<p>Hello, I am David, an aspiring engineering student. I am receiving a laptop for my graduation present, and I need to know what laptop will be the best for me. Right now I am debating between Samsung Series 7 (NP700Z5A-S03) as seen on Samsung</a> Series 7 (NP700Z5A-S03) Specs | PCMag.com,
and Dell XPS 14z as seen on Dell</a> XPS 14z Specs | PCMag.com. I'm bending towards the XPS, but the processor on the samsung is better. Any suggestions?</p>
<p>The Samsung has better overall specs.</p>
<p>Ex:
Native Resolution 1600 x 900
Graphics Card AMD Radeon HD 6750M</p>
<p>If you want a bigger screen, go for the Samsung. If you’re going to be gaming, go for the Samsung (look at the benchmarks). However, if price is an issue, consider that. Lastly, I’ve never had a Samsung so cannot comment on build quality or service/support but I’ve had good experiences with Dell. If you can get your hands on them or similar models at a Best Buy or something, try them out. I like to checkout track pad, keyboard, and screen in person.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure that, after 1 week of researching, the best gaming laptop for the money is Clevo HIDP170EM 1350$ full hd 17 inches, intel 3610QM, Nvidia 670m (the best bang for buck laptop GPU)
[Clevo</a> HID P170EM i7 17.3" Gaming Laptop for $1,350.00](<a href=“http://www.hidevolution.com/clevo-hid-p170em-i7-17-3-gaming-laptop.html]Clevo”>http://www.hidevolution.com/clevo-hid-p170em-i7-17-3-gaming-laptop.html)
XPS 17 with significantly weaker CPU(2nd generation Intel core) and GPU(GT555m) cost 1500
Samsung 7 series is worse and expensive.
The only thing makes me look at Dell laptop is the student’s discount(you can have that discount by having a .edu email to register) and a Xbox360 for free, but consider you have the best gaming laptop which can play every game at max setting, full HD, you won’t need a Xbox 360. Check Clevo review:
[Review</a> Clevo P170EM Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews](<a href=“Notebookcheck - Page not Found!”>Review Clevo P170EM Notebook - NotebookCheck.net Reviews)</p>
<p>I am pretty sure that, after 1 week of researching, the best gaming laptop for the money is Clevo HIDP170EM 1350$ full hd 17 inches, intel 3610QM, Nvidia 670m (the best bang for buck laptop GPU)
[Clevo</a> HID P170EM i7 17.3" Gaming Laptop for $1,350.00](<a href=“http://www.hidevolution.com/clevo-hid-p170em-i7-17-3-gaming-laptop.html]Clevo”>http://www.hidevolution.com/clevo-hid-p170em-i7-17-3-gaming-laptop.html)
XPS 17 with significantly weaker CPU(2nd generation Intel core) and GPU(GT555m) cost 1500
Samsung 7 series is worse and expensive.
The only thing makes me look at Dell laptop is the student’s discount(you can have that discount by having a .edu email to register) and a Xbox360 for free, but consider you have the best gaming laptop which can play every game at max setting, full HD, you won’t need a Xbox 360. Check Clevo review:
[Review</a> Clevo P170EM Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews](<a href=“Notebookcheck - Page not Found!”>Review Clevo P170EM Notebook - NotebookCheck.net Reviews)</p>
<p>17 inch laptops are hard to carry since they are huge and it’s hard to find somewhere to put them down (like a big desk). At my old school the desks could barely fit 15.6" laptops.</p>
<p>
Figured more than the questioner may benefit from the comparison. One caveat: 17"+ laptops are usually considered as desktop replacements and off zero to extrememly limited mobility and will often never leave the house, but can go in any room in the house and take up less space than a traditional desktop. In answering the core question if this laptop is the best for the money I compared and reviewed same-size screen machines in a similar price range to see what was offered. So here goes . . .</p>
<p>Clevo
The Clevo model may look like a competitive machine indeed, but it’s fair to note that the $1,350 price doesn’t come with an OS installed. So, unless you’re planning on installing your own, you’ll need to fork over another $80 for Win 7 Home Premium 64. So, comparatively speaking, we’re now at $1,430. Some things to note for the machine:
-17.3" 1920x1080 LED glare display - the best resolution by far for it’s price range and class
-i7 2.3GHz CPU
-8GB RAM - More than any typical person will ever need, but for those who must, it does come with 4 mem slots, so can be upgradable to 32GB.
