i need help

[AJ mascote]

i need help should i get the razer stealth 13

[5x5]

No. For multiple reasons.

Horrible internal build quality - the PCB, components and electrical design are terrible. Most parts are overloaded by default and failure rates are probably the highest on the market, save for cheap Chromebooks. For context, there are better built chomebooks that cost 300$ than the Stealth.

Furthermore, the quality control and customer support are abhorrent - when (not if) you have issues, Razer are next to useless and frequently don't honor warranties and instead blame you for damage that you did not cause. Factory defects are also very common.

Lastly, the price tag is insanity for what you get.

Almost any laptop is WORLDS better than the Stealth.

[AJ mascote]

1 minute ago, 5x5 said:

No. For multiple reasons.

Horrible internal build quality - the PCB, components and electrical design are terrible. Most parts are overloaded by default and failure rates are probably the highest on the market, save for cheap Chromebooks. For context, there are better built chomebooks that cost 300$ than the Stealth.

Furthermore, the quality control and customer support are abhorrent - when (not if) you have issues, Razer are next to useless and frequently don't honor warranties and instead blame you for damage that you did not cause. Factory defects are also very common.

Lastly, the price tag is insanity for what you get.

Almost any laptop is WORLDS better than the Stealth.

thanks for the advice

[AJ mascote]

Just now, AJ mascote said:

thanks for the advice

also btw im trying to run games like planet coaster and planet zoo. games like that.

[5x5]

1 minute ago, AJ mascote said:

thanks for the advice

What are your needs and budget? We can offer better alternatives.

[AJ mascote]

so for budget something like 500-1200

[5x5]

9 minutes ago, AJ mascote said:

so for budget something like 500-1200

Then get a known durable/reliable product. Such as the ThinkPad T495
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpad-t-series/T495/p/22TP2TTT495

[5x5]

11 minutes ago, AJ mascote said:

so for budget something like 500-1200

Or the EliteBook 745 G6
https://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-elitebook-745-g6-notebook-pc-customizable-5vu36av-mb

[AJ mascote]

18 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Or the EliteBook 745 G6
https://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-elitebook-745-g6-notebook-pc-customizable-5vu36av-mb

thank you so much. i think i like the ryzen 7 think pad.

[5x5]

Just now, AJ mascote said:

thank you so much. i think i like the ryzen 7 think pad.

You'll get pretty decent performance. If you want a gaming-focused laptop, then you really should be looking at other models, though, not ultrabooks. For example, the Asus Zephyrus G14

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-rog-zephyrus-g14-14-gaming-laptop-amd-ryzen-9-16gb-memory-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-1tb-ssd-moonlight-white/6403816.p?skuId=6403816&intl=nosplash

 

It's a bit larger but comes with an 8-core Ryzen 4000 CPU, 2060 and 144Hz display

[5x5]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Agree, gaming laptops are dumb though btw they’re loud, have no battery and you can get a better desktop for less. 
 

Gaming ultra books make even less sense, you get an ultra book for good performance in a smaller device with great battery life not gaming performance and 3 hours battery 

eeeeeerm, you may want to rephrase.

The G14 runs only slightly louder, battery life is better than most and value is actually decent as the 4800HS performs close to the desktop i9 9900.

[5x5]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

 

In reality, the Zephyrus G14 actually offers better value than you can get from a desktop as, if you get a 9900, 2060, 144Hz IPS display, 16GB DDR4 3000 and 512GB PCIe SSD, you'll be well past 1400$

[5x5]

5 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

If we’re calling 20% worse close? And that’s on a short benchmark not a sustained load like a few hour render. Plus it has mobile graphics not a full fat GPU.
 

It offers you better value if you lose your brain while you’re building. Who the hell buys a 9900? For a start you can’t overclock it which is intels only strength atm, you’re probably including a Z390 board when you can get a lower end one. 
 

Literally picking the first thing (apart from the PSU) that matches the criteria When scrolling down the list. I could get that down by another 100-150 with not much effort.

 

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
CPU	AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor	$289.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard	MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX ATX AM4 Motherboard	$114.99 @ Best Buy
Memory	Corsair Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory	$79.99 @ Newegg
Storage	Samsung 970 Evo 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive	$99.99 @ B&H
Video Card	Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2060 6 GB OC Rev 2.0 Video Card	$299.99 @ B&H
Case	NZXT H510 ATX Mid Tower Case	$69.99 @ Best Buy
Power Supply	EVGA BQ 600 W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply	$81.87 @ Newegg
Monitor	MSI Optix G241 23.8" 1920x1080 144 Hz Monitor	$189.99 @ B&H
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total (before mail-in rebates)	$1236.80
	Mail-in rebates	-$10.00
	Total	$1226.80
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-05-17 07:01 EDT-0400

 

the 4000 mobile CPUS actually sustain 3.7-3.8GHz quite well. This isn't Intel boost where the real world clock is 2GHz lower.

