Laptops vs. desktops as gaming computers

[tagwyn]

[color="Blue"]This discussion started in http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13726 but warranted a thread of its own - Rafiki
------[/color]

Laptops are useless as game machines IMHO. Desktop units are not that expensive; get one!! t

[Taillebois]

Laptops are useless as game machines IMHO. Desktop units are not that expensive; get one!! t

I play all my games on a laptop, reclining on the sofa with a glass of wine to hand.

To get a desktop might imply I was taking life seriously.

[Eugene Carr]

I play all my games on a laptop, reclining on the sofa with a glass of wine to hand.

To get a desktop might imply I was taking life seriously.

S! EC

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Comtedemeighan]

Laptops are useless as game machines IMHO. Desktop units are not that expensive; get one!! t

I use my laptop to play all my kool computer games

[Rafiki]

I use my laptop to play all my kool computer games

+1

Can't even remember the previous time I used my desktop computer for games, or anything else, for that matter

[GraniteStater]

+1

Can't even remember the previous time I used my desktop computer for games, or anything else, for that matter

* Boat anchor?
* Doorstop?
* Garden gnome?

[Franciscus]

+1

Can't even remember the previous time I used my desktop computer for games, or anything else, for that matter

Continuing OT (if the moderator can do it, so can I ), I must say I disagree. Desktops are THE best gaming machines by far. why ? because they are easily upgradeable. Only the motherboard and processor of my desktop are the original ones. I have personally replaced my graphic card (twice :bonk , added a new DVD-writer drive, a new HD, etc. Besides, tinkering with one's own PC is a funny hobby, also

OC, my laptop (3,5 year old) suits fine to play Ageod's games. Other games... IE: ETW, Storm of Zehir)... not.

[Rafiki]

Continuing OT (if the moderator can do it, so can I )

Good point

[color="Blue"]Branched this discussion off on its own[/color]

[lodilefty]

If 'serious gaming' means grabbing your joystick and going 'whoo whoo', then I concur that Desktop is best answer.
[just kidding guys RTS or shooters are not my thing ]

..however, for games requiriing the interconnection of multiple neurons, then Laptops are totally suitable. After all, if Warplan Orange or AACW or VGN runs on a Laptop, what more can I ask? I can sit out on the porch, listening to the birds chirp, and enjoy the breeze off the lake while contemplating the downfall of whomever my latest victim is....

[Ian Coote]

Are you not limited to screen size with a laptop?

[lodilefty]

Are you not limited to screen size with a laptop?

Yes, but not enough to matter [to me anyway ]

No, as most allow an external monitor if you really need that

[Syt]

I couldn't afford the power my new tower has in laptop format:
- 2.86GHz QuadCore
- 8 GB RAM
- 2x 1 TB Hard disks
- nVidia GTX285 w/1GB RAM
- large Thermaltake Armor case for air condition

Besides, a laptop with a 24" screen would be too large to carry, anyways.

[Franciscus]

I will even go so far as saying that to work, any laptop will do, but to play today's (and tomorrow's) games, you really need a desktop.
Unless you are rich and can buy a new laptop every year, of course

[Rafiki]

Unless you are rich and can buy a new laptop every year, of course

Or you have a computer supplied by your employer, and your boss is twice the computer nerd that you are yourself (which in this case says a fair bit )

[TiFlo]

Rafiki, I envy you

I use a laptop, but that's only because I need moveability for work. For gaming, I'd definitely go for a desktop if I could afford an extra computer.

While I agree some games can run well enough on a laptop, especially low graphic intensive games such as wargames, it can't keep up with most of what comes out nowadays. Even a 128Mo GPU is considered low spec and will hardly run anything decent from 2007 onward at an acceptable visual level (I understand this is a matter of personal taste, but I bet no one likes to stare at 800x600 pixelated blocks in 16 bit colours).

[Rafiki]

Rafiki, I envy you

The Norwegian government is hiring on a regular basis; come one, come all!

[tagwyn]

Thanks Grey. My son's laptop did not play games; however, that was several years ago. t

[MarkShot]

If I traveled a lot, I guess I might just prefer one powerful laptop (I do have one not so powerful laptop).

However, I like desktops since they are easier to expand, easier to repair as the most parts are standard, have less issues with cooling, and you don't have to pay a premium for the small form factor.

I think the premium on laptops has been narrowing over the years and with inexpensive netbooks and smart phones selling so well in Europe, I think it is putting further pressure on the price point of laptops.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

Best of both worlds is to have a good desktop and a good laptop.

Little expensive though, but what the heck? You only live once.

[MarkShot]

I know MSFT has a deal with HP to do XP downgrades. Or if you have XP from an older system, you can just install it yourself.

When I used to play flight sims, I used to get a new top of the line system every two years.

Now, the games I am playing are generally anywhere from 5-15 years old. I think this system (top of the line and overclocked from 2007) could last me five years. If this PC holds up, I may well stay with it and XP to 2014 when MSFT will desupport it. If you can change PCs every 5-6 years as opposed to every 2 years, it saves a lot of money.

