Which laptop for Star Wars?

[jedidonovan]

I am also looking for a new gaming laptop. It's been awhile since i had to upgrade but is it worth just getting one that has 4gb vram instead of the 2gb vram. I'm still playing a old Dell studio from 07. it does what i want but i do need to upgrade.

A Tech I know told me to ignore the asus rog and go with the lenova y700 cause of the difference in vram was why.

Edited February 2, 2016 by jedidonovan
Forgot to mention which Laptops I was looking at

[Fluffometer]

It would be interesting to see a FRAPS bench of that... I have a Core2Quad, very similar to that, 2.4GHz, Q6600, with a ATI Radeon 5850 in it, and I find the performance in SWTOR to be unacceptable. I do have dual boot on that machine, Windows XP and Windows 10, but I think I only ran it on Windows 10. I'll have to give it a try on XP and see if it matters either way.

 

I'll do my best to remember and record the bench details next time I'm using it

[MadDutchman]

I am also looking for a new gaming laptop. It's been awhile since i had to upgrade but is it worth just getting one that has 4gb vram instead of the 2gb vram. I'm still playing a old Dell studio from 07. it does what i want but i do need to upgrade.

A Tech I know told me to ignore the asus rog and go with the lenova y700 cause of the difference in vram was why.

 

lenovo's have a... checkered... reliability record in my experience, and 4GB of VRAM is probably overkill, depending on what else s in the system.

[Cheops]

I would also give another vote to the dell laptop.. from what i see its all around slightly better.. as far a performance.. due to its quad core cpu vs dual core.. granted this wouldnt make a big difference in swtor it would be slight and any multitasking you do it would help.. (running web browsers in the back ground youtube ect) and it would help if you ever play other games that can make bettery use of quad cores... also the video card is slightly better.. not much but enough..it does have more rim for the video card.. thats a good thing even if you dont use it.. better to have to much tthen not enough.. and again.. if you play something other then swtor... that might help out.... the screens .. dell is a little better... not a ton.. just a little.. from what i can see the 'biggest' differance.. really has nothing to do with performance.. one has a metal chassis (asus) one is all plastic (dell)

 

also they BOTH had room inside to add a 2nd hard drive.. either another ssd or a regular hhd to increase storage

[TX_Angel]

Well, color me shocked... I just finished with 2 warzones on the Dell notebook posted in the OP.

 

A few things surprised me, as I looked closer at the results. First, we keep saying "SWTOR doesn't use more than 2 cores". Has this changed since 4.0.4, or perhaps slightly before?

 

I've looked at this in the past, and it WAS true at some point not that long ago (even with 4.0 it was true), but frankly it was using 3 cores really steady on the Dell. Between FRAPS recordings, I checked Task Manager and SWTOR was using up to 75% of the CPU with its two threads. Since it is a quad core, 25% CPU usage is a single core fully used, 100% is all 4 cores completely used.

 

I made sure this time to close all background running tasks, I'm plugged in, set for high performance power management in Windows, running on wired Ethernet.

 

I also have to say that the performance is not as good as I remember it being when 4.0 launched. I've run SWTOR on this machine before, and I was far less impressed this time.

[TX_Angel]

Run 1 - 1080p Full Screen Windowed

Ultra settings - except AA turned off, shadows turned off, grass turned off.

 

Frames - 5978

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 11

Max - 33

Avg - 19.927

 

---

 

Run 2 - 1080p Full Screen Windowed

Very low settings - Everything is turned down as far as it will go

 

Frames - 5477

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 10

Max - 29

Avg - 18.257

 

---

 

It does not appear to matter what I set the graphics settings to. The in-game FPS count was red the entire time. Normally that means GPU limited, but the performance was largely the same no matter the graphics settings.

 

The CPU usage was pegged solid, between 65% and 75% the entire time (I left Task Manager running in the background on slow update).

