New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's so difficult to choose!

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
I'll cut straight to the chase. I'm buying a laptop, and I have 2 in mind. I've narrowed it down to these 2, but I cannot decide on my own what is best for me. It's the 5690 vs. the 8790.

The Sager 5690.
Since I'm a gamer, it seems this is the best choice for me. The UXGA LCD I've heard is great for games and the computer is fastest of all the Sagers. However, I'm confused as to how this can be true, when it uses an the 128MB version of the Radeon 9700 as opposed to the 256MB version, and all other specs are equal to the 8790. But this is important, as numbers talk, and the numbers say this lappy is faster.
My concerns with this one are the monitor size and THIS (check the picture at the bottom of the first post) . BUT, I will end up paying almost $500 less for it !

The Sager 8790.
This was my first choice until I saw the benchmark scores for the 5690. The LCD on this computer is BIG and BEAUTIFUL, based on everything I've heard. It has more video memory at 256MB, which appears to not matter at all.
My concerns with this one? I've heard a few people say that the odd resolution (1680x1050), and the wideness of the screen can cause problems playing some games, and also viewing some web pages. I feel that if this is true, it could be very obnoxious.

So that's my predicament. Should I get the bigger screen, with it's slightly worse compatability and ($400) higher price, or get the smaller screen, pay less, and get better performance. I would really hate to get the 15" screen and regret it. At the same time though, that link I posted above has me worried a little. The monitor on the left looks horribly washed out. And the 17" LCD also has the clear, extra glossy coat. Will I regret not getting that?
post #2 of 20
One thing though is that the 8790 comes underclocked where the 5690 already is clocked almost as fast as it can go
post #3 of 20
Some games can be streched out on the 8790 and some will have black bars on the sides of the screen to fit the 4:3 screen size. But for the games that support widescreen it really is amazing to play on. I think more and more games are supporting widescreen format...? I also bought the 8790 to watch a lot of movies on and yes the 8790 should be able to be clocked as fast as the 5690
post #4 of 20
Like the Venc said, widescreen gaming is utterly fantastic. The 5690 might have a tight UXGA screen, but it can't touch a native widescreen game for coolness, IMO.

I haven't met a webpage that was bothered by the widescreen. If anything, the widescreen helps because you can stretch out screwy-designed pages so you don't have to scroll left to right to see everything. Just maximize your browser and you're set to see it all.

And maniacle called it on the vidcard. Also figure that eventually, there are going to be games that will be able to take advantage of the extra memory, so you'll be ahead of hte game (hopefully) by having the 256mb card. Might not work out that way, but logically it seems like it would.
post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the replies, I feel more confident now about the 17" LCD. Now it's a battle between Intel and AMD for me.

I found that I can get a similarly configured 4750 for about $300 less than the 8790. The specs are exactly the same in all but a few catagories.

The choice now lays upon whether I get the tried and true Pentium 4 3.4Ghz (Not the Extreme Edition though; I refuse to pay $600 more for that small of a performance increase!), or the 64bit Athlon 3400+, which I have YET to see a benchmark for (based on Sager notebooks, not just the processor). The Athlon system however only has 128MB of video memory... should I worry?

The computer is for gaming mostly, but I do a little bit of everything. I'd like to hear from people who own and use the 4750, because I want to know how it performs, how hot it gets, and how it stack up against the regular 3.4Ghz P4. And, will the 64bit AMD be more future-proof? It seems to me it is, moreso than the Pentium system at least.

Thanks again for the great replies!
post #6 of 20
Well comments on the 4750 will have to wait since it just came out a couple of days ago. However, as we all know AMD is technically better for gaming and can hang with Intel in other applications. I would go with the AMD for sure as far as the processor goes. Now for the vid card, its really hard to say because I don't know when games will be recommending that level of memory. You might need/want to upgrade your whole computer by the time games starting asking for 256.
post #7 of 20
AMD will probably have better battery life as well.
post #8 of 20
I'm in the same boat layziepop01, I'll be getting a new laptop to act as my sole computer within the week, and I'm having to decide between the 5690 and the 4750. At first I thought the 4750 would be the better choice because the AMD64 was supposedly better for gaming, and would provide better battery life. After seeing some of the benchmarks from the chiligreen D740k (4750 clone), the 5690 still wins out in performance. The battery life for the D740k also doesn't come close to what you can get out of the 5690 with a dual batt configuration. Now as for the screens, I've never been a big fan of widescreen considering I watch more documentaries and tv shows (4:3 ratio) than movies (16:9 ratio). Also I do a lot of programming, and graphic work, so I'd rather have 1600 x 1200 than 1680x1050 (I can use the couple thousand extra pixels ) . The one thing the 4750 does have over the 5690 was that nice looking glossy screen which would be nice for my graphic work, however that became less of a selling point when I saw how nice amir's 5690 screen looked after he installed his nushield. Add to all that the fact that the 5690s dual channel ram (2 gigs of it) would give me a lot more bandwidth when working with large files and gaming, I think I'll stick with the 5690. Some people might say 64 bit computing is the future and to go with the AMD64, but I think the move to widespread 64 bit acceptance is still a looong way off. It also doesn't help that I'm impatient and I'm sure I could get the 5690 long before the 4750 starts reaching people. Anyways, those are my reasons for going with the 5690. I hope whatever you choose work great for you. I'm sure you can't go wrong with either of these beasts!
post #9 of 20
Thread Starter 
Well, I just did it. I took the plunge into notebook computing for the first time in my life. This is my laptops configuration.