Already, many of the the new games are infested with objectionable DRM. Also, the old games I have are really great and still have so much value left in them. I just started playing the CM series again.

[TiFlo]

Grey, that's a nice piece of laptop you've got here!

As for the operating system, Vista is no longer the hog it used to be. Seriously. Most of its faults have been fixed with SP1. Don't ask for a downgraded system when you buy it. Either wait a few months and you'll be able to buy your computer with Windows 7, that seems to be universally praised as being what Vista should have been and as so the true successor to XP, or buy it anyway with Vista, but set it up as a dual boot (320Go HD is largely enough for that) so as to have both Vista and XP. That's what I have, because I must admit some of my games will run better under XP. Mind you, only some of them will. The rest is fine, no matter how GPU intensive they are, and no matter their age.

[Franciscus]

A bit parallel to the topic, but recently I read something that struck me as maybe a good point, namely that at least part of the reason that current games are not using to the fullest the new hardware capabilities (multi core CPU, super GPUs, etc) resides on the players that insist on playing with outdated hardware (Pentium 4s, geforce 4 MXs, etc, etc) and the need of the developing companies to try to make their games compatible with that old hardware.
Maybe the relative lack of AI capabilities (do they use multithreading at all ?) and even more impressive graphics is partly to blame on us players ?

[TiFlo]

I'm going to have to disagree with that.

Such "good point" has also been a way for the gaming industry to blame its more than often poor coding optimization on the players not spending half their monthly income to upgrade to a new machine every year to keep up with the not so useful graphic goodies the developers tend to rely all too often on at the expense of quality gameplay. This sadly tends to becoming the trend... There is no justification for games such as CoH or Empire TW to use between 10Go and 15Go of HD and requiring a beast to run, when a game like Sins of a Solar Empire, full 3D with lots of effects as well only takes 1,5Go and runs perfectly on a mid range computer, except that of poor coding.

[MarkShot]

Assuming that Vista SP1 has no more performance overhead than XP SP3 at this point, I still would not consider Vista due to its significantly larger footprint over XP. You are looking at somewhere from 2X-4X in terms of RAM and disk.

Suppose you are running 32bit XP or Vista:

(1) If you have partitioned your HD and have a system disk, then an XP system disk can be imaged with 1-2 DVDs, but a Vista systems disk will require 3-4 DVDs. DVDs are cheap, but that means more time and more swapping of media to complete the job.

(2) A 32bit OS cannot use more than 4Gb of RAM. The reality is that the actually RAM you can use will be closer to 3Gb anyway. The high memory is actually mapped for video and other hardware devices. Thus, those addresses end up becomming unavailable for general use. So, running Vista means less of your RAM will be available for large games, running multiple large applications, or functioning as a disk cache to speed response. You have to ask yourself: Did I buy this computer to run games and applications or to run an OS?

Of course, if you use cheap external HD/NAS to backup and you have 8 or 16 Gb of RAM running a 64bit OS than Vista's large footprint is less relevant.

---

XP/Vista/Win7 - I think a big deficiency is to be unable to properly exploit multiple processors. All use a relatively simple round robin assignment algorithm for programs. Despite that the current state of the art provides four physical processors and can mimic eight through hyper-threading, your OS does little to help you get the most value from the money you spend on your expensive HW.

I personally use a third party load balancing program and created a profile which maximizes response and throughput of my quad core.

If MSFT was to build some form of profiling and dynamic load balancing into Win7, it could well be the killer app versus XP.

One of the best examples of a technology that worked behinds the scenes via hardware, but greatly improved the PC experience for many was Anti-Aliasing technology which was introduced by 3DFX. That's the type of thing that MSFT should do with the OS and multi-cores to make Win7 or Win8 a compelling OS for people to want.

[Aphrodite Mae]

Geekicrat bought me a laptop for Christmas. It's pretty serious, as laptops go, at least with graphics. But it just doesn't compare with his "Frankenputer" in the basement.

The Frankenputer is in pieces right now, but I remember when he's gamed on it, before. First of all, it has this "Jumbotron" ViewSonic Monitor that I'm not sure of the size, but I'm pretty sure that the screen size is measured in acres. I mean, turn it on its side, and use it for a coffee table, you know what I mean?

Second of all, I remember that when he'd be playing "Oblivion" and get into some sort of serious battle, the lights would dim, in the basement. I'm not kidding, guys. Meanwhile, the fans on the tower would be going so that the room kinda sounded like some sort of NASA wind tunnel, or something. Plus, it made the room warm.

But the main thing was the graphics. Really: the stuff looked real. Just amazing, really. So, for me at least, there's no comparison. If beautiful high resolution graphics are your thing, "desktops" are definitely the answer.

[TiFlo]

I'll remember the Frankenputer!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[morvael]

I decided that I want more space in my flat and I have replaced my desktop with a laptop. It was in February last year (for computers quite a long time) but I'm still satisfied with my laptop as it runs all the games I want it to run. It has a GeForce 8600M GT video card with 512MB of memory. Nowadays I could have purchased one with 9600GT for 80% of the price I paid year ago

Anyway, I will never return to desktops, even though I used them for more than 15 years before buying this laptop.