 

1. This is the first time I recall SWTOR using more than 2 cores, I don't know if this is new, or what, but it seems to peg the CPU harder than I recall. I'm going to check this against my Core i7 desktop computer in a few min and see what it says. If it uses only 2 cores, it should stay at 25%, if it uses 3, then 37.5%.

 

2. The CPU was running pretty solid at about 2.8GHz. It couldn't reach its full turbo speed of 3.2GHz because that speed is allowed only with a single core, and the CPU was quite busy. I am playing on a desk with good cooling all around. The system fan kicked up to a moderate speed, but nothing annoying.

[TX_Angel]

Ok, just did a GSF run on the Dell notebook:

 

1080p Full Screen Windowed

Ultra settings - except AA turned off, shadows turned off, grass turned off.

 

Frames - 15865

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 5

Max - 62

Avg - 52.883

 

Note that when looking at the second by second FPS Excel file, it is pretty solid 60fps, right up until it drops to 5-10 FPS for 1 or 2 frames. I believe those are the times I'm zoning back in after being blown up.

 

Otherwise it was perfectly smooth.

[TX_Angel]

Just ran a heroic in an instanced area of Hoth on the Dell notebook:

 

1080p Full Screen Windowed

Ultra settings - except AA turned off, shadows turned off, grass turned off.

 

Frames - 12415

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 21

Max - 62

Avg - 41.383

 

It wasn't quite as smooth as GSF, but it was totally playable. If this is all I had to play on, solo content is no issue, at least as far as that is concerned. It was a busy Heroic, I was in combat more than 50% of the time, engaging trash mobs (I picked one with 40 required for the bonus)

[TX_Angel]

Just ran a heroic in an instanced area of Hoth on the Dell notebook:

 

1080p Full Screen Windowed

Ultra settings - except AA turned off, shadows turned off, grass turned off.

 

Frames - 12415

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 21

Max - 62

Avg - 41.383

 

It wasn't quite as smooth as GSF, but it was totally playable. If this is all I had to play on, solo content is no issue, at least as far as that is concerned. It was a busy Heroic, I was in combat more than 50% of the time, engaging trash mobs (I picked one with 40 required for the bonus)

 

Wanted to quote this, logged into the same toon on my main desktop to see what the differences would be.

 

My desktop is:

 

i7-4770k overclocked to 4.2GHz

32GB DDR3-2400 RAM

GTX 980 TI Superclocked EVGA running at 1.29GHz

 

My desktop resolution is very high, I run three Dell 30" panels, total resolution (including bezel correction) is 8120x1600.

 

Graphics settings are the same as above.

 

For a busy heroic with lots of fighting on Hoth:

 

Frames - 17624

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 37

Max - 62

Avg - 58.747

 

So overall better performance. To be honest, the one or two times it dipped, I never noticed. It was frankly smooth as silk as far as I could tell. I suspect it is the CPU, and not the GPU, that accounts for the above jump in average FPS. Perhaps I'll down clock it to 3.0GHz and see what that does.

 

I'm going to try a WZ, same setting, same resolution, and I'll follow up with that.

[FlyingUsPoo]

Well, color me shocked... I just finished with 2 warzones on the Dell notebook posted in the OP.

A few things surprised me, as I looked closer at the results. First, we keep saying "SWTOR doesn't use more than 2 cores". Has this changed since 4.0.4, or perhaps slightly before?

I've looked at this in the past, and it WAS true at some point not that long ago (even with 4.0 it was true), but frankly it was using 3 cores really steady on the Dell. Between FRAPS recordings, I checked Task Manager and SWTOR was using up to 75% of the CPU with its two threads. Since it is a quad core, 25% CPU usage is a single core fully used, 100% is all 4 cores completely used.

I made sure this time to close all background running tasks, I'm plugged in, set for high performance power management in Windows, running on wired Ethernet.

I also have to say that the performance is not as good as I remember it being when 4.0 launched. I've run SWTOR on this machine before, and I was far less impressed this time.

*SNIP*

It does not appear to matter what I set the graphics settings to. The in-game FPS count was red the entire time. Normally that means GPU limited, but the performance was largely the same no matter the graphics settings.

The CPU usage was pegged solid, between 65% and 75% the entire time (I left Task Manager running in the background on slow update).

1. This is the first time I recall SWTOR using more than 2 cores, I don't know if this is new, or what, but it seems to peg the CPU harder than I recall. I'm going to check this against my Core i7 desktop computer in a few min and see what it says. If it uses only 2 cores, it should stay at 25%, if it uses 3, then 37.5%.

2. The CPU was running pretty solid at about 2.8GHz. It couldn't reach its full turbo speed of 3.2GHz because that speed is allowed only with a single core, and the CPU was quite busy. I am playing on a desk with good cooling all around. The system fan kicked up to a moderate speed, but nothing annoying.

Massively crap performance plus i5 and the GTX 960M co-existing plus running on more than one core strongly indicates you were using the intel HD graphics portion of the CPU.

Edited February 2, 2016 by FlyingUsPoo

[TX_Angel]

Warzone Results on desktop:

 

i7-4770k overclocked to 4.2GHz

32GB DDR3-2400 RAM

GTX 980 TI Superclocked EVGA running at 1.29GHz

 

My desktop resolution is very high, I run three Dell 30" panels, total resolution (including bezel correction) is 8120x1600.

 

I ran two FRAPS, both on pylons, both in heavy combat

 

Frames - 12043

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 20

Max - 61

Avg - 40.143

 

Frames - 12203

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 16

Max - 62

Avg - 40.677

 

---

 

Overall FAR smoother than the laptop was. The few dips down into the 20s were during either heavy crazy combat (10+ people on screen firing everything), or when dying and phasing back to start, or when the pylons blew.

 

It was totally playable and really I had no complaints.

[TX_Angel]

Massively crap performance plus i5 and the GTX 960M co-existing plus running on more than one core strongly indicates you were using the intel HD graphics portion of the CPU.

 

No, that simply wouldn't be possible. The Intel graphics would not be able to provide NEARLY that type of performance.

 

The NVidia card was running, there is no doubt about that. The heat and fan speed alone would tell me that, without even looking at the taskbar and seeing it active, which it was.

 

As a side note, the CPU usage shouldn't jump just because something is using the GPU, the iGPU on Intel chips is completely separate from the CPU. There are 4 true cores, plus a iGPU core on that chip, not counting the external GTX 960M that runs only when needed for games.

[TX_Angel]

Warzone Results on desktop:

 

i7-4770k overclocked to 4.2GHz

 

Frames - 12043

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 20

Max - 61

Avg - 40.143

 

Interesting results... Just did the same thing, pylons... But this time I forced the CPU to run at 3.6GHz. I couldn't set the multipler in the BIOS any lower than that. There probably is a way to do it, but not in the 1 min that I looked at it.

 

(ASUS Z97-Pro motherboard, if anyone has a suggestion)

 

Frames - 8648

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 12

Max - 56

Avg - 28.827

 

Wow, that is a huge difference. Now it is possible that it was just a busier warzone, but overall everything felt a little slower.

 

The only thing I changed was the CPU multiplier from 42 to 36, nothing else changed.

 

Even standing guarding the pylon was not as smooth.

 

I'm going to reboot, set it back to 42, and play around some more, but it is interesting, even if not conclusive.

[TX_Angel]

Side note: On my desktop, either way, 3.6GHz or 4.2GHz, SWTOR was solidly using 25% of the CPU, so just 2 cores. Why it was using more on the laptop I don't know.

[FlyingUsPoo]

Ok, lets go off topic and head to tech school...

The NVidia card was running, there is no doubt about that. The heat and fan speed alone would tell me that, without even looking at the taskbar and seeing it active, which it was..