101 Sager 4750-V Notebook: 4750-V 1 $2503.08 $2503.08
1182 Display: 17" WSXGA+ LCD (WideScreen
1680 X 1050)
1183 Processor: AMD Athlon 64 3400
1179 Video: 128MB ATI Radeon 9700 (M11)
1191 RAM: 1024MB 400DDR (2-512MB)
842 Hard Drive: 60GB 7200RPM
539 Media Drive: 8X DVD/24X10X24 CDRW
Combo Drive
350 Modem: 56K RJ11 Phone Modem
853 Network Card: 10/100/1000 NIC
494 Operating System: No Operating System
372 TV Tuner: No
354 Battery: Primary Li-ION battery pack
355 Case: Basic Black business case
768 12V Car Adapter: Direct power cable
for car
372 Spare Battery: No
372 Spare Power Adapter: No
372 Port Replicator: No
1041 Wireless Network: Internal 802.11g
TURBO (108Mbps) wireless
852 Bluetooth: Internal Bluetooth
1184 Card Reader: 4 - in - 1 Card Reader
1029 Camera: Integrated Digital Video
Camera
372 Software Bundle: No
372 Office Software: No
1017 Warranty: 3 year warranty- under
$3,000
372 Repair Transit Coverage: No
372 Export Coverage: No

I've used AMD processors before with much luck, and the gaming benchmarks mean alot to me, so I hooked myself up with a 4750-V.

My current desktop system has an Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8Ghz), 256MB RAM, and a GeForceFX 5900. Bet you can't guess the part of that I'm gonna miss most. Luckily the FX will find a new home in my girlfriends next desktop system!
Thank you again, you've all been VERY helpful. I'd still be sitting at the configuration page without your help! I'll make sure I provide a nice long review of it when it gets here. I wired the money today, and am paying the extra $100 for overnight shipping. Can't wait 'til it gets here!
post #10 of 20
awesome, good luck with your laptop. I'll be getting the exact same config except with the dvd burner, targus pack, no bluetooth, no car adapter.
post #11 of 20
There aren't really that much battery life test for the 4750 yet, and the 5690 comparison to the 4750 can't be that accurate yet because there really aren't enough test results to make a comparison. Benchmark are synthetic by the way, and a small difference such as 1000 points on the aquamark isn't going to affect gaming that much.
post #12 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OGREtheBUFFOON
awesome, good luck with your laptop. I'll be getting the exact same config except with the dvd burner, targus pack, no bluetooth, no car adapter.
Heh, I just threw in the bluetooth at the last minute, figuring it can't hurt, and it's just another thing I won't have to get in the future if I need it. I have a DVD burner in one of my desktop computers, and I only use it for backing up data anyway. If I need to, I'll just network em up.

Didn't need a fancy case (yet anyways), and I plan to spend quite a bit of time sitting in my car on the computer, or else my girlfriend will have something to do on long trips.
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayaman2
There aren't really that much battery life test for the 4750 yet, and the 5690 comparison to the 4750 can't be that accurate yet because there really aren't enough test results to make a comparison. Benchmark are synthetic by the way, and a small difference such as 1000 points on the aquamark isn't going to affect gaming that much.
It just sounded to me from what everyone was saying about the 4750 that the differences in performance and battery life would be significant. They're not are they?
post #14 of 20
they are probably about the same. even with the dual battery of the 5690 i don't think your going to get much battery life. 2 hours max. however ther are several important reasons why i like the amd 64 better. it downclocks when on light usage, using less voltage and reducing the heat, and has an autoshutoff if the processor get too hot. the other reason is the uxga on a 15" screen would probably require squinting to see words, as opposed to a similar resolution on a bigger screen (bigger pixels).
post #15 of 20
My twin bro uses a 15" uxga everyday and loves it, no squinting needed. I guess if some people sit a bit away from their laptop I can understand that though.

EDIT: stop making me consider the 4750 again!
post #16 of 20
i think they are very similar though. i was indecisive about this and had a thread about which to buy, the 4750 or the 5690. They both have their quirks, but it seems that a 17" monitor wouldn't be as much of a downgrade as 15" monitor for me. I use a 17" sony monitor on my desktop, which is pretty sweet. 16 ms response time!
post #17 of 20
Have you heard anything about ship dates since Adam speculated the 15th?
post #18 of 20
layzie, if you buy a wireless mouse, you will not regret having spent a little extra for Bluetooth. I love, love, LOVE having a wireless mouse.
post #19 of 20
meh, idk. internal BT is $50 and a mx900 is $100 vs. ~$35 for a nice wired optical one. I just can't justify spending an extra $115 so that I don't have a wire. Maybe if i tried it i'd feel differently, but i doubt it.
post #20 of 20
I feel the same way. I've used wireless mice and sure, they're nice, but for the price I don't think they're worth it yet. Especially not for a laptop, seriously how far can you go from the screen before you can't see it? I can understand if you have a 19 or 21" monitor on a desktop, you can go pretty far away and still see it relatively easily, but on a 15" laptop lcd, you're usually pretty close.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks