Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

To all laptop usersFollow

#1 Jul 19 2010 at 3:45 AM Rating: Decent
15 posts
Hi,


I know it's not as optimal as a desktop but due to circumstances i'm forced to buy a laptop.
I'm probably buying this one:

Asus G73 JH

Processor: 1.6GHz Intel Core i7-720QM
Memory: 8GB RAM
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 (1GB)


Now I'd like to know what your experiences are with a laptop playing FFXIV (if you're on beta)
Maybe you can post your benchmark score and laptop specs?

It would help a lot, thanks in advance!



Heksar
#2 Jul 19 2010 at 3:48 AM Rating: Decent
Heksar wrote:
Hi,


I know it's not as optimal as a desktop but due to circumstances i'm forced to buy a laptop.
I'm probably buying this one:

Asus G73 JH

Processor: 1.6GHz Intel Core i7-720QM
Memory: 8GB RAM
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 (1GB)


Now I'd like to know what your experiences are with a laptop playing FFXIV (if you're on beta)
Maybe you can post your benchmark score and laptop specs?

It would help a lot, thanks in advance!



Heksar


I'd like to see the benchmark for that too. I bet it's at least playable. Laptops really aren't designed to be serious gaming machines, but given the right specs, they can get by.

Of course then you have to worry about battery life...
#3 Jul 19 2010 at 3:53 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
A Core i7 and a Radeon 5870M should give you decent results, 3000s on the benchmark. I have yet to see a laptop that hit the 4000+ mark, even the high end ones are in the 3000-3500ish range.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#4 Jul 19 2010 at 4:15 AM Rating: Decent
15 posts
#5 Jul 19 2010 at 5:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Heksar wrote:


1712 on 1080 on an Asus G73JH. Core i7 Q720 with a Mobility Radeon 5870.

Edited, Jul 19th 2010 7:18am by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#6 Jul 19 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
**
370 posts
I bought an Asus G71GX-RX05 Notebook when I found out the PS3 got the shaft. It was only $750.00 on buy.com. Although I wished for 3000+ I only managed to get 2424( I won't be playing while overclocked so I didn't run the benchmark that way.)


http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2743/bestbenchmarkresultspag.jpg

I played FFXI on a laptop and It is great not being "stuck" in the same spot. Laptops do just fine.
____________________________
Thaumaturge/Archer/Marauder
http://xivpads.viion.co.uk/?id=1847776
Moogle Inc linkshell
http://www.moogleinc.com
Stand in front of me fool...I am a Thaumaturge
#7 Jul 19 2010 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
**
335 posts
Quote:
I bought an Asus G71GX-RX05 Notebook when I found out the PS3 got the shaft. It was only $750.00 on buy.com. Although I wished for 3000+ I only managed to get 2424( I won't be playing while overclocked so I didn't run the benchmark that way.)


http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2743/bestbenchmarkresultspag.jpg

I played FFXI on a laptop and It is great not being "stuck" in the same spot. Laptops do just fine.


Dang I have an Asus G71G-A1 which has a worse graphics card and I get 1838. Quite a difference. I'm surprised.

Edited, Jul 19th 2010 7:28pm by Shadowspell
____________________________


#8 Jul 19 2010 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Obiar wrote:
I bought an Asus G71GX-RX05 Notebook when I found out the PS3 got the shaft. It was only $750.00 on buy.com. Although I wished for 3000+ I only managed to get 2424( I won't be playing while overclocked so I didn't run the benchmark that way.)


http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2743/bestbenchmarkresultspag.jpg

I played FFXI on a laptop and It is great not being "stuck" in the same spot. Laptops do just fine.
Wonder how much better you'd do on Win 7.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#9 Jul 19 2010 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
**
370 posts
Never considered that switching to windows 7 would improve performance. Is this confirmed?
____________________________
Thaumaturge/Archer/Marauder
http://xivpads.viion.co.uk/?id=1847776
Moogle Inc linkshell
http://www.moogleinc.com
Stand in front of me fool...I am a Thaumaturge
#10 Jul 19 2010 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Obiar wrote:
Never considered that switching to windows 7 would improve performance. Is this confirmed?
From all I've heard about Vista/7 and gaming, making the upgrade always either gave a performance boost or didn't make much difference. I've never heard of games playing worse on 7 than on Vista.