Laptops route cooling via pipes across the graphics card and processor to the radiator blades for cooling. Its a limited space thing.

http://www.dell.com/support/manuals/an/en/andhs1/inspiron-15-7548-laptop/Ins15_7548_SM-v1/Removing-the-Processor-Fan?guid=GUID-9D88E0F2-A7B3-454C-8EB2-7822ECA4EA27&lang=en-us

Click "Removing the Heat Sink" in the left column. Go to Procedure in the right panel then to step 3. Note in the image that the heat sink is a solid piece (the bars are welded together) that runs across to both fans. Ever notice that when the laptop gets hot, both fans speed up? This is why. the heat sink runs to both fans... If you cant see it there: http://i0.wp.com/laptopmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DSC05125.jpg

As for which one you can just "tell was being used"... Manufactures started putting indicator lights on their PC's (MSI toggles the color of the power button. RED = Nvidia, White = Intel, and so on) because otherwise, you have to go into the control panel to tell or force the application to use a specific graphics card.

As a side note, the CPU usage shouldn't jump just because something is using the GPU, the iGPU on Intel chips is completely separate from the CPU. There are 4 true cores, plus a iGPU core on that chip, not counting the external GTX 960M that runs only when needed for games.

The Intel HD is actually integrated in the processor silicone, on the chip. This particular processor is part of the Skylake family. Check out http://www.pcper.com/image/view/60397?return=node%2F63605 or http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Intel-Skylake-Gen9-Graphics-Architecture for the full article. Before you shout out "that's the Core i7-6700K / Core i5-6600K, not the i5-6300HQ", the architecture stays the same thru-out the family run.

 

Now. The Intel HD graphics is a lot like getting there in a Walker while having a broken leg. You'll get there. Eventually. And its gonna hurt. A lot. As soon as it starts hurting, it looks to its neighbors, the cores for help. Hence the processor boosts. While swtor isn't multi-core aware, the processor is aware of all its parts and engages them as needed.

 

The system doesn't just "know" what a game is. Nvidia doesn't just know when to take over and when to let the Intel card run the show. It did when Windows 7 was king. Windows 8 kind of screwed everything up because of a little thing called 3D enabled Desktop. All of the sudden your everyday applications were starting to do things that only 3D applications ever did. All that weird crap that hard core users turn off immediately, the Intel card handles. Because of that, you sometimes have to go into the Nvidia control panel and specifically tell the system which card to use. Especially if you are getting things like CPU activity that you couldn't duplicate on other system and NO ONE ELSE in the world is getting. But as you say, that simply wouldn't be possible right?

Edited February 2, 2016 by FlyingUsPoo

[TX_Angel]

Ok, lets go off topic and head to tech school...

 

Oh, I love school!

 

Laptops route cooling via pipes across the graphics card and processor to the radiator blades for cooling. Its a limited space thing.

 

Yes they do, but running the system at full tilt without using the GPU doesn't turn on the fan to the degree that using the GPU does.

 

I also noted that I saw the NVidia GPU activity light on the taskbar light up, so it was indeed running.

 

As for which one you can just "tell was being used"... Manufactures started putting indicator lights on their PC's (MSI toggles the color of the power button. RED = Nvidia, White = Intel, and so on) because otherwise, you have to go into the control panel to tell or force the application to use a specific graphics card.

 

NVidia's graphics driver has a little icon in the taskbar that indicates when the GPU is running, and when it isn't.

 

The Intel HD is actually integrated in the processor silicone, on the chip.

 

While that is true, it has nothing to do with the usage of a 3rd CPU core, which was my point.

 

Now. The Intel HD graphics is a lot like getting there in a Walker while having a broken leg. You'll get there. Eventually. And its gonna hurt. A lot. As soon as it starts hurting, it looks to its neighbors, the cores for help. Hence the processor boosts. While swtor isn't multi-core aware, the processor is aware of all its parts and engages them as needed.

