Which gaming laptop specs to choose?

[namankapoor]

Hey,

 

I'm scouting for a gaming laptop for the first time and I'm confused between the available options, especially for GPU.

I've not done pc shopping from a gaming perspective before so I'm not quite sure about the boost in performance I would get with a more expensive GPU or RAM.

 

I'm seeing options with RTX 4060 vs RTX 3050; 8GB RAM vs 16GB RAM (DDR5 vs DDR4); i5 13th Gen CPU vs Ryzen 5 vs Ryzen 7.

Just altogether confused about which spec I should go with. Off the top of my mind, I'd like to play games such as God of War, Arkham, GTA V, Control, Witcher or other popular campaign games at their best graphics without lag. Multiplayer games like Valorant, Fortnite I'm sure don't need much.

Is a 3050 entirely functional essentially (and 4060 is just for that Ultra last mile) or could it lag with newer and/or demanding games? Is 16GB RAM good for just multitasking majorly or affects game performance too?

 

In terms of budget, the 4060 is not really out of it, but just want to make sure I'm getting my money's worth if I'm paying $300-350 additional for better specs.

Before you start about how terrible gaming laptops are, I end up relocating often or just travelling in general to meet people I play with, and transporting a desktop every time wouldn't be ideal.

 

Thanks for your time!

[BiG StroOnZ]

RTX 4060 is up to 96-225% faster than an RTX 3050 in many games:

 

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU - Benchmarks and Specs - NotebookCheck.net Tech

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU - Benchmarks and Specs - NotebookCheck.net Tech

 

DDR5 is definitely a must for new builders or purchasers, IMO. Some say it doesn't matter, but when it comes to advancing tech, DDR5 definitely shows its benefits at this point. Early adopter hardships are past us with DDR5 mostly. 

 

Intel 12th/13th/14th Gen vs. AMD Ryzen on the mobile side simply comes down to preference. However, Intel definitely shines on their Laptop/Notebook product line. Whereas, AMD Ryzen shines on the desktop. Either choice is good these days, but if you can, I would muster DDR5 and 4060 or at least a 4060 or Radeon equivalent.

[Qrdello]

So here's the thing. Not until long ago I had a ROG Strix G15 with rtx 3050 4gigs with a still capable 8c16t r7 4800H. It was a superb machine with plenty of CPU horsepower, really estetically pleasing but it had one major flaw - the RTX. Even for 1080p gaming that GPU was just not enough, and mind you that was in 2022/2023. I had framerate issues with basically every game I ran on that rig. Either stuttering or really low fps. DLSS was also bollocks due to increadibly limited RT core number in the GPU. Rasterisation was no better because of slow (128bit) and limited vram. 

Since then I upgraded to TUF Gaming A15 with basically a few percent faster CPU and largely superior GPU (4060 8gigs). The upgrade is astounding, now this new laptop runs basically every single game in high/ultra settings even in 1440p, 1080p is no issue whatsoever, and if the frames do drop below 60 (like in AW2) there's always dlss3 and FG. It's no brainer then, in 2024 going for 3050 is a waste of money. Especially for heavy gaming and you've actually mentioned some heavy hitters like Witcher3, especially with next gen upgrade.

[Qrdello]

10 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Intel 12th/13th/14th Gen vs. AMD Ryzen on the mobile side simply comes down to preference. However, Intel definitely shines on their Laptop/Notebook product line. Whereas, AMD Ryzen shines on the desktop. Either choice is good these days, but if you can, I would muster DDR5 and 4060 or at least a 4060 or Radeon equivalent.

TBH power/efficiency-wise sure, intel has a top spot here - but in terms of power managment and keeping the laptop running on battery it's really bad compared to ryzen chips. My R7 7th gen can keep the A15 running on iGPU mode only for 10 straight hours of workload, where's the i7 11th gen I have in a work rig can't last even 4 hours.

[jaslion]

32 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Intel definitely shines on their Laptop/Notebook product line. Whereas, AMD Ryzen shines on the desktop.

These days its the opposite.

