Best Laptop Computer for Combat Arms?

[iAngeIiK]

I'd check Newegg and wait for their deals on DIY/Special Combos. Saw a $302.00 combo with a 6550D, Llano quad core 3.3(?) I think it was, 4GB of DDR3 1333 RAM, and a 2TB HDD, and a badass orange case. Probably will be higher now due to the Thailand flooding issue.

[Mouzie]

Advice build desktop pc...
Get AMD because it has the most powerfull CPU/APU and GPU combinations and they are more stable...
Besides any radeon from 68xx up is alot cheaper and is alot more powerfull then nvidia gpus...

Really? When AMD lags severely behind 3D viewing and other important and popular things. So you're saying the AMD is cheaper? Wrong, AMD tend to be more expensive. Why pay more when Nvidia is more commonly used? In fact, most games support the Nividia cards and not AMD. If you're going to talk shit about Nvidia, then I suggests you do some research on cards.

Not two video cards, depending on what it is.
But crossfiring/SLing cheap cards ain't worth it.

Not worth it? Sorry, have you ever used the SLI? I do, I run two 9800s with a Quad Core proccesser and yet I can play modern and graphic demanding games with ultra setting. I can play Crysis 2 with DX11, High Res Pack, and the newly upgraded HDR bloom system that causes a lot of people some problems. You can use the SLI for two cards (I used to use two 8800s which still could run GTA4 very well).

[elcamu987]

i got a lenovo t61p it works great for combat arms and for pfp4f i get 100 fps

[ChimiBang]

A Desktop is more preferred for gaming though.
Laptops tend to overheat easily.

Nope. i bought a laptop just so i can game on the go for BF3 when i stay at hotels and such.
I found it to never overheat and it stays under 70C when gaming. Can run Mw3 almost all high settings.
And BF3 Medium settings. I can even Frap gameplay with 30-45 FPS in mw3 and bf3. In combat arms i can easily frap withing 125 fps or more. and get 800 fps ingame

[Poison]

buy a 700$ asus there all good

[remixdvd]

Go to CyberPower PC. - Custom Built Gaming PC and Gaming Laptops or iBUYPOWER Gaming PC: Custom Gaming Computers and Laptops and custom your laptop and you say your max is $800 well you can easily customize a Laptop that runs new games like Call of Duty (on Extra at more than 50 FPS) or Battlefield 3 (Low-Medium [Low and High has not that much difference in BF3] and at 30-45 FPS and Crysis 2 (1280x720 at High/Advance at more than 30 FPS and if you are scared about overheating buy a $5-$15 Laptop cooler.

And I don't get it first of you can't upgrade laptop easily because of parts that are super huge and won't fit and he is talking about a Laptop not a Desktop.

[burgesSr]

Really? When AMD lags severely behind 3D viewing and other important and popular things. So you're saying the AMD is cheaper? Wrong, AMD tend to be more expensive. Why pay more when Nvidia is more commonly used? In fact, most games support the Nividia cards and not AMD. If you're going to talk shit about Nvidia, then I suggests you do some research on cards.



Not worth it? Sorry, have you ever used the SLI? I do, I run two 9800s with a Quad Core proccesser and yet I can play modern and graphic demanding games with ultra setting. I can play Crysis 2 with DX11, High Res Pack, and the newly upgraded HDR bloom system that causes a lot of people some problems. You can use the SLI for two cards (I used to use two 8800s which still could run GTA4 very well).

I could play Crysis 2 with DX 11, High Res Pack using my old GTX 460 SE.
I'm just saying you should get the best single card you can afford.

Advice build desktop pc...
Get AMD because it has the most powerfull CPU/APU and GPU combinations and they are more stable...
Besides any radeon from 68xx up is alot cheaper and is alot more powerfull then nvidia gpus...

Stop bullshitting.
Nvidia has better cards than AMD.
It's just that AMD is bang for your buck.
But when you compare the best card of each brand, Nvidia would be better.

