Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,558 battles

so im getting a new laptop and i need some help decideing the spec

1. asus fl800un with i7 and nvidia MX150/8g rom

 

2.asus zx53vd with i5 7300HQ and GTX1050/4g rom

 

i'll be gaming(nothing too demanding on graphic carss), doing student stuff, perhapsperhapsperhaps streaming and making videos with this new rig, which one should i go for?

Edited by drakon233

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,666 posts
10,474 battles

If you are using heavy 3D apps , up and including 3D drawing , nvidia might not be the best choice , an AMD card work better.

AMD are quite powerful for their tech and can do heavy duty lifting , but their technology scope is quite limited.

Nvidia is quite fast , but loading heavy work in CAD or 3D drawing it is not optimal.

Between the 2 , the first option is better suited for running heavy simulator ( PS 2 , Desmune ,... etc , JAVA ) as a powerful CPU is optimal and games byJapanese developers love to do most work instructions on CPU

The 2nd option is better suited for western games , WG's products as it deliver the needed FPS in game minus the port screen

An i5 is good enough for a CPU chip for gaming. Beware that if your work is about CAD , construction and 3D Max building , choosing an Nvidia card is not a good option

Edited by legionary2099

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,558 battles
15 minutes ago, legionary2099 said:

If you are using heavy 3D apps , up and including 3D drawing , nvidia might not be the best choice , an AMD card work better.

AMD are quite powerful for their tech and can do heavy duty lifting , but their technology scope is quite limited.

Nvidia is quite fast , but loading heavy work in CAD or 3D drawing it is not optimal.

Between the 2 , the first option is better suited for running heavy simulator ( PS 2 , Desmune ,... etc , JAVA ) as a powerful CPU is optimal and games byJapanese developers love to do most work instructions on CPU

The 2nd option is better suited for western games , WG's products as it deliver the needed FPS in game minus the port screen

An i5 is good enough for a CPU chip for gaming. Beware that if your work is about CAD , construction and 3D Max building , choosing an Nvidia card is not a good option

nothing that intense lel, im a business student and the most i need to run is some marketing or stock simulator, the thing im more concerned with is how well i can run streaming platforms and editing videos, since im planning to start making some WOWS content this year

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,666 posts
10,474 battles
1 hour ago, drakon233 said:

nothing that intense lel, im a business student and the most i need to run is some marketing or stock simulator, the thing im more concerned with is how well i can run streaming platforms and editing videos, since im planning to start making some WOWS content this year

 

This is quite hard actually , simulation ( complex ) and not a simple input - output emulator  and video edit is actually CPU intensive. Meanwhile 3d works can make use of a 1050 GTX.

You might want around 8gb ram at the minimum to avoid deathtraps and an SSD to avoid the lag caused by hardware bottlenecks as well as a seperate HDD to store vids ( vids are heavy and they stack up a lot over times).

The 2nd option might be 10-15% better in your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
353 posts
5,015 battles

Generally u need 8gb ram, the rest is less of a factor. But better if u can get intel coffeelakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,107 posts
7,844 battles

Well this just my preference, but if you are heavy user. go for gaming laptop instead. if you like ASUS you should try get ROG series

 

The main problem with non gaming laptop were, heat management and thortling. Gaming laptop series have better heat management, so you can use your laptop more comfortably, in some laptop even palm rest gotten hot to touch that made it very uncomfortable if in usage for very long session. then there is thortling, where non gaming laptop have lower threshold so they become less optimal than they should be. (you can bypass it but its can be risky)

Laptop gotten hot fairly quick, especialy in hot climate like asia. in long work or gaming session they matter a lot

even if the laptop have great spec on paper, if they have bad heat management. after 1 to 3 hours you wont got optimum performance, in game fps might drop, sudden lag, loud fan noise, palm rest gotten hot, random crash, etc

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[151ST]
Member
1,013 posts
4,526 battles
19 hours ago, legionary2099 said:

If you are using heavy 3D apps , up and including 3D drawing , nvidia might not be the best choice , an AMD card work better.

AMD are quite powerful for their tech and can do heavy duty lifting , but their technology scope is quite limited.

Nvidia is quite fast , but loading heavy work in CAD or 3D drawing it is not optimal.

