Sizzling hot deal :gaming laptop $550.00 No rebates!

R

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
It's a Gateway, that is very similar (Acer and Gateway are essentially the same company) to the one PC Perspective Reviewed here: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1052

Except it's a Triple Core Phenom II at 2.1 Ghz

Here are the full Specs.
* AMD Phenom II N830 2.1GHz processor
* 4GB of DDR3 memory
* Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit operating system
* 320GB hard drive
* 8X DVD-Super Multi double-layer drive
* ATI Radeon HD 5650 graphics processor

Should I be kicking myself for getting:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115860&Tpk=GT420M ACER

Bear in mind, the Acer was only $650 when I got it. I think my CPU much better, but on the GPU side it's about the same gulf going the other way. But I have gamed on it and it literally runs every game that my Big guy runs, just at 1366x768. I think that Gateway is a mindnumbingly good deal, and am sorta kinda kicking myself.
 
I had my debit card on the desk until I got to...

Maximum Resolution: 1366 x 768
Click to expand...

Damn, I would have been all over this if it was anything higher for a resolution. 1366x768 is just way too low for many games and looks especially bad on a 15.6 inch screen. So close :(
 
ocellaris said:
I had my debit card on the desk until I got to...



Damn, I would have been all over this if it was anything higher for a resolution. 1366x768 is just way too low for many games and looks especially bad on a 15.6 inch screen. So close :(
Click to expand...

I might be all over it, if it said anything but Gateway on it...

But I agree, 1366 is too low for general use, kind of nice for mobile gaming because it can keep up with more demanding games at native res but still...
 
for $550 of course it's going to be a minimum resolution screen. *rolls eyes*
 
DanNeely said:
for $550 of course it's going to be a minimum resolution screen. *rolls eyes*
Click to expand...

The manufacturing cost different between a 1366x768 and something like a 1440x900 is very small. The laptop has decent specs overall, its not a big stretch that they could also get a better screen on there.

Sadly, people buying laptop almost never consider screen resolution (at least at retail). They just want size and specs.
 
The way I see it, lower res = more FPS for your budget gamer laptop. High res @ 1080 would just make most budget laptop cards chug to all hell since they are usually not that great to being with. Once you hit $1000+ then the video cards get badass in the laptops and you can except 1080 res.

What's the big hissy fit over low res though? Because it's not blu-ray quality res?
 
Dylan80 said:
The way I see it, lower res = more FPS for your budget gamer laptop. High res @ 1080 would just make most budget laptop cards chug to all hell since they are usually not that great to being with. Once you hit $1000+ then the video cards get badass in the laptops and you can except 1080 res.

What's the big hissy fit over low res though? Because it's not blu-ray quality res?
Click to expand...

Try playing WoW, EVE Online, Dawn of War 2, Civ 5 and various other new games on 1366x768 resolution. You run out of screen real estate extremely fast. Heck, even some web based games do not fit correctly on a 1366x768 screen unless you F11-full-screen the browser or hide the Taskbar. I think the resolution is fine for FPS and driving games, personally I do not play those a lot. For people that like to play games in a window, low resolution like this is extreme problematic.

I have a 1366x768 resolution laptop right now (14 inch screen) and it is extremely disappointing how little can fit on the screen. Plus when you take such a low resolution and present it on a 15.6 screen, it looks even worse.
 
Last edited:
what i would consider a nonstandard resolution...some games don't support it...

1440x900 is what i look for i wonder if you could swap the panel from a broken laptop of the same make/line
 
1440x900 is 16:10, 16:9 is the new standard for low cost notebooks. 1366 is getting to be a pretty standard resolution for this display size... unfortunately.
 
(@see sig#steam-powered-penguin, cost me $700 CAD)

Dylan80 said:
The way I see it, lower res = more FPS for your budget gamer laptop. High res @ 1080 would just make most budget laptop cards chug to all hell since they are usually not that great to being with. Once you hit $1000+ then the video cards get badass in the laptops and you can except 1080 res.

What's the big hissy fit over low res though? Because it's not blu-ray quality res?
Click to expand...

no, for me at least, it really isn't enough screen real-estate. Everything will have to run in windowed mode, and if you like to try to write in Visual Studio while reading something in Firefox while talking to people in an IM client, you better like Win7's new collapsing taskbar, because you wont be able to have any 2 of those windows open in any orientation.

They cheap out on these laptops in a couple places: the resolution is pretty low and the horizontal viewing angle is horrible. The sound quality is going to be about as bad as it gets (which, for most, is a minimal issue). In terms of crapware (in my experience at least), Acer and HP are still the worst, with dell at 3rd. This gateway was suprisingly good, coming with a few stubs.

But yeah, speaking to the mobility Radeon 5650, I'm really quite pleased with it. You will will slow-down when stuff really gets going in SC2 (CPU related?) and I cant crank the settings in AC2, but overall, most of the effects from most games can be run on high without issue.

