Laptop for gaming and school

[iKl9kca]

I need something that could run CSGO at 200FPS and is light for transportation

2500NZD is my budget

 

Location new zealand

[Jack Dvorak]

12 minutes ago, iKl9kca said:

I need something that could run CSGO at 200FPS and is light for transportation

2500NZD is my budget

 

Location new zealand

Why 200fps?

[bgibbz]

3 minutes ago, iKl9kca said:

I need something that could run CSGO at 200FPS and is light for transportation

2500NZD is my budget

 

Location new zealand

Random question- why do you need 200fps? Do you realize that any frame rate above the refresh rate of the monitor 60hz won't make a difference? Just something to keep in mind. 

[kappakali]

I recommend the ASUS ROG GL752.

It'll fit well into your budget, and it will do you well on both schoolwork and gaming!

 

[iKl9kca]

5 minutes ago, bgibbz said:

Random question- why do you need 200fps? Do you realize that any frame rate above the refresh rate of the monitor 60hz won't make a difference? Just something to keep in mind. 

theres a video by 3kiksphillip, the higher fps actually is felt in such a competitive game like csgo when aiming etc allowing for smoother fell, ill be playing 4:3 stretched tho

[Pendragon]

7 hours ago, iKl9kca said:

theres a video by 3kiksphillip, the higher fps actually is felt in such a competitive game like csgo when aiming etc allowing for smoother fell, ill be playing 4:3 stretched tho

yes, but ur monitor on the laptop is incapable of helping you feeling it. 

[bgibbz]

On 7/25/2016 at 5:11 PM, iKl9kca said:

theres a video by 3kiksphillip, the higher fps actually is felt in such a competitive game like csgo when aiming etc allowing for smoother fell, ill be playing 4:3 stretched tho

well sure, but in order to feel the higher fps you need to have a higher refresh rate monitor. That is why you see many competitive FPS players using 144hz monitors, 144hz monitors allow you to see a maximum of 144fps. Most (if not all) laptops however will only have a 60hz refresh rate, so really anything above 60 fps will not be felt. Think of it like this- when you are getting 200fps in a game, that means that your GPU is rendering 200 images per second. However, your monitor can only display 60 images per second. therefore, that additional 140 frames is rendered useless, and it simply be scipped. Pushing frames to your monitor faster than its refresh rate yields something called screen tearing. That happens when maybe the top 1/3 of your monitor is displaying 1 frame, a thin slice in the middle is displaying another frame, and the rest is displaying yet another frame. That gets corrected largely through your GPUs vsync. Basically, those 200FPS that you want to have is going to get rendered by the GPU only has 60FPS. So really, there is no point in having a higher FPS than your monitors refresh rate, its simply wasted performance. Also, Why would you stretch a 4:3? that will look like crap. there is no reason at all to do that, unless you are planning on getting such a poor performing laptop that the only way to play games is to stretch a 4:3 aspect ration. Just get a laptop that will have enough power to push the full resolution at low-med settings and average ~~~ 60 FPS. Something like a 960m should suffice. Also, make sure you get a laptop that has a quad core CPU, and at least 8gb of ram.

[exercutor5]

You guys don't seem to understand the reasoning of having 200fps in csgo. 60fps on 60Hz and 200fps on 60Hz in csgo is 2 different worlds, people.

[Souldriver]

you cant talk about a competitive advantage and say youre going to do 4:3 stretched. This will literally give you a smaller fov than playing in 16:9 and chop a significant amount off your screen. There are no FOV settings in csgo to change your actual view, only how the gun models look.

[bgibbz]

18 minutes ago, exercutor5 said:

You guys don't seem to understand the reasoning of having 200fps in csgo. 60fps on 60Hz and 200fps on 60Hz in csgo is 2 different worlds, people.

I'm not dissagreeing with you, as i never was a big CSGO player, but can you explain to me how? I have always thought that extra frames are simply elimated by vsync, or display as screen tearing if vsync is disabled. How exactly does 200fps benefit over 60hz?

[exercutor5]

Just now, bgibbz said:

I'm not dissagreeing with you, as i never was a big CSGO player, but can you explain to me how? I have always though that extra frames are simply elimated by vsync, or display as screen tearing if vsync is disabled. How exactly does 200fps benefit over 60hz?

V-Sync in csgo introduces input lag, which is a bad thing in competitive games like csgo, but fine for casual games like GTA V and whatnot. When having 200fps in csgo, it is really really smooth, improving your gameplay experience, reaction times and whatnot as a competitive gamer. Regarding screen tearing, yes it is present in csgo at high framerates, but nobody looks at how pretty graphics are in csgo even, and when you're playing, you would be too engrossed in the game to notice the frame tearing even.

[bgibbz]

7 minutes ago, exercutor5 said:

V-Sync in csgo introduces input lag, which is a bad thing in competitive games like csgo, but fine for casual games like GTA V and whatnot. When having 200fps in csgo, it is really really smooth, improving your gameplay experience, reaction times and whatnot as a competitive gamer. Regarding screen tearing, yes it is present in csgo at high framerates, but nobody looks at how pretty graphics are in csgo even, and when you're playing, you would be too engrossed in the game to notice the frame tearing even.

