Slashdot Mirror
Mobile vs. Desktop Gaming
Mr.Tweak writes "TweakTown has just posted an article investigating Mobile vs. Desktop gaming in their latest article entitled "New Age Computer Gaming - Mobile vs. Desktop Investigation". The article compares a Dell Inspiron 8200 with ATI Mobility 9000 graphics to a standard desktop system with nVidia GeForce4 Ti4200 graphics. Can notebook gaming really be taken seriously? We think so, and so should you!"
The biggest problem of mobile gaming is there is mainly one game in town, the radeon 9000. The gf4go is not bad but its not the best either. Mobile has caught up enough but its going to take a while for people to think of laptops as gaming machines.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
But only one problem battery. Yea unless we have long battery lives this wont really do. Most laptop owners will use it for gaming when they have spare battery life. So if we have 20 hour battery backup, which dosent burn you then maybe yes!
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Can notebook gaming really be taken seriously? We think so, and so should you!
Now this is freedom of thought.
Don't forget to think different.
We all know that ID didn't want it out because they don't want people to judge the final product on it. I also belive that most people who would download and install it are big fans, and be quite aware that it wasn't representitive of the final product. But when TweakTown publishes frame rates, without even an attempt at a dislaimer, they're not doing anyone any favours.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
hmm.. most of the laptop sales are directed towards business users. I doubt a laptop geared for gaming will sell that much. So in a way the test is good. Take a mainstream laptop, the kind most people will buy and then see wether it performs. Moreover many people get laptops on a temporary basis from the place they work, now a company will by the latest dell, but wont buy a laptop for gaming, right?
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
do laptop's always seem to be "on the brink" of desktop performance? Do sites just repeat this news item everytime a more powerful laptops come out? The Geforce2go was a major step; this is a normal business cycle advance. The performance of laptops is never anywhere near the performance level of a similarly priced desktop, and that has been static for 15 years, yet over and over again we get reports about how laptops are becoming more and more like desktops... please.
When I am on the road there is no space to pull out my little baby optical mouse and a hard surface to use it on. Tried playing Medal of Honor with the trackpad? Entertaining to say the least.
The keyboard as well leaves a lot to be desired. My Compaq Evo N160 (P3 1.2GHz, 512MB, Radeon Mobility M7) has rediculously sized and placed Ctrl keys. How the hell am I meant to crouch! The test bed for this article however uses a Dell, and I notice that their keyboards are normal in their key placement.
For this reason, gaming is not quite as good as a desktop. Even if the hardware is, (my laptop was quite quicker than my desktop up until recently) the interface is not up to scratch. This sort of includes the LCD monitor, too.
WARNING: This sig does not contain a joke
The real problem with gaming on laptops isn't the frame rate. These days, the type of one-generation-back video chips in portable computers can stil give you a good frame rate, even in modern games.
The rub is the display. LCD's just aren't very good at fast action. The switching times are too long, even on pricy units. Even screensavers tend to ghost and blur on an LCD.
BF1942 is easier to play on a CRT, and will be for the forseeable future. Maybe when new technologies like organic LED's come online, gaming on laptops really will be an option.
Well get a decent pair of headphones like the Sony V700s and you should be fine on any 15inch because your face is typically much closer to the display. There are other issues with LCD displays if you're really that hardcore.
Why compare a laptop with a Radeon 9000 to a Desktop with a Radeon 9000 when you can compare it to something totally different and draw your conlusion about laptop gaming from that!
If you're looking at the performance of laptops for gaming, you make your desktop as similar as possible.. same RAM, same CPU speed, SAME VIDEO CARD. Otherwise, it's not truely useful stats.
Too bad they couldn't have tested this one too...
Bringing mobile gaming to new heights
nVidia GPU Delivers Fastest Mobile 3D Performance
Nvidia to launch NV28M at Comdex - The first known notebook design is slated for Q1 next year, from long time Nvidia partner Dell
It sure sucks down on batteries, but for a portable gaming machine, it's the shit. A few specs...
- Pentium® 4 @ 2.8GHz
- 512MB DDR SDRAM
- ATI Mobility RADEON 9000
It's dope as shit, plus, you can get the trick (chameleon) paint jobthat alone, in my humble opinion, is worth the price..., but after all, I'm all about the looks (& FPS!!)First things first, let me get this straight. I'm all for frame rates. But i don't like to be elitist about it. 40 plus is fine for me, or anything where it doesn't realistically affect my frame rate.
Laptops do contain some awful video cards sometimes, and that's usually the decision made by the company at the time of specification. Way before actual production. But there are a few that are pretty good. Namely the high range of dells running 9700s and i believe there is a dell with a gf4 chipset in it also.
Say if you are thinking primarily of frame rates, i'm sure you could find something worth buying which wont be an embarrassment at the next LAN party. (I myself have a Dell 250n, and it's wonderful for me).
The main aim with a laptop is portability. If you remember the last BYOC LAN you went to, i'm sure you can also remember the annoying part of getting your pride and joy unplugged from the desk, all into the vehicle of your choice, and then unpacked at the actual location. With a laptop, it goes without saying this kind of affair is an absolute breeze.
That's why i chose my laptop over upgrading my desktop, which now stays at home. Yes, there are some games that take a while to load (namely Battlefield 1942, but i'm sure i'm not the only one facing *that* particular problem), but overall, the tried and tested LAN games (quake 3, UT, CS...) are all perfect for this machine, and many like it.
