Your recommendation is probably better powerpack,I see notebookcheck didn't really speak nicely about the build quality or the screen quality/contrast of the MSI in this review http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...k.16307.0.html
Interestingly notebookreview has done a review on the asus you mention and had quite high praise for it including it's performance and build,has a damn ugly 16:9 1366x768 screen which is kind of a put off though,but may not bother some.
But to get to the point of the OP's question,personally I wouldn't buy both but if I had to,I'd put more money into the desktop and get a cheapo notebook.and sorry for derailing your thread.
I put this at the bottom as it's off topic and...
to [keep harping
] my point the N81VP 4650 scores almost a 1000 point's more in the NBR 3dmark benchmark's,but was run at 1280x800 instead of 1280x1024 like the MSI on notebook check was [there was also a P7350 v T9550 difference in specification which makes at least a couple of hundred point's difference in the benchmark] you can say you agree qhn,but why do you agree ? Although I think nvidia live's up to it's benchmark score's better than ATI,I'm not saying one is better than the other performance wise for certain in this case,just the logic of using 3dmark as real life performance gospel is flawed and the difference may not be as "crushing" as you guy's think it will be,if you take into account tested resolution,ATI benchmark goodness and cpu difference's.
My FX770M is a 9600GT in D3d term's also and score's around 100 point's less than that asus at the same tested resolution with a slower P8600 cpu and around 250 point's higher with the X9100 I had in it....does that mean my 9600GT get's "crushed" as well??what about the fact I can overclock it to over 8000 point's in 3dmark,does that mean it outperform's a 256bit GPU that score's 7900 in 3dmark??...here's a clue,it doesn't,not by a long shot