For my next laptop, I think I'll try to put together some serious money and I think I'll probably buy something like an HP envy or Lenovo.
 
Pretty good for the price. The Mobility HD 5650 is around 10-30% faster than the Mobility HD 4650 I have, which isn't that great. The best thing about the Mobility HD 5650 is that it uses 1/2 the power of the Mobility HD 4650. DX11 isn't really usable on the 5650. Anything somewhat demanding isn't really smooth over 1024x768 @ medium settings according to the benchmarks on notebookcheck. Still, at $550 I can't think of anything else as fast in the same price range.
 
Insane for the price. I have an acer timeline x with the 5650 and an i5 460m. I've been playing fallout new vegas at pretty high settings and its pretty smooth. For $550 you will not find anything better unless you buy used and even then you might not find anything comparable. If you want a 1080p screen with an i7 processor and a 5870 be prepared to pay about $1500.
 
I understand the complaining over the resolution, but honestly, what do guys think you are going to get at this price range, 8GB of RAM, multi-GPU goodness, 6-core CPU, etc? I've gamed on gaming laptops with a 1366x768 resolution (not mine) and it wasn't *that* bad, fully expected it to be a lower resolution, had no expectations otherwise, not at this price range.
 
back in 1999 I bought a gateway Pentium 3 laptop for 2 grand... TWO GRAND!!! It wasn't even a gaming pc... I played command and conquer on it. LoL. If I knew the economy was going to change... I would of waited for this deal and use the rest to watch Tron 100 times. :) I like this deal..... LOVE IT.. .but don't need it. I'm typing on an Acer laptop with a V120 2.2 gig single core laptop with 4250 graphics. haha.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
(@see sig#steam-powered-penguin, cost me $700 CAD)



no, for me at least, it really isn't enough screen real-estate. Everything will have to run in windowed mode, and if you like to try to write in Visual Studio while reading something in Firefox while talking to people in an IM client, you better like Win7's new collapsing taskbar, because you wont be able to have any 2 of those windows open in any orientation.

They cheap out on these laptops in a couple places: the resolution is pretty low and the horizontal viewing angle is horrible. The sound quality is going to be about as bad as it gets (which, for most, is a minimal issue). In terms of crapware (in my experience at least), Acer and HP are still the worst, with dell at 3rd. This gateway was suprisingly good, coming with a few stubs.

But yeah, speaking to the mobility Radeon 5650, I'm really quite pleased with it. You will will slow-down when stuff really gets going in SC2 (CPU related?) and I cant crank the settings in AC2, but overall, most of the effects from most games can be run on high without issue.

For my next laptop, I think I'll try to put together some serious money and I think I'll probably buy something like an HP envy or Lenovo.
Click to expand...

Kind of off topic, but to make up for lack of laptop screen size... I've seen these people starting to use ANOTHER mini 10" or so display (that folds up nice) attached to their laptops whereever they go..... check that out, it was really badass when I saw it the other day. So they had the laptop, and then the other small portable LCD flipped 90 degreees in portrait for reading spreadsheets.
 
1366 is pretty standard. I play all sorts of games @ 1366 on my laptop and it's fine. Helps lower the gpu horsepower required as well.
 
ocellaris said:
Try playing WoW, EVE Online, Dawn of War 2, Civ 5 and various other new games on 1366x768 resolution. You run out of screen real estate extremely fast. Heck, even some web based games do not fit correctly on a 1366x768 screen unless you F11-full-screen the browser or hide the Taskbar. I think the resolution is fine for FPS and driving games, personally I do not play those a lot. For people that like to play games in a window, low resolution like this is extreme problematic.

I have a 1366x768 resolution laptop right now (14 inch screen) and it is extremely disappointing how little can fit on the screen. Plus when you take such a low resolution and present it on a 15.6 screen, it looks even worse.
Click to expand...

I play WoW and many other games on a 15" screen at that rez... No issues for me..
 
1366x768 has excellent pixel density on a 15" LCD, on par with 1080p on a 20" LCD. So games will still look pretty decent, you will just have to scroll a bit more than you're used to in windowed mode. You guys complaining are being ridiculous nit pickers. For $550 new there is no laptop out there that will touch this one.
 
I don't see a problem with the res. The problem is with the CPU.
 
Yeah, this is hot, for sure. Would make a nice cheapy to take to lan parties. Or to game on while in a boring class.

You, after finally passing that tough level: "WHEW!"
Professor: "What??"
You: "Uh ... errr ... I am just relieved that you are finished with today's lecture ..."
Professor: "WHAT??"
You: "Um ... oh ... errr, I mean ... I am relieved that I have learned so much from today's lecture! Thank you, sir!"
Professor: "Class is only half over. What is wrong with you?"
 
1080p is for the browsing/regular use experience has nothing to do with gaming.

1080p looks awesome on a 15.6" btw
 
My old Dell Inspiron 5160 from years ago had a 1400x1050 screen and only cost $750-800. Todays laptops disappoint me greatly.
 
