<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>