-750GB HDD @ 7200 - plus room for an opt 2nd HD, at a cost of course
-8 cell battery
-NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M w/ 1.5GB mem (675M for $100 more)</p>
<p>I llike that display. It would come in great if you paid an extra $85 for the BluRay drive to watch BluRay in full (but not true) 1080p high definition. I say not “true” HD because to really experience HD you would need to sit a certain distance from the viewing screen depending on the level of HD and the pixel rating, and at 17.3" you can’t get too far back from the screen without not seeing the detail in the picture that HD was intended to provide. The 8 cell battery, I estimate/presume, will provide around 5 hours of regular life use, but again, at 17.3" of a behemoth, you would most likely not be taking it too far from an outlet anyway. It is the heftiest in the comparison at just over 8.5lbs. It also comes with a sweet backlit keyboard, but the audio system (speakers) are paltry in the further comparisons. Yes, the NVIDIA 670 will pump out enough GPU power to play all that and a bag of potato chips leading the way in mobile cards, but are you paying a premium for it? Let’s see.</p>
<p>Toshiba
Since I currently have a 17" Toshiba that I play games on, I figured this would be a god place to start :p</p>
<p>The most comparable model Toshiba offers is the Qosimo X770 (X775-Q7170 model) priced at $1,150, or just shy of $300 less than the Clevo. What does that difference get us?
-Less pixel packaged 17.3" 1600x900 LED
-i5 2.5GHz
-Win 7 HP 64
-6GB RAM
-640 GB HDD @ 7200
-8 cell battery
-NVIDIA GF GTX 560M w/1.5GB mem</p>
<p>Cons in comparison: at -$300 you lose the higher res display, 2GB RAM, 110GB drive storage, and downgrade (slightly) your GPU. Pros: you obtain a faster clocked i5 CPU, and gain the Harmon Kardon sound system (very nice and great quality IMO). For $300 I could upgrade the RAM myself and buy an external drive of more than 110GB. So the relative real difference IMO is the display and GPU. Again though, I haven’t tested it myself, but I don’t see that display living up to the true HD you’re paying for. Therefore, I think this Toshiba is a better buy. Both models have HDMI, 4 USB connections, bluetooth, and webcams. I also think the Qosmio looks a little more hip with it’s color option.</p>
<p>Lenovo
The only 17"+ model Lenovo offers is the G770 under their Essentials lines at $600. Though the specs sheet stated it could be upgraded to a discrete GPU, it would not allow me to in the Customize and Build, so I went no further and it cannot be compared.</p>
<p>Dell
Within the price range I picked out the XPS 17 starting at $900. That price may look like a steal, but may be some serious deficiencies.