Ultima99 said:
My old Dell Inspiron 5160 from years ago had a 1400x1050 screen and only cost $750-800. Todays laptops disappoint me greatly.
Click to expand...

I doubt that it would be able to play Left 4 Dead 2 let alone most games today at that resolution.
 
heck my 17" gateway lappy only does 1440x900. I cant say i have ever had a problem with it for gaming and the screen looks just fine. It's not like the pixel density is so bad you see individual pixels or anything.

No it's not the 5760x1200 of my desktop but it's far from unplayable or even unpleasant to me. Supreme commander, Starcraft II, CoD BO all look just fine and run at high settings.

To me it just means i get to run higher settings at my native res. I would hate to see a little mobile 9800gts push a game at 1920x1080.

I know this is [H] but the res issue to me is along the lines of the people who wine about micro stutter and celeron laptops not being fast enough to type a word document.
 
mesyn191 said:
1366x768 has excellent pixel density on a 15" LCD, on par with 1080p on a 20" LCD. So games will still look pretty decent, you will just have to scroll a bit more than you're used to in windowed mode. You guys complaining are being ridiculous nit pickers. For $550 new there is no laptop out there that will touch this one.
Click to expand...

It's not about how it looks, its about how much you can SEE at one time. For some of us, this low of a resolution will completely hinder our ability to get work done. I know it would for me. Anything less than 1680x1050 is 100% unacceptable if I am trying to do my work.
 
ordovician said:
It's not about how it looks, its about how much you can SEE at one time. For some of us, this low of a resolution will completely hinder our ability to get work done. I know it would for me. Anything less than 1680x1050 is 100% unacceptable if I am trying to do my work.
Click to expand...

Then I guess a 15" screen in general is unacceptable.

Obviously if I do anything heavy work wise I'll do it on my triple monitor setup.

My laptop does fine for all my work purposes as long as it's focused on one application at a time (multi-monitors have spoiled me) regardless of resolution.
 
Dylan80 said:
The way I see it, lower res = more FPS for your budget gamer laptop. High res @ 1080 would just make most budget laptop cards chug to all hell since they are usually not that great to being with. Once you hit $1000+ then the video cards get badass in the laptops and you can except 1080 res.

What's the big hissy fit over low res though? Because it's not blu-ray quality res?
Click to expand...

agreed
 
Yeah the screen thing sucks, but what do you expect for $550? If you want a proper 1080p screen on a laptop you better be ready to pony up a grand or more. The bigger problem with this laptop (if you want it for "gaming") is the CPU. It's just not fast enough for games like SC2 and BC2, regardless of GPU power.

MrWizard6600 said:
They cheap out on these laptops in a couple places: the resolution is pretty low and the horizontal viewing angle is horrible. The sound quality is going to be about as bad as it gets (which, for most, is a minimal issue). In terms of crapware (in my experience at least), Acer and HP are still the worst, with dell at 3rd. This gateway was suprisingly good, coming with a few stubs.
Click to expand...

I have a Dell (surprisingly not bad on the bloat), my parents have an Acer, and my brother just got an ASUS laptop. I was absolutely blown away by the amount of CRAP that ASUS installed. Most of it was their own software to. The first boot resulted in about 15 minutes of some sort of ASUS setup doing... something and the OS had about 85 processes running idle at the desktop :eek:
 
mesyn191 said:
1366x768 has excellent pixel density on a 15" LCD, on par with 1080p on a 20" LCD. So games will still look pretty decent, you will just have to scroll a bit more than you're used to in windowed mode. You guys complaining are being ridiculous nit pickers. For $550 new there is no laptop out there that will touch this one.
Click to expand...

I bought a 15" dell 4 years ago with 1920x1200... since then I cannot accept anything lower outside of a netbook or phone.
 
I have to say, the Acer (and I would assume Gateway and Emachines by relation)was not bad on the bloat at all. Just had to uninstall the Norton Online back up and Mcaffee AV and some other useless Acer programs, but that took me like 20 minutes to do. The HP laptop I bought on Black Friday had so much garbage on it that 3 hours after an uninstalling fest, the machine became unstable and had to reinstall a fresh copy of Windows 7. It ran well, but the Radeon 4250 was a HUGE disappointment (32-bit bandwidth for the GPU...SERIOUSLY?), over the 3200 in my old Acer. I really hope that Intels Sandybridge onboard is better, and it looks like the AMD 6300's are actually pretty good!
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
Then I guess a 15" screen in general is unacceptable.

Obviously if I do anything heavy work wise I'll do it on my triple monitor setup.

My laptop does fine for all my work purposes as long as it's focused on one application at a time (multi-monitors have spoiled me) regardless of resolution.
Click to expand...

My EliteBook 8540W has a 1920x1080 screen and it's 15.4". You can also find plenty of 15.4" laptops with 1600x900 screens. I guess it totally depends on what you do with your laptop. I have to do everything on my laptop, and travel fairly often. It really is a big benefit to be able to view, e.g., two Word documents at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top