I noticed a comment about a 5.1 system being unavailable to a laptop. This is untrue, especially with the Creative Audigy external USB soundcard. And anyway, who's prepared to take 6 speakers to a LAN party? Chances are you'd use headphones anyway, and with many laptops carrying virtual surround sound in their chipsets, you could be better off with most desktop owners.
A note on the Alienware a51: i was actually going to buy this machine, but after shopping around (something i normally don't bother doing), i found that there are many better machines, at much lower prices. Realistically, You're paying for a brand.
Follow your Euro bills at EBT
i recently bought myself a Dell Inspiron 8200. The Inspiron made it because i wanted to have a notebook to play contemporary games with. For Online-Battles against my friends i didn't want to carry my PC even though it's only a Minitower. Surely it won't be the perfect hardware for Doom III, but HalfLife, Civ3, Anno1503 or Mafia all work fine. I'm completely satisfied.
Yours, Martin
Testimony of a Sony Vaio user.
I got myself a Vaio gr314mp nearly a year ago. It comes with a 1200MhZ p3 and the 16meg version of the mobility radeon 7500 and runs a lot of games fine. Multiplayer Quake 3 and Medal of Honour in 1024x768 run at a perfectly playable 30-odd fps (with some smoke effects and alpha-blending off... the card OpenGL drivers need careful tweaking to get good performance.)
My main reason for going laptop was I am on the road a lot, so a desktop isn't feasible for me. I have to say, I'm very chuffed with the results.
I love being able to lie in bed and play computer games. I spent about 2 months playing neverwinter nights on the train into work, and that made the time fly. I've even once or twice played mohaa over wireless while cooking dinner. This shit is great.
But... I don't ever expect to be playing doom 3 on this baby. The big thing is always the graphics card (lower processor speed and ram tend to be acceptable a lot longer), and I don't think I'll be wanting another laptop for games once this one loses its edge, unless I know I can plug in an external graphics card. A year of gaming for about $800 of depreciation isn't quite good enough.
Can anyone tell me why external pci-cards haven't caught on yet? Bus bandwidth wouldn't seem to be an issue if the architecture was right...
As soon as this becomes the norm, or I can swap in a new card when I want to, I will be happy to play on a laptop and pay slightly over the odds for improving game performance. But as it is, the computer I have now will soon be utterly useless in the face of new games.
The mobile gaming idea is superb, and the reality of it is great. Throw longevity in the mix and I'll never go back.
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
As long as high-performance chips chew lots of electricity and turn it in to lots of heat, desktops are modular, and laptops remain branded items rather than generic I can't see this situation changing.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If in doubt, visit sometime one of those gaming forums sites, like EsReallity.com. Discussions of input devices do appear there more then often.
Not to mention the fact that I yet have to see at least one gamer (pro prefferably) which uses LCD (or similar technology) monitor. :)
Leonid Mamtchenkov
Then I thought about upgrades.
With a laptop, you're practically stuck with your video card and processor, not to mention CD/DVD drives or sound. Yes, I know it's possible to upgrade these parts, but the cost of them far outweigh the convenience of their desktop counterparts.
A laptop would be great for gaming if, for example, Doom III were never made and the technology required to play games plateaued. I don't see that happening, which is why I'm still using a mini-tower for my gaming needs.
In areas where obtaining top performance is critical, the desktop will always win. This is one of those cases. The designers of laptops almost always need to make concessions, reducing performance, flexibility or other features of the laptop in order to meet the key design goals:
small size
low power consumption
When your goal is to maximize performance, you are not going to give size and power consumption any consideration. The same exact idea applies to wireless networking. Because of FCC limitations and other factors, it will probably always lag behind wired networking.
A laptop is probably adequate for gaming, but many gamers are out for total frames-per-second. And this at any cost...
Just for the information of the ones that like to flame on people who claim to need 80 fps or more.
FPS isn't the same all the time! When you test FPS in a quick singleplayer it can be as high as 60 and still break in to a useless 10 when you're in a hot pursuit of 3 enemys along with 4 teammates, with everyone firing at maxrate. A max of roundabouts 80FPS minimum is needed if you don't want to notice a performance break when everyone meets for the big showdown in the center of a map. FPS break-in is noticed once it goes below 20 and that will allways happen eventually on a laptop.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
today's high end mobile systems (or not so high-end) pump up 90 W, or at least this inspiron does .
#include "coucou.h"
It's an Alpha, which means its full of buggy code and hasnt been optimized to the point where the final product will eventually perform. That also means that any benchmarks run using something as unstable, sloppy and chunky as an alpha are a false measure and therefore are completely unreliable.
The cool factor or street cred he thinks he might gain by using a leaked bit of unstable software as part of the testbed are completely worthless when trying to establish some reliable manner of measuring performance.
As Jericho pointed out, using the alpha demonstrates poor judgement, not only because it's technically unsound (or even for the legal risks), but just as a matter of common sense.
This is a goatse.cx redirect, with a url long enough you have to copy/paste to notice it.
second of all, it's not even right.
ATI has focused on keeping power consumption low, to reduce the problem with heat dissipation. True, Nvidia is throwing out blast furnace cards that Require an air-intake... but ATI is managing to keep ahead of nvidia, while still sticking to low form factor heatsinkfans instead of 5 lbs monster copper heatsinks that could easily snap the AGP port right off the motherboard, if transported installed.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html