 

Amd ryzen laptops run cooler due to a more efficient architecture and are WAY easier to cool. This more efficient architecture also comes in to play that battery life tends to be a bit better on amd ryzen devices that have the same battrry as their intel counterpart.

 

Now for op. Whats the budget?

 

Thr issue is that a rtx 3050 laptop is already having issues medium settings 1080p 60fps in modern AAA games.

 

You really need to go for the 4060 as it is really the minimum to get. However 8gb of ram is NOT going to cut it at all either.

 

If a 16gb ram+ 4060 device isnt an option then I recommend saving up till you can.

 

However we do need to know your location where you are purchasing AND budget to be able to see if anything comes up that will do the job.

 

 

[namankapoor]

54 minutes ago, Qrdello said:

So here's the thing. Not until long ago I had a ROG Strix G15 with rtx 3050 4gigs with a still capable 8c16t r7 4800H. It was a superb machine with plenty of CPU horsepower, really estetically pleasing but it had one major flaw - the RTX. Even for 1080p gaming that GPU was just not enough, and mind you that was in 2022/2023. I had framerate issues with basically every game I ran on that rig. Either stuttering or really low fps. DLSS was also bollocks due to increadibly limited RT core number in the GPU. Rasterisation was no better because of slow (128bit) and limited vram. 

Since then I upgraded to TUF Gaming A15 with basically a few percent faster CPU and largely superior GPU (4060 8gigs). The upgrade is astounding, now this new laptop runs basically every single game in high/ultra settings even in 1440p, 1080p is no issue whatsoever, and if the frames do drop below 60 (like in AW2) there's always dlss3 and FG. It's no brainer then, in 2024 going for 3050 is a waste of money. Especially for heavy gaming and you've actually mentioned some heavy hitters like Witcher3, especially with next gen upgrade.

Thanks, this helps a lot.

Some things you've mentioned that I haven't heard before and would like to know about - DLSS, Rasterisation, diss3 and FG?

[namankapoor]

33 minutes ago, jaslion said:

If a 16gb ram+ 4060 device isnt an option then I recommend saving up till you can.

 

However we do need to know your location where you are purchasing AND budget to be able to see if anything comes up that will do the job.

 

 

Thanks, this helps!

16GB RAM + 4060 isn't off the table, just wanted to make sure it's worth it.

 

I'm in India and I saw Ryzen 7 + 16GB DDR5 RAM + RTX 4060 options were available for INR 110-120K (~$1350-1450, talking about HP Omen 16 here) which I'm okay with. Would not want to spend more than this but I'm yet to do scouting for lower priced options.

[Qrdello]

33 minutes ago, namankapoor said:

Thanks, this helps a lot.

Some things you've mentioned that I haven't heard before and would like to know about - DLSS, Rasterisation, diss3 and FG?

Rasterisation is basically the old way of rendering the 3D picture in games, without RT. 

DLSS - Deep learning super sampling - it's basically a rendering option, where the picture you see is rendered by the GPU in a smaller internal resolution but the AI and RT cores fix the image and sharpen it so that it still looks decent/good. This option allows for some FPS increase, especially in higher resolutions.

FG - frame generation - a derivative from dlss, but not necessarily tied to it - this is only availible in 40xx gpus, basically the AI and RT cores try to come up with preceding and succedding frame around the rendered one - it accounts for a much higher fps but disables vsync and sometimes, especially when your gpu doesn't hit 60 on normal basis, can look like torn screen. 

Both techniques are uniqe to geforce class GPUs and are there to compensate for higher strain on the GPU when redering RTX scenes. So you CAN use them and they CAN help your fps and experience, but they're not mandatory.

[BiG StroOnZ]

22 hours ago, Qrdello said:

TBH power/efficiency-wise sure, intel has a top spot here - but in terms of power managment and keeping the laptop running on battery it's really bad compared to ryzen chips. My R7 7th gen can keep the A15 running on iGPU mode only for 10 straight hours of workload, where's the i7 11th gen I have in a work rig can't last even 4 hours.