[Alen]

Really? When AMD lags severely behind 3D viewing and other important and popular things. So you're saying the AMD is cheaper? Wrong, AMD tend to be more expensive. Why pay more when Nvidia is more commonly used? In fact, most games support the Nividia cards and not AMD. If you're going to talk shit about Nvidia, then I suggests you do some research on cards.

v

Stop bullshitting.
Nvidia has better cards than AMD.
It's just that AMD is bang for your buck.
But when you compare the best card of each brand, Nvidia would be better.

Exactly what BurgesSr said. Although Nvidia has some quasi user-friendliness and easily accessible feature-full control panels and programs, AMD doesn't lag behind it, if anything AMD generally tends to have far more raw power (bitcoin mining with Nvidia ... what a joke) and a bit more gaming power for the same price. Also don't just spew out BS which "most games" don't support AMD? Only those that rely solely on Physx could do so and the only one I know of is BridgeIt.

[Mouzie]

v

Exactly what BurgesSr said. Although Nvidia has some quasi user-friendliness and easily accessible feature-full control panels and programs, AMD doesn't lag behind it, if anything AMD generally tends to have far more raw power (bitcoin mining with Nvidia ... what a joke) and a bit more gaming power for the same price. Also don't just spew out BS which "most games" don't support AMD? Only those that rely solely on Physx could do so and the only one I know of is BridgeIt.

"Display Support
On the AMD side, the Radeon HD 6000 line of graphics chips continues to support a minimum of three displays with a single card, just as the older HD 5000 series did. However, all HD 6000 cards have DisplayPort 1.2 built in. What that means is that monitors with DisplayPort 1.2 support can be daisy-chained, so that one card can drive up to six LCD panels. Nvidia’s support for DisplayPort has been lukewarm on consumer graphics cards, but individual card manufacturers have occasionally added DisplayPort connectors. Almost all monitors still ship with DVI connectors, though, so if you’re running one or two monitors, you’re in good shape with a single Nvidia card."

"AMD has just begun adding stereoscopic 3D capability; the new Radeon HD 6000 series cards support stereoscopic 3D. In both games and Blu-ray movies, though, glasses must be obtained from third parties. Nvidia’s 3DVision offers robust stereoscopic 3D support, provided you’ve also got a PC monitor capable of running at the required 120Hz refresh rate. In addition, if you’re running an SLI setup, you can use 3DVision across three monitors, and the effect can be pretty startling. A system with an Nvidia card can connect to an HDTV and allow that TV’s native stereoscopic capability to work with the PC."

"GPU Compute
If you’re into GPU-compute applications, Nvidia still has the edge here. While newer applications are moving toward multi-vendor standards like DirectCompute and OpenCL, a large library of applications exists for Nvidia’s proprietary CUDA GPU-compute architecture, including the recently released Adobe Premiere Pro CS5’s Mercury Playback Engine. "

Like I said AMD lags behind on some things. BS? Sir, do you even know what I mean with 'support'. A game company generally support one card more over the other. It has nothing to do with the card JUST being supported and has nothing to do with restriction. For example, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series and DirT 3 tend to lean toward AMD cards compare to Nvidia, but you can play it fine with Nvidia. You know this when they have a splash screen showing which card they approved of. This is the signature to know which card it is. If you're going to try and scold me try and have more knowledge. Right? It it also not JUST a video card, you need a good processor as well.


Beside, lets stop arguing, I don't give a fuck if you like AMD more or whatever. Both cards are almost equal, I have a computer that got AMD, but I lean toward Nvidia because of it being flexible and more popular. We're all gaming in the end, that's all it matters.

[Alen]

"Display Support
On the AMD side, the Radeon HD 6000 line of graphics chips continues to support a minimum of three displays with a single card, just as the older HD 5000 series did. However, all HD 6000 cards have DisplayPort 1.2 built in. What that means is that monitors with DisplayPort 1.2 support can be daisy-chained, so that one card can drive up to six LCD panels. Nvidia’s support for DisplayPort has been lukewarm on consumer graphics cards, but individual card manufacturers have occasionally added DisplayPort connectors. Almost all monitors still ship with DVI connectors, though, so if you’re running one or two monitors, you’re in good shape with a single Nvidia card."

> AMD > Nvidia

lol? Helping me prove my point?