 

Extra CPU cores aren't going to help the GPU run any faster, they are completely different designs.

 

And the iGPU on the Intel chip isn't going to run GSF and the game world at 60fps with everything turned up, even on its best day.

 

I've tried running this game on systems with just the Intel iGPU in them, it is worthless beyond any doubt.

 

The system doesn't just "know" what a game is.

 

Sure it does, when a Direct3D game is launched, the system knows exactly when that happens. The NVidia GPU kicks on when a 3D program calls for it. The Intel iGPU is used for everything else.

 

Welcome to Optimus!

http://www.nvidia.com/object/optimus_technology.html

[TX_Angel]

I'm going to reboot, set it back to 42, and play around some more, but it is interesting, even if not conclusive.

 

^ I did just that, and it was back to nice and smooth...

 

Now that I've gone this far, I have a few ideas... Now I'd really like to try it on the i3-6100. That CPU clocks at a steady 3.7GHz, and while it only has 2 cores, it has hyperthreading, which should be enough for this game.

 

I don't have a Z170 motherboard, so I can't overclock it to see if it gives similar performance at 4.2GHz (you're not supposed to be able to overlock non-K CPUs, but you can now on some of the Z170 boards) to the i7.

 

I've already built a few i5-6500 machines, but I haven't run SWTOR on any of them. Given its lower clock of 3.2GHz and a turbo that is slower than the i3-6100, it may well turn out that the i3 is faster for SWTOR.

 

---

 

Side note: If you're just doing story, if you are only doing the base game, then all of this doesn't apply. The Dell listed in the OP is rock solid for GSF, and story. It is only in 8v8 WZ than the performance goes right into the tank.

 

Graphics settings don't seem to matter, I tried everything from ultra to very low, the results were largely the same either way, so the GTX 960M is clearly enough GPU to run this game.

[ALaggyGrunt]

My money is on the i5. That L3 cache should make a pretty big difference.

[FlyingUsPoo]

While that is true, it has nothing to do with the usage of a 3rd CPU core, which was my point.

Extra CPU cores aren't going to help the GPU run any faster, they are completely different designs.

And the iGPU on the Intel chip isn't going to run GSF and the game world at 60fps with everything turned up, even on its best day.

I've tried running this game on systems with just the Intel iGPU in them, it is worthless beyond any doubt.

 

Just died in a PVP battle on Red Eclipse. FPS at the time 22. all four cores are at 74%. 1920x1080... No grass, No trees... The system was using the installed Intel HD 4600. I'm running a i7 extreme edition and 32GB memory (of which 6GB is dedicated to the intergrated graphics.

 

This was after I removed the setting that forced swtor.exe to use the high performance Nividia processor. If left to the default settings, Optimus would otherwise not have engaged the GTX880M installed in this system. Something about programs don't always work as advertised on every system.

 

Point being, integrated graphics use the CPU.

Edited February 2, 2016 by FlyingUsPoo

[FlyingUsPoo]

Now that I've gone this far, I have a few ideas...

You should take that Dell and drop it down to Windows 7 then run that same test. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the difference the Kernel changes make.

Edited February 2, 2016 by FlyingUsPoo

[Cheops]

Run 1 - 1080p Full Screen Windowed

Ultra settings - except AA turned off, shadows turned off, grass turned off.

 

Frames - 5978

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 11

Max - 33

Avg - 19.927

 

---

 

Run 2 - 1080p Full Screen Windowed

Very low settings - Everything is turned down as far as it will go

 

Frames - 5477

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 10

Max - 29

Avg - 18.257

 

---

 

 

I think you have sometihng going on with your laptop if thats all your able to get out of it.. i loaded up SWTOR on my dell venue 11 pro.. before you google that.. its actually a windows TABLET thats running windows 10 with 4 gigs of ddr3 a 128gb ssd dual core and integrated intel gpu.. and while i was not running warzones i was running around fleet on the harbinger with graphics in the same config as you have them listed (Ultra settings - except AA turned off, shadows turned off, grass turned off. 1920x1080 fullscreen) and at the GTN while spamming force quake on my sage was was still pulling in an average of about 15 now thats not as intense as 8v8.. but still...

