Morning Discussion

Last night the subject of "Top 5 movies you hate that everyone loves" came up during a podcast I was a guest on. My list was shocking, apparently. Allow me to explain before I drop the hammer: I'm not a Star Wars or Lord of the Rings fan. I don't disparage those who adore those franchises but it's just not for me. Personal preference.

When I said I named Fellowship of the Rings as one of my "Top 5," I thought I heard the distant sounds of snipers readying their sights on my cranium. It's just a person opinion. I enjoyed "The Two Towers" and "Return of the King" enough to keep them off that list, but I will never watch "Fellowship" again. Again. Personal preference.

I don't know why I'm over explaining this. I know you understand, Internet. You never overreact to these kinds of things. What are some moves you hate that everyone loves?
From The Chatty
  • reply
    August 24, 2010 5:05 AM

    Is a Core i7 overkill for a non-gaming laptop? Non-gaming meaning gaming won't be a priority but there may be occasional games if BFBC2 or CoD:MW2. Would a Core i5 430M handle those games well with 1gb video card?

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 5:09 AM

      Getting the fastest processor you can afford is never overkill in my eyes...it just means the box will be usable for longer.

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 5:25 AM

        That's what I was thinking. I usually get the best available so I don't have to upgrade as often.

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 5:27 AM

        iawtp

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 6:39 AM

        Don't you pay a premium for top of the line components? Wouldn't it make more sense to buy middle range computers and upgrade more often in order to ensure you always have decent hardware?

        I get that you might want a high end computer if you run very intense applications, but seeing as he's buying a non-gaming laptop my thought would be to get a cheaper model and upgrade it in a year or a year and a half. I usually get the lowest specs 15" macbook pro and upgrade every two years, and I'm always happy with the computer I've got.

        • reply
          August 24, 2010 6:48 AM

          This is simply another philosophy of going about it with its own ups and downs. The major down being the trouble you have to go through to upgrade.

        • reply
          August 24, 2010 7:28 AM

          That makes sense for GPUs but not for mobo/CPU/RAM. You don't want to invest in high high end GPUs because the speed upgrade per generation is insane, and routinely does a faster and quieter and cheaper model come out only a year or so later.

          CPUs on the other hand, take a while to be completely supplanted. It's much better to get the fastest processor you can at the time instead of getting midrange and possibly having to deal with socket changes/incompatibilities with your current mobo/ram.

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 6:55 AM

        Not always with a laptop since the fastest processor usually implies the most heat.

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 6:57 AM

        This is true

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 7:25 AM

        I disagree. I see bigger jumps in generations of chips, rather than a higher speed of the current generation. Also, you can always overclock.

        Obviously, everyone upgrades in a different cycle, but I'd rather spend 200-300 on a chip, than 500-1000.

        I tend to have the same philosphy about vid cards as well, although I did get a decent vid card this generation (5850). But it feels like vid cards can have a greater affect on your fps than the cpu.

        • reply
          August 24, 2010 7:33 AM

          This is definitely true, I bought an intel i5-750 for $200 September 2009. It is currently $195 at Newegg.

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 7:27 AM

        Top of the line -1 imo

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 5:29 AM

      Kind of a tangent, but do you know if it's possible to do a good processor and good video card (no idea how vid cards in laptops work these days) but have it in a smaller form factor?

      Like, a i7 and a beefy vid card with a 12"-13" monitor?

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 6:10 AM

        It's pretty rare and will cost you a pretty penny if it does, the main reason is because that kind of horsepower isn't necessary to run those displays and the larger form factor gives the GPU & CPU more space to spread heat.

        • reply
          August 24, 2010 6:56 AM

          Yea it's hard to imagine much of a need for a machine like that.

          I want a very portable PC that I can game on if I plug it into a monitor.

          Small size, beefy components. Not exactly practical :/

          • reply
            August 24, 2010 7:20 AM

            You might be able to do that with an ITX board and the right components.

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 5:29 AM

      Its not if you're a software developer

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 5:31 AM

      what is the difference in power usage? I would assume the core i7 is overkill- despite people claiming it is going to last so much longer. imho, by the time a core i5 is no longer cutting it, your core i7 wouldn't be doing that well either. since it's a non gaming laptop, I'd be focusing on a sweet spot between good CPU and battery life. seeing as a core i5 is nothing to sneeze at, I'd hope you would get more juice out of the battery when you're away from an immediate power source. having said that, I don't have a lot of experience with the core architecture and as such, can't comment further.

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 5:32 AM

        and speaking from a desktop users perspective, I run the wimpiest core I3 CPU with a 4890 1GB and those games are very responsive and pretty at 1920x1080.

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 5:48 AM

        Well I'm not too concerned with power consumption since I won't be using it anywhere there isn't a power source available. It'll be either at my house or my parents' house.

        I would think the quad core would have a longer shelf life than a dual core, no? So my logic is getting a quad core and make sure the ram is expandable to at least 8gb and down the road I'd be putting off having to buy another laptop for at least another year or so.

        • reply
          August 24, 2010 5:50 AM

          oh well fuck it, if it's plugged into the mains all day long then spring for the most pimpin i7, fuckin fogetabout'it

        • reply
          August 24, 2010 7:24 AM

          Isn't the laptop i7 dual core? Intel has managed to design an incredibly confusing naming scheme.

          • reply
            August 24, 2010 10:06 AM

            I thought the laptop i7 was quad core and the i3/i5 were dual core.

            • reply
              August 24, 2010 10:36 AM

              I believe there are dual core i7s as well

      • reply
        August 24, 2010 6:02 AM

        According to this the difference is pretty minor, especially during idle:

        http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410-13.html

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 5:54 AM

      Core I5 and the 430M are pretty good bedfellows. For a price point that is going to be affordable and will go the distance for you. Core I7 will ultimately be more expensive but depending on how much more, it might not really be worth whatever extra performance you will gain. To answer your question, those two games should run fine on that configuration.

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 6:08 AM

      Who cares about the CPU when you will most likely be GPU limited to hell and back on anything that is not an explicitly "gaming-grade" laptop.

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 6:10 AM

      From what I've gathered, the current i7 is not really suited for laptops (unless it's going to be sat on a desk 95% of the time). i3 and i5 have better heat/power management or something.

      The next iteration will (of course) be better, but I'd suggest opting for an i5 right now.

    • reply
      August 24, 2010 6:45 AM

      M11x?

Hello, Meet Lola