|
|
So this morning, I put in for a $2000 loan from Navy Federal (my credit union). Surprisingly, they approved me! So now I'll be getting this beast. The problem is that I can't find a laptop cooler that fits it! I've looked at the NZXT Cryo LX because it does, in fact, fit it, but I've read that heavier laptops (which this is) actually bend the metal, causing it to touch the fan and make lots of noise. So I'm trying to find an alternative (preferably a Zalman). Unfortunately, I'm having no luck finding a laptop cooler that fits something with an 18.4" screen. Can you help me? 
|
|
|
|
|
Could go with a smaller laptop  . I doubt you'll find one that'll work well, so look into cutting voltage to components to help produce less heat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, after doing some reading, apparently this one works great for the laptop I plan to get. So I might go for that one after all, but I'm not sure. AND NO I WILL NOT GET A SMALLER LAPTOP.
|
|
|
|
|
1.73GHz? Eww. You can get a samsung for $800 that's just as nice. ...you're taking the piss, right? For clarification...
Last Edit: Oct 11, 2010 3:09:38 GMT by Lucifer
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get it. 1.7GHz is terrible, especially if you are going to pay $2,000 for a laptop. You understand the concept of quad core, right? It's a rhetorical question because I know you don't. I also think it's important to note that I'm not spending $2000 on a processor, but on a massive 18.4" screen with native 1920 x 1080 resolution (I watch a lot of movies and I game), a blu-ray player, a 64GB SSD for the OS, 6GB of 1066 DDR3 RAM, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. Really, I bet you couldn't find something half that good for $800.
Last Edit: Oct 11, 2010 3:30:24 GMT by Lucifer
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get it. 1.7GHz is terrible, especially if you are going to pay $2,000 for a laptop. You understand the concept of quad core, right? It's a rhetorical question because I know you don't. I also think it's important to note that I'm not spending $2000 on a processor, but on a massive 18.4" screen with native 1920 x 1080 resolution (I watch a lot of movies and I game), a blu-ray player, a 64GB SSD for the OS, 6GB of 1066 DDR3 RAM, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. Really, I bet you couldn't find something half that good for $800. It's not even so much that it's a quad core. The i3 is only a dual core but it's on par with the lower end Core 2 quads. However, the dual core i5 is a bit better than most of the core 2 quads, and the quad core i5 is better yet. It's all about what core run it is. And so you know Xuzi, once you start getting higher into the rank and add more cores per CPU, you don't need as high of a clock speed. In my desktop I have a core 2 duo rated for 3.0GHz that I push to 4.02GHz. Running at that high of an overclock, it barely performs with speeds similar to a 2.5GHz core 2 quad. The core 2 quad is running as a much lower clock speed, but the multiple cores allow it to not need to run at such a high clock speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You understand the concept of quad core, right? It's a rhetorical question because I know you don't. I also think it's important to note that I'm not spending $2000 on a processor, but on a massive 18.4" screen with native 1920 x 1080 resolution (I watch a lot of movies and I game), a blu-ray player, a 64GB SSD for the OS, 6GB of 1066 DDR3 RAM, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. Really, I bet you couldn't find something half that good for $800. It's not even so much that it's a quad core. I know, but that fact alone should've made it fairly obvious that it's superior. You don't have to know much about processors (I really don't) to understand the concept that 4 is greater than 2.
|
|
|