 

and set on very lower i was able to get an average of about 25

[TX_Angel]

You should take that Dell and drop it down to Windows 7 then run that same test. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the difference the Kernel changes make.

 

While that would be interesting to test, it would be more work than I'm prepared to do.

 

I don't have a spare M.2 SSD to install Windows 7 on, and trying to force Windows 7 on a Skylake laptop that wasn't designed for it isn't my idea of fun. It would probably work with some fussing, but frankly it would take all afternoon, and of course that is my Wife's laptop, so no, that is just not gonna happen.

[TX_Angel]

I think you have sometihng going on with your laptop if thats all your able to get out of it.. i loaded up SWTOR on my dell venue 11 pro.. before you google that.. its actually a windows TABLET thats running windows 10 with 4 gigs of ddr3 a 128gb ssd dual core and integrated intel gpu.. and while i was not running warzones i was running around fleet on the harbinger with graphics in the same config as you have them listed (Ultra settings - except AA turned off, shadows turned off, grass turned off. 1920x1080 fullscreen) and at the GTN while spamming force quake on my sage was was still pulling in an average of about 15 now thats not as intense as 8v8.. but still...

 

and set on very lower i was able to get an average of about 25

 

You bring up an interesting point. There are so many posts from people who say, "I have xyz gear and the game runs great", followed by posts from people saying "I also have xyz gear and the game runs like crap".

 

I will be in the office today, I might try and sneak some time to test it on something there, maybe a Haswell system with no GPU in it.

 

It is possible that something else that we are missing is causing performance to be all over the place. Or perhaps SWTOR just sucks when it comes to engine and performance.

Edited February 2, 2016 by TX_Angel

[TX_Angel]

Just died in a PVP battle on Red Eclipse. FPS at the time 22. all four cores are at 74%. 1920x1080... No grass, No trees... The system was using the installed Intel HD 4600. I'm running a i7 extreme edition and 32GB memory (of which 6GB is dedicated to the intergrated graphics.

 

This was after I removed the setting that forced swtor.exe to use the high performance Nividia processor. If left to the default settings, Optimus would otherwise not have engaged the GTX880M installed in this system. Something about programs don't always work as advertised on every system.

 

Point being, integrated graphics use the CPU.

 

You need to post some more info.

 

What graphics settings? What CPU? What does FRAPS report as the min, avg, max FPS? Did you physically remove the GPU?

 

I don't believe that the built in Intel GPU will run this game at all, at any graphics setting, much less 22fps in a warzone, but I'll run FRAPS and test it on a Haswell desktop with no GPU installed and find out for sure.

 

I'll also test the Dell laptop again with GPU-Z running, just to be 100% sure it is using the GPU properly.

[TX_Angel]

I just got done with another test, this time on an Acer Haswell i5-based desktop:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Desktop-ATC-605-UR19-3-10GHz-Windows/dp/B00K6OWSQO/

 

Intel Core i5-4440 (3.1GHz)

Intel HD Graphics 4600

Windows 10 - 64-bit

 

Quality set to very low, everything is turned down as far as it will go. Running at 1080p, full screen windowed mode.

 

5 min in pylons WZ:

 

Frames - 6101

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 8

Max - 31

Avg - 20.337

 

Can it be played? Yea, sort of... because I know the class well and know what it should look like, but I'd never be great at it. The above "average" is very deceptive because it counts all the times I was not in combat. The times when it was busy was closer to 10fps, it was a slide show as far as I'm concerned.

 

If this is all I had to play on, I wouldn't even bother. And this isn't a bad computer, it is just hampered by a complete lack of GPU power.

 

Just for fun, I'll follow this up in a min with graphics set to high.