Obiar wrote:
...If it doesn't hit than it doesn't matter...accuracy first
Faillllllll
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#11 Jul 19 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
Win 7 has less of a footprint, so it should improve scores slightly. I think the biggest difference will be turning off Aero. Either way the difference between Vista and 7 isn't going to be huge. Either way I would look here if you are interested in upgrading:

http://www.microsoft.com/student/en/us/software/windows.aspx
#12 Jul 19 2010 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
mid 3600s on low
2095 on high.


You're talking high settings @ 720 and medium settigs at 1080 [MOST LIKELY--I haven't had the honor of being chosen for the beta]

____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#13 Jul 20 2010 at 4:09 AM Rating: Decent
15 posts
For the same price as the ASUS G73 you get a HP ENVY 17

Does anyone know the benchmark of this one
although I'm probably gonna stay with G73 since I've read the cooling is way better.
#14 Jul 20 2010 at 5:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
bsphil wrote:
Obiar wrote:
...If it doesn't hit than it doesn't matter...accuracy first
Faillllllll


Was that "fail" directed at his opinion of accuracy being the most important stat, or about the fact that he misspelled "then" in a sentence about accuracy?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#15 Jul 20 2010 at 5:43 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
seneleron wrote:
mid 3600s on low
2095 on high.


You're talking high settings @ 720 and medium settigs at 1080 [MOST LIKELY--I haven't had the honor of being chosen for the beta]



You have a very peculiar definition of "high settings" and "medium settings".

[8000 and over] Extremely High Performance
Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
[5500–7999] Very High Performance
Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.
[4500-5499] High Performance
Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions.
[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings. Consider switching to a higher resolution depending on performance.
[2500-2999] Standard Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings.
[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but may experience some slowdown. Adjust settings to improve performance.
[1500-1999] Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but will experience considerable slowdown. Adjusting settings is unlikely to improve performance.
[Under 1500] Insufficient Performance
Does not meet specifications for running the game.

2095 would run it on low. 3600s would run it at default, maybe a little above. Don't let "fairly high performance" get confused with "high settings".
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#16 Jul 20 2010 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Obiar wrote:
...If it doesn't hit than it doesn't matter...accuracy first
Faillllllll


Was that "fail" directed at his opinion of accuracy being the most important stat, or about the fact that he misspelled "then" in a sentence about accuracy?
Both. :<
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#17 Jul 20 2010 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
Quote:
You have a very peculiar definition of "high settings" and "medium settings".


I'm trusting a source that's been accepted into the beta and running it on a G73. I'll take real world experience over general range numbers any day of the week.
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#18 Jul 20 2010 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
seneleron wrote:
Quote:
You have a very peculiar definition of "high settings" and "medium settings".


I'm trusting a source that's been accepted into the beta and running it on a G73. I'll take real world experience over general range numbers any day of the week.


If you'll humor me:

If 3600 is "capable of high settings" and I scored a 4000 and my machine's specs (Ph2X4 & 5770) are -lower- than the recommended settings, which are still only going to benchmark in the 5000s on low when the benchmark goes to 8000+, how does that make sense that 3600 is "high settings"?

Also, the alpha was a tuned-down version of the beta, graphics-wise. How do we know that the beta isn't a tuned-down version of the retail version? Your friend may be able to run the -beta- fine now, but we won't have any "real world experience" of the retail version until 9/22.

Perhaps your friend has their setting turned up somewhat on the beta version. And I can be reasonably sure that the laptop the OP listed should run the game fine. But neither I nor you can state definitively that "It will definitely run the retail release on high settings".

And again, you still haven't defined exactly what settings your friend is playing at; exactly how high is "high" anyway? Your definition may not be the same as SE's or mine or the OP's, etc.

It's advisable to set conservatively reasonable expectations for the performance one should hope to receive from a purchase. If you assume too little and the product runs better than anticipated, then great. If you assume too much and the product runs worse than anticipated, one tends to feel that they have wasted their money because they did not receive what they expected.