Yep. Just watched the video that the OP referenced, as well as read a few other forums on the topic. I just launched csgo and had my brother check blindly for a period of like 1 min while on like 300 fps and again on like 60 fps. He didn't notice the difference, but the logic from the video makes sense. As a big competitive FPS player, i definitely know about the negatives of input lag. However, I have found that just using NVidias adaptive vsync, i have yet to encounter any kind of severe input lag. Its certainly an interesting topic to research more into, as it is very difficult to tell if the effects of a high FPS is placebo, or actually real. The logic in the video would lead you to believe that it is in fact real, yet they were also referencing several technologies that are designed to fix that issue by simply saying, " i dont think these work for some reason". In order to truly be able to tell the difference between higher FPS than refresh rate, you would really need a shitload of monitors that have free sync, gsync, different refresh rates, etc. all would have to be tested blindly by many people. I certainly don't have access to any of that, so for now i guess the question is left unanswered. This entire topic is really nothing i have ever though about, and it does really make sense that higher FPS could smooth the game, but the fractional difference in frame latency by increasing the FPS is so slim that it leads me to doubt it. 

[Pendragon]

On 7/27/2016 at 0:01 AM, bgibbz said:

snip

Thank you for writing something constructive and not slamming the other guy. I'm actually super curious about this topic as well. I also read a few threads about this topic and I'm still lost af LOL. The monitor has a flat latency of 1/60. That's established, but how would 200fps benefit being displayed on a hard capped 1/60 latency. I don't play CSGO either so this is just something i'm super curious about. Wouldn't exactly 60 frames on a 60hz monitor be best? (no screen tearing and perfect latency match)

[iKl9kca]

15 hours ago, Pendragon said:

Thank you for writing something constructive and not slamming the other guy. I'm actually super curious about this topic as well. I also read a few threads about this topic and I'm still lost af LOL. The monitor has a flat latency of 1/60. That's established, but how would 200fps benefit being displayed on a hard capped 1/60 latency. I don't play CSGO either so this is just something i'm super curious about. Wouldn't exactly 60 frames on a 60hz monitor be best? (no screen tearing and perfect latency match)

CSGO is weird like that because in theory yes but in real world application a professional or a very competitive player will tell the difference and actually preform different with something like 60hz/200fps and i myself play cs competitively and due to this actually have felt the difference and thats why people care less for graphics and res for more fps due to the smoother aim feel and thus more consistent aim.

[bgibbz]

16 hours ago, Pendragon said:

Thank you for writing something constructive and not slamming the other guy. I'm actually super curious about this topic as well. I also read a few threads about this topic and I'm still lost af LOL. The monitor has a flat latency of 1/60. That's established, but how would 200fps benefit being displayed on a hard capped 1/60 latency. I don't play CSGO either so this is just something i'm super curious about. Wouldn't exactly 60 frames on a 60hz monitor be best? (no screen tearing and perfect latency match)

For starters, this concept is not limited to Csgo. Essentially, the idea relies around frame latency (a potentially made up concept). Basically, a gpu renders frames radomly. When you get 60fps, that does not mean that you will get 1 Fran every 60th of a second.  You could potentially get one frame and time 0, the next frame at time 1/120, the next frame at time 2/120, the next at time 5/120, and so on. Essentially, the time between each frame is random. Your monitors refresh rate is far less random though, and the monitor will grab a frame every 1/60th of a second. So, while getting 60fps on a 60hz display, there will only be one frame per one refresh, but the frame that is being grabbed will have an inconsistent time. So, you could potentially run into a scenario where the latency between the frames is closer to 1/30 of a second apart of the toy takes a long time to render a frame, which will make it feel like 30fps rather than 60fps. At 200fps, theoretically the monitor will be able to grab a more recent frame for each refresh. This would allow the difference between frames to be a steady 60fps. The issue however, is that there are technologies that are intended to fix this discrepancy. Free sync and gsync are good examples of these technologies. People claim that 200fps no sync looks better than 60fps w/ sync, though, which doesn't really make sense. This would lead one to believe that many of the so called improvements with 200fps could be placebo. Also, monitors and gpus are far more complex than produce a frame, grab a frame, and therefore there are complications accociated with a high fps. Sorry if some stuff doesn't make sense, I wrote this on mobile so I was trying to be consise. 

[Pendragon]

10 hours ago, bgibbz said:

For starters, this concept is not limited to Csgo. Essentially, the idea relies around frame latency (a potentially made up concept). Basically, a gpu renders frames radomly. When you get 60fps, that does not mean that you will get 1 Fran every 60th of a second.  You could potentially get one frame and time 0, the next frame at time 1/120, the next frame at time 2/120, the next at time 5/120, and so on. Essentially, the time between each frame is random. Your monitors refresh rate is far less random though, and the monitor will grab a frame every 1/60th of a second. So, while getting 60fps on a 60hz display, there will only be one frame per one refresh, but the frame that is being grabbed will have an inconsistent time. So, you could potentially run into a scenario where the latency between the frames is closer to 1/30 of a second apart of the toy takes a long time to render a frame, which will make it feel like 30fps rather than 60fps. At 200fps, theoretically the monitor will be able to grab a more recent frame for each refresh. This would allow the difference between frames to be a steady 60fps. The issue however, is that there are technologies that are intended to fix this discrepancy. Free sync and gsync are good examples of these technologies. People claim that 200fps no sync looks better than 60fps w/ sync, though, which doesn't really make sense. This would lead one to believe that many of the so called improvements with 200fps could be placebo. Also, monitors and gpus are far more complex than produce a frame, grab a frame, and therefore there are complications accociated with a high fps. Sorry if some stuff doesn't make sense, I wrote this on mobile so I was trying to be consise. 

makes sense. that was what i was thinking too. with gsync and freesync, it should perform better than xfps nosync.