Entry Level Gaming Lapton $650

R

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115857

Acer AS5742
15.6" screen (1366x768)
Core i5 460m (2.53Ghz/2.80Ghz Turbo)
4GB DDR3
Geforce GT420 (96 CUDA cores, 1gb DDR3, 128-bit)
500GB Hard Drive
DVD-RW

Was really looking for one with a Phenom X4 and Radeon 5650, but this was way too good to pass up. Checking on the GPU, it should perform close to a desktop 9600GT from what I hear online and the Core i5 should be faster than any Phenom II X3/X4 in games, and the Hyper-Threading and Turbo should keep it faster in most situations. Also, I've had nothing but a good experience with my current Acer Laptop (Turion x2 TL-60, 4GB DDR2, Radeon 3200) so this really was a buy for me, and figured the rest of the [H] crew may be interested.
 
when I say ANY Phenom II, only the laptop ones, mainly because the triple and quad-core ones are usually clocked very low (1.7-2.3Ghz) in laptops, and with the lack of turbo (which would be really cool if that was available!), and the Dual-Core ones have a slightly lower IPC, but is almost made up for with the highest clocked one (3.1 Ghz).
 
I've said it before: I don't know how people can stand 1366x768. How can you get anything accomplished? Maybe the more sensible question is: Why are they putting such low-res panels in all these laptops nowadays? Unless you are doing absolutely no actual work on these screens, I can't see how it makes sense. It really frustrates me. Sure, yeah, maybe WXGA for an uber cheap Word and internet lappy, but for something this powerful? Who isn't going to be multitasking, reading PDFs while writing in Word, looking at huge Excel spreadseets, using freaking Google maps, viewing/editing photos, etc?
 
I just wanted a laptop that can game a bit.But I know what you mean. What's more annoying are the laptops that are 1366x768 and are 17.3". These cheapy panels probably keep the price down a bit and for people like me (some internet, some writing, some gaming, a little DVD ripping) it's fine. But those 17" laptops are large and unwieldy and really provides no extra screen realestate over the 15" due to using the same resolution. I used to have an old Dell XPS 710 (2.0Ghz Pentium M, 2GB of ram, Geforce 7800GTX) with a nice 1920x1200 monitor. It was really really sharp...alas it got too slow (what with the single core cpu and dx9 era gpu) and limited (ide only for drives and DDR1 memory, not to mention it was HUGE. I was trying my best to wait for the AMD fusion laptop so I can get a tiny 11" computer with a screen with the same resolution, but would look really sharp, and has proven that it could game a bit. Alas, AMD lost a laptop sale due to sitting on their hands on Fusion-Netbooks, not that there aren't millions of others awaiting a well performing netbook....wow this thread has really deviated for me...sorry.
 
See, that's why I had to buy the Dell Studio XPS 1645. It's got a 15.6" LED Backlit Screen, 1920x1080, ATI HD5730 1GB.

I can't stand these low res laptops. Even some of the higher end gaming ones still come with only "900p" screens or lower. Yet they have these powerful video cards. What's the point? 17" screens should be capable of 1920x1080 PERIOD. If you want a lower resolution, then you can drop it down.
 
For $250 more I got a Dell XPS15, Quad i7 740qm, B+RGLED 1920x1080p, 6GB Ram, GT435m, 640GB, amazing JBL speakers, and all aluminum goodness.

The screen alone is worth that price to me, but if you dont mind the 720p screens thats a pretty decent price OP!
 
ordovician said:
I've said it before: I don't know how people can stand 1366x768. How can you get anything accomplished? Maybe the more sensible question is: Why are they putting such low-res panels in all these laptops nowadays? Unless you are doing absolutely no actual work on these screens, I can't see how it makes sense. It really frustrates me. Sure, yeah, maybe WXGA for an uber cheap Word and internet lappy, but for something this powerful? Who isn't going to be multitasking, reading PDFs while writing in Word, looking at huge Excel spreadseets, using freaking Google maps, viewing/editing photos, etc?
Click to expand...

Very true. I tihnk this is one area the laptop manufaturers havn't addressed. They should atleast have 1440x900 the least or even 1600x900.
 
1366x768 is fine for 13 inchs... but I agree that these 15 inchs should be atleast 1440x900.
 
ordovician said:
I've said it before: I don't know how people can stand 1366x768. How can you get anything accomplished? Maybe the more sensible question is: Why are they putting such low-res panels in all these laptops nowadays? Unless you are doing absolutely no actual work on these screens, I can't see how it makes sense. It really frustrates me. Sure, yeah, maybe WXGA for an uber cheap Word and internet lappy, but for something this powerful? Who isn't going to be multitasking, reading PDFs while writing in Word, looking at huge Excel spreadseets, using freaking Google maps, viewing/editing photos, etc?
Click to expand...

Because laptop screens are small.

1366x768 on a 15" screen is actually slightly higher pixel density than 1920x1080 on a 23" screen.

My laptop's 1366x768 screen has been fine even for all the 'office apps'. It also helps that you don't need as much graphical power to run at native res.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
Because laptop screens are small.

1366x768 on a 15" screen is actually slightly higher pixel density than 1920x1080 on a 23" screen.

My laptop's 1366x768 screen has been fine even for all the 'office apps'. It also helps that you don't need as much graphical power to run at native res.
Click to expand...

This
 
1366x768 fits all my needs in a laptop, gaming or otherwise.
And I also have a 1920x1080 display on my desktop.

It's all about pixel density, as posters above just wrote.
 