-Standard 17.3" LED
-i5 2.5GHz
-Win 7 HP 64
-6GB RAM
-750 GB HDD @ 7200
-6 cell battery
-NVIDIA GF GT 550M</p>
<p>Cons: Again the display quality is sacrificed, 2GB RAM, a smaller 6 cell batt, and the GPU goes dow another comparable (but arguable) notch. Pros: faster clocked i5 and a superior JBL speaker set. Again, I think the RAM and battery differences are minute with the difference in price since 6GB RAM is typically enough to satisfy anyone and the battery will almost never go out of reach from a plug in - despite the fact that both specs are techincally upgradeable. You’ll get the same amount of drive space as the Clevo along with all the typical post bells and whistles (enough USB, HDMI, and all the standards, etc). You can upgrade the GPU to the 555M for $150 more and it’s still hundreds less in price than the Clevo. In fact, you may be able to get a 21"+ 1080p HD display for the price difference of nearly $600 and the only difference then would be the GPU . . . and the fact that it’s a Dell and most complain about their customer support. But then again, I’ve never heard of the Clevo (made from some German company?) so it may not fare too much better.</p>
<p>The cheapest Alienware of 17" display was $1,500 (M17x), but IMO, was atrocious. At that price, in summary, it offered 500GB storage, 6GB RAM, and a slower i7. Even the GPU was the one step down, by specs, from the 670M - NVIDIA GF GTX 660M. But it looked the coolest with all it’s flashing lights. The Acer Aspire Ethos seemed liked a better deal at $50 more with comparable specs, but an 18" display.</p>
<p>At the cheaper prices, comparing all three main models (Clevo, Toshiba, Dell), I would seriously stack up the Qosmio X770 and XPS 17 and decide between the two, while making up the specs difference from the money saved of not buying the Clevo, if I so desired.</p>
<p>[Review</a> Clevo P170EM Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews](<a href=“Notebookcheck - Page not Found!”>Review Clevo P170EM Notebook - NotebookCheck.net Reviews)
Clevo review</p>
<p>[Toshiba</a> Qosmio X775-Q7170 Laptop Computer Review | PCWorld](<a href=“http://www.pcworld.com/article/252583/toshiba_qosmio_x775q7170_review_is_entrylevel_desktop_replacement_an_oxymoron.html]Toshiba”>http://www.pcworld.com/article/252583/toshiba_qosmio_x775q7170_review_is_entrylevel_desktop_replacement_an_oxymoron.html)
Toshiba review.</p>
<p>Take the spec aside, the main thing I considered is how well the laptop fare at game</p>
<p>Toshiba $1150 runs at Crysis 2, High Quality, 1366x768 45.8 Frames per second </p>
<p>Whereas Clevo HID $1450 with GTX 675m, Crysis 2 high quality, 1920x1080 97.8 Frames per second, if you are thrifty, $ 1350 for GTX 670m, it will be 90 fps, still doubles toshiba’s performance, consider 1920x1080 has 2 times more pixel than 1366x768,</p>
<p>Also, having one of the best laptop with highest score on the market when you buy is very different from having an average joe laptop, only 200 for 2x performance, what would you choose?</p>
<p>the brand Clevo is on Canada, Sager on US, in their forum I don’t find any complain about their quality, if you don’t want to pay for the marketing cost, like that of Toshiba, consider buy a lesser known laptop, because every laptop has the same CPU, all from Intel, Nvidia, Laptop brand don’t make the CPU and GPU and Ram and HDD themselves, they only assemble the part and sell the laptop,</p>
<p>If you want brand name, go for Asus g75, it is $1500 and looks cooler, has the same spec as $1350 Clevo(Sager). </p>
<p>LOL still, I prefer Clevo over Toshiba, I5 dual core vs I7 quad core is a real difference, look at the benchmark, i do not always look at the spec, especially GHz of CPU, it is true that with the same technology, GHz more is better, but I7 uses different technology. look at the benchmark, you’ll see.</p>
<p>If your objective of buying a laptop for office use, then consider cheaper laptop is better.</p>
<p>
I don’t know where you’re getting your fps benchmarks, but it seems like you may be skewing each in a direction that benefits your argument. To keep things uniform, I’ll take the ones from Notebookcheck, as I have done so in other threads. Oh, a little difference I see:
Crysis 2
670M - High ~82fps
560M - High ~60fps</p>
<p>[NVIDIA</a> GeForce GTX 670M - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-670M.72197.0.html]NVIDIA”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-670M.72197.0.html)</p>
<p>[NVIDIA</a> GeForce GTX 560M - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-560M.48313.0.html]NVIDIA”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-560M.48313.0.html)</p>
<p>No doubt the 670M is a superior card, I think that was included before (in each review above I state that you’ll be getting a lower GPU), but is the performance difference worth the cost difference? In other words, is it worth spending $2,3, or even close to 400 more for the higher end card included in the Clevo? I guess this will depend on which specific games the consumer will want to play, but heres the thing - anything 30fps and over is considered (by Notebookcheck and many other sites) to be a respectful benchmark where the game will run without sacrificing a much noticable amount in game play quality. Therefore, technically, each card will play each game you mentioned (and many many more) and a respectable to highly respectable rate. So why pay $300 more to get 20 more fps on Crysis 2 when it’ll play respectfully at 45? Who is really paying a “marketing cost”?</p>
<p>But, alas, this is where we get into the display.