You also have to remember that the battery is included in the price. A large battery is no cheap item. Not to mention you've went with a shit quality power supply to save money. Add to that the fact the the MSI Optix is known as a mediocre screen - you can easily see why the G14's 150$ price premium over that list is more than worth it. You get a better display, a battery capable of sustaining 8 hours of heavy office work or 12 hours of light use in a portable package.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But for how long? You also get inferior performance, in Cinebench R20 the 4800H is beaten by the 3700X by about 20% plus battery life under one chrome tab refreshing every 15 seconds is only 9 hours and under 2. On top of that you're taking about a 40% hit in GPU performance going from a full fat desktop GPU to a MaxQ. The g14s screen isn't exactly a reference monitor, also what's up with the PSU exactly? https://www.jonnyguru.com/blog/2016/10/03/evga-750-bq-750w-power-supply/6/

 

So to sum up you're paying more for 20% less CPU performance, 40% less GPU performance, a battery that can only run under heavy load for 2 hours tops and a screen that isn't great. On the desktop at least you can spend more on the screen. 

Firstly, the 3700X uses a good 100W to achieve what the 4800HS achieves with 30W. That's where your money goes.

Secondly, the chrome tab is moon logic. I've used 40 chrome tabs, word and excel and still got 7 hours vs my typical 8 on my own personal 720S. The G14 gets 10 hours in PC Mark Work. I'm actually being generous by shaving 2 hours from that figure for a real intense use case. In reality, if all you do is have a single chrome tab open, you'll get over 14 hours of battery life easily.

 

As for the power supply - it's in Tier C - office systems and entry level desktops. I don't think an R7 and 2060 is a typical office PC, do you? The BQ is low end junk with super cheap components, iffy regulation and subpar performance for the money.

 

Also 40% less GPU? What? The 2060 MQ is about 15% behind a desktop, sure, but 40? Can you not make up inflated numbers to suit your argument? Even the basic laptop 2060, which is also downclocked, delivers very good performance and only trails the desktop models by 10%. The real issue with MQ cards is with higher end ones like the 2070MQ and 2080MQ

With the desktop you lose portability (the whole IDEA of this thread that you've derailed) and you lose the ability to do WORK on battery power. Seriously, why are you even arguing against reality? Laptops are now very close to desktop in performance and value. Times have changed, parts have become efficient and packing top tier hardware in a small chassis with a large battery is easier than ever. It's also cheaper than ever.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Um look at a review? The one you've listed isn't a maxQ for a start and it's under a 1070 in performance. Lets compare at that review vs another and ignore the result you've cherry picked, because you used BF1 not any of the other more demanding games like BFV that's on the same page. Lets look at a review on the 2060 FE and compare it to a game the two reviews have in common. Farcry V. The FE 2060 gets 107FPS average, the laptop 2060 (Not a MaxQ which is even worse) gets 83. Not the game I would like to compare I would rather do SoTR but the review you used has an awful selection of games benchmarked. 

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1804-geforce-rtx-2060-laptop/

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3427-nvidia-rtx-2060-founders-edition-review-benchmark-vs-vega-56

 

 

Pc Mark isn't a great test or real world. Real world test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC Mark.

 

Did you read the review? Go read it. the PSu is fine. Tier lists are BS anyway you should read an actual review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off - the reason I went with BF1 is to avoid the CPU bottleneck with regard to the 9750H. It's the limiting factor for the mobile 2060 in FarCry 5, BFV and SotTR. It's a 2.5GHz CPU for christ's sake - it's nowhere near as good as a Ryzen 7 or Ryzen 9. It's a power-starved i7. Your attempt to skew GPU data with CPU-bound games is not appreciated. Secondly,

 

PC Mark Work is spot on with regard to battery life - it's why it's used so frequently. It's accurate on my machine. It reports 7.43 hours. I get around 8 hours of use. If anything, he'll get slightly more than what PC Mark Work reports. Stop arguing about things you have no grasp on.

The tier list is the defacto standard of the forum. It's literally why it exists - so conversations like these about shit power supplies don't need to be had. The BQ has shit components, poor performance for the price and questionable build quality. Not to mention we've seen many users report DOA units or malfunctions with the BQ models.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You mean you're gonna use the CPU heavy game vs the GPU heavy game because the CPU is the bottleneck, does that make sense to you? Battlefield 1 is a CPU heavy game especially as you lose performance when you switch to DX12 in BF1 whereas games like SoTR have properly implemented DX12 that benefits weaker CPUs. 

 

It's used because it's easy. 

 

READ THE BLOODY REVIEW. I posted a link to a review which states that the PSu is a good unit but was oiverpriced at the time. So you're stupid for taking a tier list over a 6 page PSU review. Tier lists in general are dumb and I would love to see a reason to take it over jonnyguru.

The tier list was built based on reviews and detailed performance metrics. The BQ failed in crucial areas and as such is placed in Tier C with the other junk. Don't lose your mind over a power supply....

[5x5]

43 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

What areas then? 

 

I'm just confused as to how you believe a tier list over an actual review.

If you scroll down, the tier list is based on that review and many others