Does that make sense?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#19 Jul 21 2010 at 9:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,001 posts
My Asus G73 Laptop gives me over 4k on the 720P test. It will be plenty playable on that laptop.
____________________________
FFXIV: Lord Atomsk - Lalafell on Lindblum
FFXI: Nyu 75 SAM (retired)
------------------------------------
#20 Jul 21 2010 at 10:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Nyu wrote:
My Asus G73 Laptop gives me over 4k on the 720P test. It will be plenty playable on that laptop.


Screenshot?

Not saying I doubt you, but I would like it for future reference.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#21 Jul 21 2010 at 10:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,001 posts
Quote:
Screenshot?

Not saying I doubt you, but I would like it for future reference.


I can run it again when I get home tonight. When I ran it the first day it came out I got over 4000 on the 720p

It ran buttery smooth and I'm actually surprised it was as low as 4k because it seemed blazing fast during the run.

For reference I have the G73 BBX05 which is the one from Best Buy for $1200. Same processor/Video card, 6GB RAM instead of 8 and a 1600x900 screen instead of 1080p (I have no desired to have a 1080P screen that is 17 inches big - its way overkill)

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 12:56pm by Nyu
____________________________
FFXIV: Lord Atomsk - Lalafell on Lindblum
FFXI: Nyu 75 SAM (retired)
------------------------------------
#22 Jul 21 2010 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
Quote:
I can run it again when I get home tonight. When I ran it the first day it came out I got over 4000 on the 720p

It ran buttery smooth and I'm actually surprised it was as low as 4k because it seemed blazing fast during the run.

For reference I have the G73 BBX05 which is the one from Best Buy for $1200. Same processor/Video card, 6GB RAM instead of 8 and a 1600x900 screen instead of 1080p (I have no desired to have a 1080P screen that is 17 inches big - its way overkill)


I wonder if it's the difference in screen rez? Just out of curiosity, what catalyst drivers are you using?

Quote:
It's advisable to set conservatively reasonable expectations for the performance one should hope to receive from a purchase. If you assume too little and the product runs better than anticipated, then great. If you assume too much and the product runs worse than anticipated, one tends to feel that they have wasted their money because they did not receive what they expected.


In this you are absolutely correct, and thus I amend my statement as follows:

"I expect to see 'relatively' high settings @ 720 and medium-ish settings at 1080"

TBH I'm not chancing it myself. . I'm in the process of putting together a list for a desktop AMD X6 build with a 5850 gfx card because--let's face it-- it's a pretty forgone conclusion that the G73 won't run the game in 1080 at max settings, and some of us addicts "need" max settings the way heroin addicts need their fix ;)
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#23 Jul 21 2010 at 11:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Nyu wrote:
Quote:
Screenshot?

Not saying I doubt you, but I would like it for future reference.


I can run it again when I get home tonight. When I ran it the first day it came out I got over 4000 on the 720p

It ran buttery smooth and I'm actually surprised it was as low as 4k because it seemed blazing fast during the run.

For reference I have the G73 BBX05 which is the one from Best Buy for $1200. Same processor/Video card, 6GB RAM instead of 8 and a 1600x900 screen instead of 1080p (I have no desired to have a 1080P screen that is 17 inches big - its way overkill)


For $1200, that is a great laptop if it can run 4k. I never would have expected this. Maybe yours is just an anomaly? lol. If it is, consider yourself extremely lucky. :)
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#24 Jul 21 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
*
149 posts
I played FFXI on my 15.4" Dell XPS M1530

Right now I'm deciding whether or not to get a new laptop or build my own PC but if I buy a laptop chances are I'll get one of the cheaper Alienware models.

Its hard to decide though because I really fancy playing on a big screen with great graphics. Decisions decisions!


For lols this same laptop (Intel Core 2 Duo T7250[2GHz] , 2GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 8600M GT) scored a whopping 520 followed by 560 in the benchmark on low settings :D
____________________________
Former THF, BST, PLD, NIN 75
#25 Jul 21 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
djbenny wrote:
I played FFXI on my 15.4" Dell XPS M1530

Right now I'm deciding whether or not to get a new laptop or build my own PC but if I buy a laptop chances are I'll get one of the cheaper Alienware models.

Its hard to decide though because I really fancy playing on a big screen with great graphics. Decisions decisions!