Let me expand upon this. Not too long ago - like within the last couple (2) years - manufacturers didn’t even make television sets <21" with 1080p/i (the 1080 in 1920x1080). The main problem was fitting so much in a small screen and still having room for data compression to put out a high enough quality image to be “true” 1080 HD. A good example in this nifty article ( [The</a> Real Story of HDTV Standards—There Aren’t Any: Buzzword - Popular Mechanics](<a href=“http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/home-theater/4275063]The”>http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/home-theater/4275063) ) suggests that (while written a few years ago about TVs holds true for computer displays now) higher/faster motion images reguires higher compression of data to get every little (definition) detail onto the viewing screen. Therefore, if an olympic runner is being displayed on the screen it would be more of “can the compression catch everything to display it” rather than a “does my TV have HD so I can see all the detail in the runner’s motions”. Ever wonder why a bunch of TVs on display at Best Buy or Costco all say “1080p” on them, but the picture quality varies greatly? That 1080 won’t mean squat when you’re playing a run around hack-n-slash or shoot 'em up game on a 17.3" display. Hence, I suggest you get the optional BluRay drive with it so that you can have the possibility of experiencing something HD on the display. Also, I remember reading in a scientific magazine a couple years ago that for the human eye to even catch and process all of the compressed data that is being output onto the screen, the eye would need to be a certain distance from the screen. Being too far from or too close to a 17.3" HD (720 or 1080) screen can seriously affect the way you eyes take in the image being output, therfore negating the whole notion of experiencing HD. This is all withstanding going into technical details. Therefore, it is IMO and IME that that Clevo display will not, if rarely ever, perform to it’s stated specs and rating. I couldn’t even confirm if the 670M GPU natively supports 1080p, but I’ll assume it does since they’re offering that display and BluRay option.</p>
<p>If anyone wanted to look further into DPI, I found this little table handy too: [DPI</a> (Fineness) of Displays - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/DPI-Fineness-of-Displays.1310.0.html]DPI”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/DPI-Fineness-of-Displays.1310.0.html)</p>
<p>
Agreed, and apologetically this was my overlooking - on your link it shows the 2nd Gen i7 on top, but is not the selected CPU in the $1,400 (or $1,480 with OS) price. Not everyone will need that kind of power, so still I think it would have been better for them to offer a 3rd Gen i5 at a reduced overal model price to keep it even more competititive with like models. For all to see:
[Intel</a> Core i7 3610QM Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3610QM-Notebook-Processor.72681.0.html]Intel”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3610QM-Notebook-Processor.72681.0.html)</p>
<p>[Intel</a> Core i5 2450M Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-2450M-Notebook-Processor.65510.0.html]Intel”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-2450M-Notebook-Processor.65510.0.html)</p>
<p>EDIT:
I’d still more seriously consider the Qosmio or XPS over the Clevo, especially with Ivy Bridge technology.</p>
<p>also, you should consider the role of CPU on benchmark, both the 560 and 670 in Notebookcheck are running on the same CPU and RAM, whereas $200 differs(Clevo’s price is 1350 for GTx670m and 1450 for GTX 675m) here is both the CPU and the GPU difference, i5-2450M scores 3433 on the 3dmark CPU, i7 3610QM scores 6007, the performance gap is really huge when going into higher resolution.