Between the 2 , the first option is better suited for running heavy simulator ( PS 2 , Desmune ,... etc , JAVA ) as a powerful CPU is optimal and games byJapanese developers love to do most work instructions on CPU

The 2nd option is better suited for western games , WG's products as it deliver the needed FPS in game minus the port screen

An i5 is good enough for a CPU chip for gaming. Beware that if your work is about CAD , construction and 3D Max building , choosing an Nvidia card is not a good option

Lol wut???

Nvidia have been better for 3D for some years now...

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,244 battles
21 hours ago, legionary2099 said:

If you are using heavy 3D apps , up and including 3D drawing , nvidia might not be the best choice , an AMD card work better.

AMD are quite powerful for their tech and can do heavy duty lifting , but their technology scope is quite limited.

Nvidia is quite fast , but loading heavy work in CAD or 3D drawing it is not optimal.

Between the 2 , the first option is better suited for running heavy simulator ( PS 2 , Desmune ,... etc , JAVA ) as a powerful CPU is optimal and games byJapanese developers love to do most work instructions on CPU

The 2nd option is better suited for western games , WG's products as it deliver the needed FPS in game minus the port screen

An i5 is good enough for a CPU chip for gaming. Beware that if your work is about CAD , construction and 3D Max building , choosing an Nvidia card is not a good option

The first option is probably the FL8000UN, which is a ultrabook-ish device with a i7-8550U 15watt ULV processor. While 8550U is still respectable, with quad core and Intel HT, I personally have doubts about it's capabilities against a full 45watt processor. While ULV processors get impressive results in short benchmarks, their turbo time window is shorter.

 

I would recommend the second one unless portability outweighs performance for you. MX150 is mind-blowingly good for an entry level (used for promotion) dGPU, it's still far from competing with GTX1050

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,666 posts
10,474 battles
8 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Lol wut???

Nvidia have been better for 3D for some years now...

that is only for 3D redrawing from game engine. AMD is much more powerful when you do 3D drawing , CAD , other heavy resource drawing tools that doesnt require high tech. Nvidia is fast , support a lot of useful technology dont get me wrong , but when it come down to raw power in keeping up , AMD usually win with about the same pricing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[151ST]
Member
1,013 posts
4,526 battles

That's not what work has found...

*Shrugs* if you've got top end hardware it's all gravy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,016 posts
7,490 battles
On 2/5/2018 at 5:39 PM, drakon233 said:

editing videos, since im planning to start making some WOWS content this year

Besides video editing, nothing you do seems to be very demanding.

If your video editing "perhapsperhapsperhaps" happens, the i7 and 8 gig RAM would be good… I’d swap the harddrive for a 1TB SSD.

For the actual editing workflow, nothing much required, but a fast hard drive helps because of large video files. Laptop hard drives do not break speed records, so a laptop with a large capacity SSD makes a difference. However, when you render your videos, the more raw processing power, the better. Video rendering really likes the i7 in addition to a fast hard drive or better SSD.

My video editing software of choice is Adobe Premiere Elements.

If your laptop gets fairly hot, I’d recommend is a fan cooling pad.

And I like to keep my laptops light an portable, at home on my desk I’m using a 27” screen, keyboard and mouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[151ST]
Member
1,013 posts
4,526 battles

I use premiere pro and after effects.

(I'm a graphic designer so it's like doing work at home :-/ )

If you are doing a voice over, don't get lazy and use the stock voice recorder in windows, it's bad.

Pick up Audacity or Adobe Audition.

Adobe stuff tends to be more advanced but there's heaps of tutorials out there and to do base-level stuff is pretty easy.

Goodluck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,016 posts
7,490 battles
9 hours ago, drakon233 said:

thanks for the advice, i went for the 1st one since budget issues didnt really let me get the 2nd one comfortably

Well, that’s your choice, but the OP was kind of pointless?

5 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

FYI I'm 99% sure Audacity is free

Not sure why (A) anyone would want to use Windows sound recorder and (B) why it would be bad?

But yes, Audacity is freeware. They ask for donations, but that’s on voluntary basis.

Premiere Elements allows you to do voice overs in good quality in the editing package. No reason to use an external package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,558 battles
1 hour ago, PeterMoe1963 said:

Well, that’s your choice, but the OP was kind of pointless?