 

12th and 13th Gen (and refresh) parts actually have an advantage over your 11th Gen considering the introduction of efficiency cores (E-Cores). During the following test, with both laptops set to 30% brightness, "Best power efficiency" settings in Windows, and having airplane mode on, running Big Buck Bunny at 1080p in a loop in Windows Movies & TV; the 12th Gen i7-1260P lasted about 10 hours and the 13th Gen i7-1360P lasted about 12 hours:

 

 

Therefore, comparing your Ryzen Mobile 7000 CPU to 11th Gen is not a fair comparison, IMO. It would be better to see or hear your experience with 12th or 13th Gen compared to your Ryzen 7000 Series CPU, as that is a more valid comparison; being that they are both in corresponding generational releases.

 

21 hours ago, jaslion said:

These days its the opposite.

 

Amd ryzen laptops run cooler due to a more efficient architecture and are WAY easier to cool. This more efficient architecture also comes in to play that battery life tends to be a bit better on amd ryzen devices that have the same battrry as their intel counterpart.

 

According to this review:

 

Quote

In our PCMark-based battery life test, it settles in at a little over 8 hours, a bit better than the 12th-gen Intel version's 7 hours and 41 minutes of battery life but a lot lower than the 9 hours 45 minutes that the 13th-gen Intel version gets.

 

The Ryzen 7840U runs at a higher wattage than Intel's CPU here—an average of 33W, around 5W higher than the i7-1360P. It finishes the work much faster, making it more power-efficient overall. But that slightly higher average power draw might be partially responsible for the so-so battery life.

• Passable-but-mediocre battery life, and not as good as the 13th-gen. 
• Plenty of heat and fan noise while gaming or fully utilizing the CPU.

 

Review: Framework Laptop finally gets an AMD Ryzen config—and it’s pretty good | Ars Technica

 

It seems that while the Ryzen 7000 mobile architecture is more power efficient as you suggest, battery life isn't automatically better: as it almost ties the 12th-Gen Intel, while the 13th-Gen Intel part pulls away by almost 2 hours. Temps are also not so great.

 

As, according to this review:

 

 

It does seem that AMD performs better at the equivalent Intel TDP limits, however this doesn't equal better temperatures (the AMD processor was running warmer, and thermal throttling):

 

 

Now Jarrod does say AMD is ahead from a PPW (performance-per-watt) perspective, as the Ryzen 7000 chip was reaching a higher multicore score in Cinebench R23 while also using less power. Again, at 65W AMD has a 9.2% advantage while at 130W it has only a 3.2% advantage. Keep in mind though, the Intel laptop can go up to 150W, whereas the AMD caps out at 130W (meaning the Intel counterpart can probably catch up on those scores at full power). This review from Jarrod also claims that the Intel Laptop was lasting 66% longer, battery life wise, compared to the AMD Laptop.

 

Overall conclusion seems that you can't really go wrong with either of these choices, whether it be Intel 12th/13th Gen Mobile or AMD Ryzen 7000 Series Mobile. It more or less comes down to your personal requirements and preferences (with the software or games you use mainly). In that review from Jarrod's Tech you can see they trade blows constantly depending on the test or benchmark, which is nice to see.

 

This of course is not taking Intel 14th Gen Meteor Lake parts into account, which improve Intel's efficiency numbers greatly:   

 

 

 

 

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H Review: Meteor Lake Marks A Fresh Start To Mobile CPUs (anandtech.com)

 

This is the only reason why I suggested that Intel seems to be having better luck on the mobile side rather than the desktop side. It even seems like their current and future CPU designs are beginning to favor mobile. Whereas, with Zen3/AM4 and Zen4/AM5 it appears AMD is 'going all in' on desktop performance.

[Qrdello]

@BiG StroOnZsure, my comparison is based on what I use on everyday basis but I'm aware that 12th and 13th gens are better overall than 11th gen. I did have an older AMD cpu though, 4800H, any my pops still has 4600H, and better still they're still better than 11th gen - which I assume we both agree are comparabile.

