resolution though, it gets 120 I believe. + Show Spoiler + SC2 on ultra @ 1600x900 gets just over 30 FPS. On 1080P, it's just under 30 FPS, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Please don't say these "it can barely play low" without proof >.> Edit: He lives in Denmark, he can't buy from Newegg. That might be why price seems high as well, prices aren't comparable across countries. On July 02 2012 01:07 Filter wrote:
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions. Advice like this is just blatantly wrong, do you have any proof to back it up? dust will ruin any computer. You should clean your computer of dust even if you have an Alienware. On July 02 2012 00:32 Thezftw wrote:
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.
Do you have any options? Your issue is the whole "not looking at any charts or specifications" seeing as it ISN'T trash. It definitely is weaker than most, but it's more than enough to handle SC2. Giving advice is a terrible idea if you have no better knowledge than "it's laptop GPU, so it must suck." The i5-3210 is also a dual core chip that gets stressed to four cores, again designed for performance with general use. That's actually the worst case scenario when you start talking specifically about sc2 because it will cause a huge amount of stress on the cpu while gaming because sc2 can't use four cores. Windows sees that i5 as a quad core, but in reality it's a dual core meaning sc2 is basically working off 1 core (all be it turbo boosted) but the laptop won't be able to handle that for very long. Somebody let me know wtf it is that I just read. btw I don't think anybody is implying you look at benchmark scores while turning off your brain and ignoring the test hardware and which games may be more CPU or GPU limited in which scenarios. I'm tired, consider it a horribly programmed sentence that can be condensed into 10 words. i5-3210's are two physical cores, that act as quad cores.
"Act as quad cores" is still pretty misleading, depending on your perspective. Anyway, what does that have to being able to with being able to run SC2? Were you implying that a program that can't make use of four cores is more stressful on a hypertheaded dual core than a program that can make use of four cores?
|
The benchmarks you posted are from sc2 with a very strong cpu, so yes the cpu does matter. The i5-3210 will absolutely bottleneck on sc2, 2500k's bottleneck sc2 in some situations (although very rarely). Under load in sc2 the 3210 will throttle, and it will only get worse over time as dust builds up. This is actually wrong, I'll correct it in my edit
I have no questions about the ability of a 630m to run sc2 on low, but I do have serious questions about the 3210 keeping up. I have even more questions about the laptop as a whole running as advertised considering Acer's reputation, I doubt the cooling is up to snuff.
Edit:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/StarCraft-2.35167.0.html
That's their benchmark for sc2, I ran the same test on my desktop and picked up a 170fps average. The test they run is slightly zoomed out and has a lot of units, but doesn't do anything in terms of unit pathing etc. Watched a random replay with a couple of decent sized battles and my fps dipped to the 70-80 range. Assuming all things are equal I'd expect a similar drop for the laptop the op linked, sliding him to 30-40fps at times. It's up to him to decide if that is acceptable or not, and if he'll push the laptop over long sessions to exasperate the problem. I don't have fraps installed on my laptop, otherwise I would have done the test on that machine.
The test machine is actually running a sandybridge i5-2450, not an i7 as is originally perceived from the layout of their website.
Sorry if I came off like a dick (and I did). Long piss winded answer short, the laptop in question while very good (personal distaste for Acer aside) falls a bit short of what the op is looking for.
|
On July 02 2012 03:51 Filter wrote:
The benchmarks you posted are from sc2 with a very strong cpu, so yes the cpu does matter. The i5-3210 will absolutely bottleneck on sc2, 2500k's bottleneck sc2 in some situations (although very rarely). Under load in sc2 the 3210 will throttle, and it will only get worse over time as dust builds up.
I have no questions about the ability of a 630m to run sc2 on low, but I do have serious questions about the 3210 keeping up. I have even more questions about the laptop as a whole running as advertised considering Acer's reputation, I doubt the cooling is up to snuff.
+ Show Spoiler +... a stock 2500k can bottleneck in ultra with super high late game fights. Not 1v1. I don't know what you're saying. You're saying a lower clocked quad core (2630QM last generation) gets better FPS than a higher clocked dual core (i5-3210M this generation) in a game that can only utilize 2 cores? So you're saying an i7-640M (2 cores) from two-three generations ago that gets 50FPS on medium settings will perform better than the i5-3210M? Because that is certainly not something that has problems "keeping up," and it definitely isn't an "absolute bottleneck" on sc2. Even though its 2-3 generations ago, i.e. SLOW comparatively. ![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4068/34738.png) Let's accept that that's true. Let's go to the i7-740QM which has a 1.7ghz stock clock, and can turbo up to 2.8 ghz, whereas the i5-3210M can get up to 3.1ghz. And the 740QM is from several years ago. ![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4060/34618.png) Oddly enough, the computer still manages to pull out over 30 fps in ultra presets at 1600x900 in a GPU benchmark. Because this is a GPU benchmark, we can assume that the CPU still had some overhead to put out higher frame rates, but could not because of that particular GPU bottleneck. So, in case all of those have CPU settings set to low, lets take some CPU benchmarks from generations ago. ![[image loading]](http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/305/bench/CPU.png) The CPU im calling into question is the i5-750, a several generations old CPU that, on ultra settings, manages 29fps as a minimum in the benchmark. It's clocked at 2.66ghz, and can turbo to a maximum of 3.2ghz. That's only .1 ghz higher than the 3210M's max turbo, and that's assuming that it clocks two cores there. STILL, it takes 29 FPS. Now, the i3-540, clocked at 3.06ghz, which manages a low of 23 fps on ultra settings (no turbo boost). Now, take into account the multi-generational gap in architecture, the similar clock speeds, and the reduced settings, and I don't see how you can think the i5-3210M will bottleneck SC2. (i3-540 is 2C/4T btw) I know I might sound condescending or something, but that's not my intention. I don't mean to knock you personally, I just think you (or anyone) should back up advice with more than anecdotal evidence. I have no beef with you personally, I just wanna make sure that the OP gets the information he should have. You do bring up a good point in that he needs to consider the entire system, but CPU architecture is vastly improved to the point where a modern intel CPU will bottleneck long after the GPU. Edit: I'm sure you could find some errors/bias/badly displayed statistics in this post, if anybody does/it seems incorrect just show it and I'd be happy to make myself look less dumb 
Spoilered it cause of PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4274/36887.png)
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4274/36903.png)