Not sure why (A) anyone would want to use Windows sound recorder and (B) why it would be bad?

But yes, Audacity is freeware. They ask for donations, but that’s on voluntary basis.

Premiere Elements allows you to do voice overs in good quality in the editing package. No reason to use an external package.

well i had to go to the hospital for treatment so there went rip 30% of budget:cap_old:

Edited by drakon233

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,016 posts
7,490 battles
34 minutes ago, drakon233 said:

well i had to go to the hospital for treatment so there went rip 30% of budget

Thanks for the background info.

I hope everything went OK in hospital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,558 battles
50 minutes ago, PeterMoe1963 said:

Thanks for the background info.

I hope everything went OK in hospital.

im actually still in the hospital, recovery treatment and stuff, but yeah things are going good, thanks for the good wishes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[151ST]
Member
1,013 posts
4,526 battles
5 hours ago, PeterMoe1963 said:

Well, that’s your choice, but the OP was kind of pointless?

Not sure why (A) anyone would want to use Windows sound recorder and (B) why it would be bad?

But yes, Audacity is freeware. They ask for donations, but that’s on voluntary basis.

Premiere Elements allows you to do voice overs in good quality in the editing package. No reason to use an external package.

I did a test, it's poor.

I think nitrate is lower, however it definitely uses some sort of voice activation or something so the audio is jumper and cuts out a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,016 posts
7,490 battles
On 2/9/2018 at 5:59 PM, S4pp3R said:

I did a test, it's poor.

I think nitrate is lower, however it definitely uses some sort of voice activation or something so the audio is jumper and cuts out a bit.

Bitrate? To record human voice, bitrate simply isn’t an issue.

I think you may have an issue on your particular computer.

But fair enough, I would rather use a more advanced software to record voice. Recording in Windows Sound Recorder and import and sync that into the video software is not very efficient workflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[151ST]
Member
1,013 posts
4,526 battles
6 hours ago, PeterMoe1963 said:

Bitrate? To record human voice, bitrate simply isn’t an issue.

I think you may have an issue on your particular computer.

But fair enough, I would rather use a more advanced software to record voice. Recording in Windows Sound Recorder and import and sync that into the video software is not very efficient workflow.

Actually it is... Audio files have a bitrate like anything else.

W10 voice recorder does 194kbs

Audition does raw... Which can be very high, 3000+kbs...

The higher the bitrate the more data in the file, the better the audio. Given my audio I export at 320... 194 isn't good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
492 posts
7,661 battles
7 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Actually it is... Audio files have a bitrate like anything else.

W10 voice recorder does 194kbs

Audition does raw... Which can be very high, 3000+kbs...

The higher the bitrate the more data in the file, the better the audio. Given my audio I export at 320... 194 isn't good enough.

+1

I used to record and edit music professionally, and also play music at big weddings and parties. I can say that from a professional standpoint anything significantly under 320kbps is utter rubbish. 128 kbps is fine if you just need to listen to what people are saying for example taking notes while listening to a lecture or something. If it is something you want to keep and listen again to you need a much higher bitrate.

For music anything under 320 kbps is garbage and I would not touch it. The high frequency drop-off when you down below 320 kbps to 256 kbps or even 128 kbps is huge and has a massive adverse effect on overall sound quality. Back when HDDs were dirt cheap there was a period I got a bit lah de dah and would only record in RAW or WAV and only store audio/music in FLAC. Then HDDs got really expensive and I went back to 320 kbps MP3.

I can fully recommend Adobe Audition, I'm sure it is very different from the version I used to play around with, but I'm sure it would do everything I was able to do and more. Audacity was good too when I used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,244 battles
1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

Actually it is... Audio files have a bitrate like anything else.

W10 voice recorder does 194kbs

Audition does raw... Which can be very high, 3000+kbs...

The higher the bitrate the more data in the file, the better the audio. Given my audio I export at 320... 194 isn't good enough.

194kbps? That's rare… The closest common standard is 192kbps. IIRC 192kbps cuts anything beyond 16kHz, a threshold within human audible frequency (usually 20Hz-20kHz), that's why audiophiles dislike 192kbps. But 16kHz is still far beyond human voice frequency (usually no more than 300Hz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×