[BiG StroOnZ]

10 hours ago, Qrdello said:

@BiG StroOnZsure, my comparison is based on what I use on everyday basis but I'm aware that 12th and 13th gens are better overall than 11th gen. I did have an older AMD cpu though, 4800H, any my pops still has 4600H, and better still they're still better than 11th gen - which I assume we both agree are comparabile.

 

I find that interesting because from what I can tell through research, your Tiger Lake Laptop should have at least performed better than your Renoir laptop in many areas, such as battery life and thermals.

 

Because as I'm trying to explain, with every generational release, especially on mobile: it appears AMD and Intel one up each other (judging from the benchmarks). Meaning, you would see for instance Tiger Lake (11th Gen) perform better than Renoir (4000-series), but then you can see Cezanne (5000-series) catching up or surpassing Tiger Lake (11th Gen). This as a result propels Intel to launch Alder Lake (12th Gen), giving them the upper hand. However, there is always a response from AMD, forcing them to release Rembrandt (6000-series). You will see Rembrandt catch up measurably and surpass in some areas, and obviously this resulted in Intel having their hands forced with Raptor Lake (13th Gen). Intel begins to take the crown again, resulting in AMD releasing Dragon Range and Phoenix (7000-series). As you can expect, the battle trudges forward with Raptor Lake Refresh and Meteor Lake (14th Gen) from looking at various reviews.

 

They begin to trade blows again or slightly surpass each other depending on the area being examined.

 

This equivalent retaliation process continues on constantly, as I'm sure you can tell (since AMD countered recently with Hawk Point 8000-series).

 

Regardless, I respect you sharing your personal experiences with these products. Is the performance so bad on your 11th Gen Intel that your dad rather use his 4000-series AMD still? Also, do you think it's possible you simply got a mediocre/subpar model from the system integrator used by your workplace? I'm not sure if I missed it, but you don't really detail the specifications as much on your Intel unit compared to your AMD ones. Knowing it was provided from work makes me believe that it wasn't spec'd out really well or was through an unreliable OEM/ODM (wherein some of their models could be hit or miss). 

 

Despite all this, the current general consensus seems to agree with the following notions:

 

HX vs. HX = Intel is better.

H vs. H(S) = AMD is better.

U(P) vs U = Tied. 

[Qrdello]

Regarding the specs,it's an AORUS 17G machine, so one would say it's a very decent gaming/workload laptop. It's a 17 inch machine with 16gigs of ddr4 ram and rtx 3060 laptop GPU. Actually I was the one to deliver the specs to my accountants to buy it, it's there to serve as a photoshop and 3d-printing machine.

The reason I say that I don't really like lies somewhere in between - the specs on paper should be fine, but power limits do kick in pretty fast and thus both the CPU and GPU tend to be a bit sluggish at times. To makes matters worse, the machine itself - despite being a 17 inch laptop, is ridiculously loud no matter the scenario.

And having said that it also has terrible battery life - 3hours tops with completely dimmed screen is a success. 

The cpu performance alone is fine, it's a 11700H cpu, but I did have an old 10700H in my home MSI leopard laptop and despite being a 6/12 chip it wasn't that far off in performance dept. 

Since then I believe intel CPUs have gone a long way. The place where I work has multiple modern student laptops with i3s and i5s from 12th and 13th gen and they seem really decent, but just looking at the older machines - and this what you can read between the lines in the Author's posts, I wouldn't go for anything older than 12th gen intel-wise and 6th gen amd-wise.

[BiG StroOnZ]

6 hours ago, Qrdello said:

Since then I believe intel CPUs have gone a long way. The place where I work has multiple modern student laptops with i3s and i5s from 12th and 13th gen and they seem really decent, but just looking at the older machines - and this what you can read between the lines in the Author's posts, I wouldn't go for anything older than 12th gen intel-wise and 6th gen amd-wise.

 

I would agree with that sentiment. Pre-12th Gen for Intel was a tough time for them, especially on the desktop side. Whereas AMD was much more successful with their CPU endeavors during that period. Although, I would still lean towards a Rembrandt or newer Gen on the AMD side because of the advances in performance made.