I guess this would be so much better then a sony vaio VGN FZ 180e correct?

Not a bad price, not sure about ACER though.....
Also, would you be able to remove disk drives? As I would want to take my blu-ray drive out of my Sony and put it in this...only reason I do not own a new laptop.
 
Imo 1366x768 max should be 12".
1080p on a 15.6" looks very nice actually. My Asus G53JW had 1080p screen.
 
Tahoe916 said:
For $250 more I got a Dell XPS15, Quad i7 740qm, B+RGLED 1920x1080p, 6GB Ram, GT435m, 640GB, amazing JBL speakers, and all aluminum goodness.

The screen alone is worth that price to me, but if you dont mind the 720p screens thats a pretty decent price OP!
Click to expand...

you mean $400 dollars more, i got in on that same deal as you. The xps 15 with those specs came out to $1050 dollars
 
Yup, it is all about pixel density. That's why 1366x768 is too low. If it works for you, great, but for people needing to do serious work and multitasking, it may be a hindrance.
 
Yeah... if Sony can fit 1920x1080 on a 13.3" screen (Sony Vaio Z) for only $100 extra (1600x900 standard), then ANYONE can put a >1366x768 screen on something larger than 14" for cheap.
 
DrewRosenHouse said:
you mean $400 dollars more, i got in on that same deal as you. The xps 15 with those specs came out to $1050 dollars
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are correct. Don't know what I was smoking but wish I had more!

Pixel density plays a major role in how good the screen looks to you, however that's only half the equation, maybe even less to me...i mostly care about real estate. A 1080p screen lets me see my entire web page in dream weaver, or more of my photoshop and illustrator work space. And 1080p pixel density at 15.6" looks absolutely amazing next to my lenovo 720p 15.6".

720p might be fine for some of you, but I'll never comprimise on that again. My lenovo is a core i7 quad with great specs, but I gave it to my mom and got the dell with 1080p because I can't stand 720 on that big a screen, cramps my style :)
 
ScratchDrive said:
Wow, great deal on a gaming laptop. Nice find
Click to expand...

Thanks for positive attitude, I thought it was a great deal too! I personally don't care that its a 720p only screen, since that graphics card is likely only capable of playing games with high/med detail at that resolution anyway, this seemed great for a gaming laptop.
 
ordovician said:
Maybe the more sensible question is: Why are they putting such low-res panels in all these laptops nowadays?
Click to expand...

The same reason that 1280x800 was ubiquitous 2 years ago. Low res panels are cheaper and >90% of consumers don't care.

1366x768 won out as the default low res 16:9 panel because it's the same resolution as is used for 720 television, and perhaps because they figured that 1280x720 would be enough loss of vertical resolution that consumers would squawk. This was too close to 1440x810 to justify an intermediate resolution below 1600x900. Squeezing 2 intermediate resolutions (eg 1547x870, and 1724x970) would fit more evenly but would space the intermediate resolutions much closer together than they were at previous aspect ratios.
 
ShepsCrook said:
See, that's why I had to buy the Dell Studio XPS 1645. It's got a 15.6" LED Backlit Screen, 1920x1080, ATI HD5730 1GB.

I can't stand these low res laptops. Even some of the higher end gaming ones still come with only "900p" screens or lower. Yet they have these powerful video cards. What's the point? 17" screens should be capable of 1920x1080 PERIOD. If you want a lower resolution, then you can drop it down.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's not in the panel, it's in its controller. I have a 19" NEC monitor that's 1440x900, but it accepts 1920x1200 input
 
Only issue is, that lowering the rez on a 1920x1080 screen to 1366x768 will look muddied and crappy, where as the same image on a native 1366x768 screen will look very nice and sharp. This is pretty apparent in games (the main use for this laptop I would imagine). Just drop the rez on the monitor you reading this on right now to 1366x768 and it will look terrible, but on a native screen it would look fine. With graphics card like the GT4XXm and Radeon 5650 a low res monitor is a perfect fit as the resolution these cards are able to run with nicely for gaming is 1366x768, so on a larger screen you'll either get performance issues or blurry images. I don't mind these low-rent panels for these cards...now if it were a GTX480m or Radeon 5870 it would be a drastically different situation.
 
I disagree, I've been testing out this Dell B+RGLED lcd panel and the controller seems to do quite an excellent job of scaling. I seriously have a hard time telling when a game auto starts on a res lower than the native 1080p. A hell of a lot better than my Lenovo, but I'm guessing that's because of this panels much higher pixel density than the Lenovo's.
 
Rauelius said:
Only issue is, that lowering the rez on a 1920x1080 screen to 1366x768 will look muddied and crappy, where as the same image on a native 1366x768 screen will look very nice and sharp. This is pretty apparent in games (the main use for this laptop I would imagine). Just drop the rez on the monitor you reading this on right now to 1366x768 and it will look terrible, but on a native screen it would look fine. With graphics card like the GT4XXm and Radeon 5650 a low res monitor is a perfect fit as the resolution these cards are able to run with nicely for gaming is 1366x768, so on a larger screen you'll either get performance issues or blurry images. I don't mind these low-rent panels for these cards...now if it were a GTX480m or Radeon 5870 it would be a drastically different situation.
Click to expand...


only if you scale it, the other option is to letterbox it which is what I do.
 
Damn that ought to teach me for not checking the hot deals section when looking for something. Looks like this laptop is sold out, I've been hunting for something like this for the last couple days. I'm sure another will turn up soon enough. Thanks anyway OP! The resolution may be low, but for the price it's nearly justifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top