For lols this same laptop (Intel Core 2 Duo T7250[2GHz] , 2GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 8600M GT) scored a whopping 520 followed by 560 in the benchmark on low settings :D



If you're deciding on a laptop vs desktop for XIV, I would say absolutely a desktop. Especially if you're willing to shell out the money for an Alienware. It sounds like the laptop you have is pretty decent anyway as far as laptops go. They just don't handle high end games nearly as well as their PC counterparts.
#26 Jul 21 2010 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
I prefer playing on a laptop, but I wouldn't buy a new laptop specifically for this game for at least another year. I can't justify to myself dropping a bunch of dough on a high-end gaming laptop right now and it barely or not even being able to run this game on high settings. Right now I don't think there is a mobile GPU that can compete with the ones they are recommending for optimal game play. I'm hoping for my current one to at least be playable on minimal settings until the PS3 release. Maybe next Summer/Fall get a new one or build a desktop depending on what's out there at the time.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#27 Aug 21 2010 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
2 posts
(I know it's been 1 month since last post, but this is a laptops thread with discussion including my lappy)
Okay, here are my HP Envy17 Benchmark results.

~2450 for Low,
1531 for High

My HP ENVY 17's specs:

CPU: Intel Core i7 Q720 @ 1.60GHz
RAM: 6GB
HDD: 1 x 500GB 7,200RPM (Hitachi)
Graphics Card: ATI (mobility) Radeon 5850
Display: 1080p Ultra Brightview LED backlit display
Disc Drive: Blu-Ray ROM/DVD Writable Slot-loading drive

Edited, Aug 21st 2010 3:27pm by csphobos
#28 Sep 13 2010 at 2:12 AM Rating: Default
2 posts
Resolution is on low

-2239ish
P8700 @ 2.56GHz
GTX 260m
DDR3-1066 (533 MHz)
Raid 0 (7200 & 5600 RPM)
#29 Sep 13 2010 at 8:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
386 posts
Thought I'd chip in with results from another laptop.

ASUS G73JH

windows 7 home premium 64-bit (6.1 build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100618-1621)
Intel (R) Core(TM) i7 CPU Q720 @ 1.60GHz (8 CPUs) ~1.6GHz (Revs up higher with turbo mode, I think 2.8?)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870

High - 2042
Low - 3531

Current Beta Settings:

Windowed
1600 x 1900
Multisampling - 4xMSAA
Buffer Size - Resolution
Shadow Detail - High
Ambient Occlusion - off
Depth of Field - off

I should note this is after I updated / flashed the BIOS (was so scared of bricking) since ASUS recently released some fixes for this laptop, as well as updating to 10.8 drivers. Game runs pretty smooth.
#30 Sep 13 2010 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,235 posts
My friend actually just called me Friday to help him get XIV running on this. He ordered it specific for XIV.
It ran swimmingly. We were very surprised how effortlessly it ran te beta before we even started tweaking the settings.

I did have to talk him through updating the driver for the Radeon, the most current is appropriate for the Asus. I believe it was version 10.8. Also if you plan on trying the beta, we had to open up some extra ports. Those instructions have been posted by an admin on this site.

You'll have no problems running XIV at all, I was actually a bit jealous, as I spent like $2400 US on my Alienware laptop to play XIV, and his Asus is more than enough at $1299 US. I'm pretty sure the retail release will be a bit more optimized as far as UI lag, etc, so I think you made a great purchase Heksar.
____________________________


"Don't take it personally man, white knights would eat a can of **** if the label said SE on it. If anyone dared mention that it was not a good product, they'd just argue if someone can't appreciate the subtle nuances in the ****, they should just go back to eating lolrealfood, cuz the devs prolly know more about canning food than they do."
#31 Sep 13 2010 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,001 posts
I play the beta with the exact laptop you are thinking about buying and it runs it great.

Note: I got the one from best buy with the 1600x900 screen so that I didn't have to run the game at 1080p. I didn't want to stress the card more than I had to.

Anyhow, my G73 runs the game great.
____________________________
FFXIV: Lord Atomsk - Lalafell on Lindblum
FFXI: Nyu 75 SAM (retired)
------------------------------------
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)