Lagfree laptop for SC2 gaming?

---

On July 02 2012 01:07 Filter wrote:
It can barely run low, you won't be piling 60fps at all times though and come six months once dust builds up a bit etc it'll slowdown from there. I'd advise against it, it's not a machine built for gaming and won't hold up for long sessions.

---

---

On July 02 2012 00:32 Thezftw wrote:
I'm 100% sure that GPU is trash even without looking at any charts or specifications.

Do you have any options?

---

---

On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:
Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P.
...

---

---

On July 02 2012 01:49 Alryk wrote:
Y'all... you're vastly underestimating mobile GPUs, people on TL do this a lot. I realize they aren't nearly as powerful as desktop cards, but a GT650M is WAY more than enough for low level gaming on 1080P.

GT630M and the crap DDR3 version of it - the DDR5 version, if the Acer has it, will perform better, and even this one shows almost playable FPS on high.
650M lowest version gets 35 fps on ultra @ 1080P (which is probably a DDR3 version). Whine about notebookcheck's benchmark system all you want, but no amount of flaws is going to reduce it to "1080P on low" like the above person is suggesting.

If you want a better website's benchmarks of gaming on a 640M (which is weaker than a 650M) go here. The 640M can play Skyrim on medium @ 1080P with FPS to spare, and skyrim is much more intense than SC2.

OP, to answer your question, yes a 630M can easily play SC2 on any resolution on low easily. It's a rebranded 540M (sometimes 550M iirc) which I believe was recognized to play SC2 decently on medium @ 1080P.

+ Show Spoiler + Anandtech bench of the 540M on Starcraft 2 at 1080P on low, it gets 90 FPS. Performance should be exactly the same or better as well. I know the bench says 1366x768, but look at the L502X, and it lists 1080P. At the listed resolution though, it gets 120 I believe.

+ Show Spoiler + SC2 on ultra @ 1600x900 gets just over 30 FPS. On 1080P, it's just under 30 FPS, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that.

Please don't say these "it can barely play low" without proof >.>

Edit: He lives in Denmark, he can't buy from Newegg. That might be why price seems high as well, prices aren't comparable across countries.


Advice like this is just blatantly wrong, do you have any proof to back it up?

dust will ruin any computer. You should clean your computer of dust even if you have an Alienware.



Your issue is the whole "not looking at any charts or specifications" seeing as it ISN'T trash. It definitely is weaker than most, but it's more than enough to handle SC2. Giving advice is a terrible idea if you have no better knowledge than "it's laptop GPU, so it must suck."

---

---

On July 02 2012 03:08 Filter wrote:

The i5-3210 is also a dual core chip that gets stressed to four cores, again designed for performance with general use. That's actually the worst case scenario when you start talking specifically about sc2 because it will cause a huge amount of stress on the cpu while gaming because sc2 can't use four cores. Windows sees that i5 as a quad core, but in reality it's a dual core meaning sc2 is basically working off 1 core (all be it turbo boosted) but the laptop won't be able to handle that for very long.

---

---

On July 02 2012 03:21 Myrmidon wrote:


Somebody let me know wtf it is that I just read.


btw I don't think anybody is implying you look at benchmark scores while turning off your brain and ignoring the test hardware and which games may be more CPU or GPU limited in which scenarios.

---

---

On July 02 2012 03:08 Filter wrote:


The OP is looking for basically 0 frame drops outside of the large battles, benchmarks from a site listing no other specs don't really cut the mustard. You're overlooking not only the original post but the rest of the computers specs. The only thing you look at is what that specific card scores on a particular benchmark. Nowhere on that site does it measure that particular laptop, either under stress or after a prolonged gaming session.

That particular laptop is nothing more than a budget performance machine. It's not designed for games, it's built for photoshop, video editing and people like you that only read the specs while discounting the rest of the machine. That laptop will NOT have sufficient cooling to handle a 2 or 3 hour sc2 session let alone a longer one. It's designed to hold up for short busts of required performance like home videos for youtube.

The i5-3210 is also a dual core chip that gets stressed to four cores, again designed for performance with general use. That's actually the worst case scenario when you start talking specifically about sc2 because it will cause a huge amount of stress on the cpu while gaming because sc2 can't use four cores. Windows sees that i5 as a quad core, but in reality it's a dual core meaning sc2 is basically working off 1 core (all be it turbo boosted) but the laptop won't be able to handle that for very long.

In terms of dirt and dust, it happens. Without disassembling a laptop you'll never get all the crap out of and most laptops have poor cooling to begin with. No amount of careful maintenance will help with that, and that will drop performance. What performs great out of the box will see a dip as time goes on.

You also start comparing the 640m and 650m chipsets which are not really relevant to the op's question.

What I'm trying to say is don't post uniformed opinions based on review sites testing chipsets in perfect conditions. The 630 chipset itself is fine, the laptop when taken as a whole and looking at the op is not what he is looking for. Want to find proof? Tell the OP to buy that laptop and play 8 hours of sc2 on, then test his framerate. It'll be garbage by that point.

Edit: And if you really want proof my laptops running an i5-2410 and gt525, according to your charts an i380 with gt525 is supposed to get 75% of the performance of the machine at the top of the charts there (Which has a far superior cpu to the op's question laptop) and I get 40-45 fps for most of a multiplayer game, as I play more games on it that drops by a large margin. My laptop is designed to be a powerful portable machine in bursts, not a gaming laptop just like what the op posted. My laptop is extremely well maintained and still performs exceptionally well for what I use it for but it is not designed for games, does not have the cooling for them and is built for power in short bursts.

---

---

On July 02 2012 03:27 Filter wrote:


I'm tired, consider it a horribly programmed sentence that can be condensed into 10 words.

i5-3210's are two physical cores, that act as quad cores.

---

---

On July 02 2012 03:51 Filter wrote:
The benchmarks you posted are from sc2 with a very strong cpu, so yes the cpu does matter. The i5-3210 will absolutely bottleneck on sc2, 2500k's bottleneck sc2 in some situations (although very rarely). Under load in sc2 the 3210 will throttle, and it will only get worse over time as dust builds up.

I have no questions about the ability of a 630m to run sc2 on low, but I do have serious questions about the 3210 keeping up. I have even more questions about the laptop as a whole running as advertised considering Acer's reputation, I doubt the cooling is up to snuff.

---