For the resolution part, of course, more is better, if the 1660x900 laptop scores higher on benchmark than the 1920x1080, I would choose the 1660x900, but if not, I would stick to the latter, since I will surely buy 23" asus monitor for 150$ for gaming and study productivity with the laptop, it is really different when you watch 1080p on 23’’ compare to 17".
Also, the 45FPS is only on high setting, when go for ultra, the framerate will drop below 24, if a laptop run only on acceptable framerate on the game at the moment, what if 2 or 3 years from now when the game requirement will sky rocketed? I think that Clevo’s will still handle it well since it is one of the best laptop on the market, but I don’t think Toshiba’s will.</p>
<p>
Sure . . .</p>
<p>
That was exactly my point with the Clevo - ~$1,500 computer + $150 montior = $1,650 just to really experience what the Clevo is trying to offer you in 1080 HD, ever increasingly widening the gap in cost between comparable models.</p>
<p>
In case it wasn’t clear, that 45fps was an example to my point. Anyway, laptop GPUs don’t play many games on an ultra setting with 30+fps. In fact, even the 670M only plays about 40% of current games over that number. Really, I don’t think that with most games there will be a huge difference in fps between the two cards. Not enough to consider one outdated sooner than the other. Of course, there may come a specific game every once in a while with insane graphics outputs that may show something like that and the lower-end card will lag behind at higher settings, but those games are few and far between - which would bring my to my point that when choosing which dedicated GPU to get (and ultimately which laptop they come in) it may depend on the specific consumer and which specific games they anticipate to play. Are they the type that needs to have every game on PC with the best graphics display, or are they the type that is satisfied with enough raw power to still play most games great and others decently? And with the Clevo + monitor pitch of ~$1,700 it may become more beneficial to get a desktop.</p>
<p>Clevo’s price is 1350 without OS right? 200$ more than Toshiba, as I stated before, if you go for a laptop that can handle the game at lower setting, then go for Toshiba, if you want the best money for performance, go for Clevo. And the benchmark you provided doesn’t include both GPU and CPU so it is hard to know Clevo or Toshiba is better, since there are only 2 reliable review,
[Review</a> Clevo P170EM Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews](<a href=“Notebookcheck - Page not Found!”>Review Clevo P170EM Notebook - NotebookCheck.net Reviews)</p>
<p>[Toshiba</a> Qosmio X775-Q7170 Laptop Computer Review | PCWorld](<a href=“http://www.pcworld.com/article/252583/toshiba_qosmio_x775q7170_review_is_entrylevel_desktop_replacement_an_oxymoron.html]Toshiba”>http://www.pcworld.com/article/252583/toshiba_qosmio_x775q7170_review_is_entrylevel_desktop_replacement_an_oxymoron.html)</p>
<p>
The Toshiba comes base with an OS where the Clevo does not. So, to add an OS to the Clevo and have it equivalent to the Toshiba in the type of offered components and services you will need to add at least $80 to that $1,350 - or $1,480 total. Which is $330 more than the Toshiba, and as I’ve stated before, the only measurable difference for that $330 is the display (again doubting it would be worth it - you yourself said you’d buy an external monitor) and the GPU (and arguably the CPU).</p>
<p>I think you may be mixing things up here. The Clevo has top of the line components of today, but you’re paying nearly top of the line price too. Therefore, it is very arguable that the Clevo is or is not the “best for the money” as this would only apply to someone who is interested in buying top of the line no matter the price.</p>
<p>
You’re confusing. You mean the fps benchmarks? fps is taken on a GPU by GPU basis since there will be varying benchmarks depending on which CPU you have, but the one’s posted on Notebookcheck are supposed to be the average fps benchmark of the specific GPU in question as the GPU is the only constant in that equation. CPU and RAM and type of storage drive will vary my model and thus will give slightly varying results when playing the same game, but because they would all be using the same GPU they can average out the fps to come up with a good overall indicator. It has nothing to do with having a better CPU or not because other factors will affect that components performance as well.</p>
<p>But I know this is futile and there’s no convincing you, so this is more a reference for other thread viewers. :p</p>
<p>If you need to study up: [How</a> GPUs Work](<a href=“http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~gfx/papers/paper.php?paper_id=59]How”>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~gfx/papers/paper.php?paper_id=59)
“Today, the raw computational power of a GPU dwarfs that of the most powerful CPU, and the gap is steadily widening.”
[FASTRA[/url</a>]
“Performing our computations on the GPU already results in a speedup of over 40 compared to a single CPU core: great, but still not enough. For our most demanding computations tasks, we developed the FASTRA: a desktop superPC, which contains four dual-GPU graphics cards. Having eight graphics processors work in parallel allows this system to perform as fast as 350 modern CPU cores for our tomography tasks, reducing the reconstruction times from several weeks (on a normal PC) to hours.”
[url=<a href=“http://www.ehow.com/info_8772518_difference-between-gpu-vs-cpu.html]Difference”>http://www.ehow.com/info_8772518_difference-between-gpu-vs-cpu.html]Difference</a> Between GPU Vs. CPU | eHow.com](<a href=“http://fastra.ua.ac.be/en/index.html]FASTRA[/url”>http://fastra.ua.ac.be/en/index.html)
“A typical GPU is able to perform billions of calculations per second and processes a minimum of 10 million polygons per second. CPU processors are capable of a wide range of calculation speeds, but average about 100 million calculations per second. Advanced GPUs are used in Computer Aided Drafting programs and can process more than 200 billion calculations per second.”</p>
<p>Answer: GPU power holds more weight than CPU power. So drop the whole CPU crud. Jeez.</p>
<p>[Best</a> gaming laptop under $1500](<a href=“Best gaming laptop under $1500 | Overclock.net”>Best gaming laptop under $1500 | Overclock.net)
I ll end my discussion here, why compare GPU to CPU? they serve difference purposes</p>
<p>[Major</a> Gaming Laptop decision. Help me out.](<a href=“Major Gaming Laptop decision. Help me out. | Overclock.net”>Major Gaming Laptop decision. Help me out. | Overclock.net)</p>
<p>We just bought my son an Apple MacBook Pro. He will be a freshman in engineering this fall and decided on an Apple because it seems like everyone at his university, even the engineers, have Apple laptops. Any thoughts? His brother has a Samsung but said the Apple would be fine for engineering.</p>
<p>It would work but some programs may have bugs but by now they may be all fixed</p>
<p>ex:</p>
<p>Problem Description:</p>
<p>I would like to use MATLAB on Apple Macintosh OS X 10.5 (Leopard). I would like to know if these programs are supported for use on this operating system.</p>
<p>Solution:</p>
<p>MATLAB is supported for use with Mac OS X 10.5 for releases R2010b SP1 through R2007a. There are some known issues with MATLAB & Simulink on Mac OS X 10.5. See below for more information.</p>
<p>Issues running MATLAB on Mac OS X 10.5:</p>
<ul>
<li>When upgrading from Tiger to Leopard, X11 may break preventing MATLAB startup. For information about this issue, see the Bug Report here:</li>
</ul>
<p><a href=“MathWorks Account Sign In”>MathWorks Account Sign In;
<p>Issues running Simulink on Mac OS X 10.5:</p>
<ul>
<li>Simulink may crash when dragging a block from one window to another. For more details about this issue see the Bug Report here:</li>
</ul>
<p><a href=“MathWorks Account Sign In”>MathWorks Account Sign In;
<ul>
<li>Poor visual display of some Simulink windows. Specifically, incorrect colors are displayed on some Simulink menus, icons, and toolbars. This is strictly a visual issue, there are no functional issues and tool tips are not affected. This issue does not affect the Simulink editor. For more information about this issue, see the Bug Report Here:</li>
</ul>
<p><a href=“MathWorks Account Sign In”>MathWorks Account Sign In;