"AMD has just begun adding stereoscopic 3D capability; the new Radeon HD 6000 series cards support stereoscopic 3D. In both games and Blu-ray movies, though, glasses must be obtained from third parties. Nvidia’s 3DVision offers robust stereoscopic 3D support, provided you’ve also got a PC monitor capable of running at the required 120Hz refresh rate. In addition, if you’re running an SLI setup, you can use 3DVision across three monitors, and the effect can be pretty startling. A system with an Nvidia card can connect to an HDTV and allow that TV’s native stereoscopic capability to work with the PC."

I have Nvidia's S3D, it isn't that great. Actually it's next to useless given the fact that most games fuck up, most screens aren't that great and they can't even include the drivers required in the download. AMD on the other hand can be used with a shitload of 3rd party tools that work great. No doubt that once games actually start supporting S3D properly AMD will have it's S3D capabilities on par with Nvidia.

"GPU Compute
If you’re into GPU-compute applications, Nvidia still has the edge here. While newer applications are moving toward multi-vendor standards like DirectCompute and OpenCL, a large library of applications exists for Nvidia’s proprietary CUDA GPU-compute architecture, including the recently released Adobe Premiere Pro CS5’s Mercury Playback Engine. "

Nope.avi. As said, AMD > Nvidia in terms of raw power. Although CUDA is fancy, if you really need power AMD is the way to go. Also this is completely irrelevant to gam

Like I said AMD lags behind on some things. BS? Sir, do you even know what I mean with 'support'. A game company generally support one card more over the other. It has nothing to do with the card JUST being supported and has nothing to do with restriction. For example, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series and DirT 3 tend to lean toward AMD cards compare to Nvidia, but you can play it fine with Nvidia. You know this when they have a splash screen showing which card they approved of. This is the signature to know which card it is. If you're going to try and scold me try and have more knowledge. Right? It it also not JUST a video card, you need a good processor as well.

Any decent CPU will be able to handle most modern games, the bottlenecks nowadays are nearly always formed by GPUs. Also the only two popular games that I know that tend to have better performance with Nvidia are CoD & FC. Neither works bad with AMD though, still not making up for the performance/price ratio difference.

Beside, lets stop arguing, I don't give a fuck if you like AMD more or whatever. Both cards are almost equal, I have a computer that got AMD, but I lean toward Nvidia because of it being flexible and more popular. We're all gaming in the end, that's all it matters.

I love Nvidia, I hate AMD. I am trying to be objective though, which seems to be a quality lost in nowadays arguments. And not to mention that none of your arguments relate to CA.

[Polo™]

> AMD > Nvidia

lol? Helping me prove my point?



I have Nvidia's S3D, it isn't that great. Actually it's next to useless given the fact that most games fuck up, most screens aren't that great and they can't even include the drivers required in the download. AMD on the other hand can be used with a shitload of 3rd party tools that work great. No doubt that once games actually start supporting S3D properly AMD will have it's S3D capabilities on par with Nvidia.



Nope.avi. As said, AMD > Nvidia in terms of raw power. Although CUDA is fancy, if you really need power AMD is the way to go. Also this is completely irrelevant to gam



Any decent CPU will be able to handle most modern games, the bottlenecks nowadays are nearly always formed by GPUs. Also the only two popular games that I know that tend to have better performance with Nvidia are CoD & FC. Neither works bad with AMD though, still not making up for the performance/price ratio difference.



I love Nvidia, I hate AMD. I am trying to be objective though, which seems to be a quality lost in nowadays arguments. And not to mention that none of your arguments relate to CA.

Do u own nvidia or amd?

[Stevenom]

Do u own nvidia or amd?

In fact, he does.

[Polo]

How are you guise so good with computers

[Stevenom]

How are you guise so good with computers

I'm not really good.
It's Shayne Ravi and Alen.
But they're like at least 17+.
I'm only 14.

[HaloGunner977th]

Go with a desktop. Laptops SUCK.
Quad Core 3.0 GHz+ CPU
6-8GB RAM
1GB VRAM GFX Card with around 800 MHz Core Clock
500W+ PSU (Power Supply)

Those are like the basic stuff-items.