How much would it cost to buy a laptop for Shadowlands?

[Temp name]

Dont follow those, theyre awful.

Literally anything. Those are literally just trash. I'll link this as an example of "anything".

While they still aren't perfect, it seems they've been updated to actually be.. Kinda okay?
https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...d-of-the-Month

Don't get me wrong, they aren't good, but they aren't literal garbage anymore, just bad
Edit: To explain why:
All the cases are bad
All PSUs except Unicorn are bad
All CPUs except Puppy are overly expensive for no gain
Coolers are fine
Puppy MOBO is scalped to fuck listed at 200 dollars instead of its MSRP of ~100, Dolphin MOBO is hilarious overspend even at MSRP
RAM is fine.
Narwhal and Unicorn GPUs are underpowered for the CPUs they have
Narwhal and Unicorn are overspending on SSDs

Temp already offered plenty of good suggestions. I dont need to repeat him.

Not in this thread though. But there are a million threads in the build/Upgrade subforum where me and a lot of other people have.

[Thunderball]

While they still aren't perfect, it seems they've been updated to actually be.. Kinda okay?
https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...d-of-the-Month

Don't get me wrong, they aren't good, but they aren't literal garbage anymore, just bad
Edit: To explain why:
All the cases are bad
All PSUs except Unicorn are bad
All CPUs except Puppy are overly expensive for no gain
Coolers are fine
Puppy MOBO is scalped to fuck listed at 200 dollars instead of its MSRP of ~100, Dolphin MOBO is hilarious overspend even at MSRP
RAM is fine.
Narwhal and Unicorn GPUs are underpowered for the CPUs they have
Narwhal and Unicorn are overspending on SSDs


Not in this thread though. But there are a million threads in the build/Upgrade subforum where me and a lot of other people have.

Simple really. This is meant to be a generic list for everyone. And for an average user all those configs are trash, especially the core components: CPU/mobo/GPU.

[Temp name]

Simple really. This is meant to be a generic list for everyone. And for an average user all those configs are trash, especially the core components: CPU/mobo/GPU.

I'd argue the puppy build is pretty good on that regard. 3600, ASUS b450-plus and a 1660. Granted, it should be a super, but it's not bad.
Dolphin is overspending on CPU by getting the X version, and on the MOBO by getting an x470. But the x variant makes some kinda sense, it is slightly faster than the stock 3600, and the average user isn't going to OC to bridge the gap. Again, 1660 super is perfectly reasonable for that CPU.
And I'm not going to entertain Narwhal and Unicorn, they're both awful, and would need to "downgrade" to a 3600/3700x and b450 too.

[Thunderball]

I'd argue the puppy build is pretty good on that regard. 3600, ASUS b450-plus and a 1660. Granted, it should be a super, but it's not bad.
Dolphin is overspending on CPU by getting the X version, and on the MOBO by getting an x470. But the x variant makes some kinda sense, it is slightly faster than the stock 3600, and the average user isn't going to OC to bridge the gap. Again, 1660 super is perfectly reasonable for that CPU.
And I'm not going to entertain Narwhal and Unicorn, they're both awful, and would need to "downgrade" to a 3600/3700x and b450 too.

Puppy should be a 3300X (or a 2600/1600 AF)+1650 Super+some mobo with a proper heatsink on the VRM (which b450-plus is not). Dolphin should be a 3600 + B550 mobo (when it was updated B550 wasnt out but still)+1660 Ti. 3600x is just useless. Narwhal a B550+3700X(you can argue for a 3600 aswell really)+5700XT, and Unicorn a X570(might aswell be a B550 but then the only difference between the two is the GPU)+3700X+2070/2080 Super.

[Temp name]

Dolphin should be a 3600 + B550 mobo (when it was updated B550 wasnt out but still)+1660 Ti. 3600x is just useless.

I'm just going to ignore everything else you said (because, yeah, maybe), but NOOOOOPE. Never get the 1660 ti. It's just bad value. Just literally don't. Get either the 1660 super or 2060 instead.

[m4xc4v413r4]

No you dont.

At least, that wasn't the original price of said laptop. Laptops with discrete GPUs dont start to appear until you get into the ~650$ range, unless you catch them refurbed, open box, or on fire sale.

Why do you feel the need to constantly make shit up too attack people?

- - - Updated - - -



Well, you can. Literally everyone can.

You cant see individual frames, but your eyes, unless you're close to completely legally blind, can notice the difference in smoothness.

Now, whether the difference is enough to justify the extra price is something for each person to make a call on.

Personally, the difference between 60 fps and ~100-140fps is hugely noitecable, but the difference between 140fps and 240fps, while noticeable, is not nearly as profound, so i wouldn't spend out on more than 144-165hz monitor.

- - - Updated - - -



Considering that we *just now* have a 1200$ GPU that can finally (mostly) do 4k/60fps reliably... How would that be remotely a thing? Out of the tens of millions of PC gamers, you think 30% can afford a 1200$ GPU?

4K wont become "common" until there are GPUs in the 200$-250$ price bracket that can reliably push 60+fps at high settings. And even then, people simply do not replace their monitors that often, so theyll have to be convinced to buy a new monitor too... so, 500$ investent, even then....

Most PC gamers are gaming on rigs that the entire rig costs 700$ or so (or less). Dropping 500$ in one go is not something a lot of people can just do.



It really isn't that compelling a jump over 1440p, though, which is an order of magnitude cheaper to drive than 4K.



Because (most) people dont have 3,000$ to throw away on a video game system. You cant force market adoption when the price is so high. There's no incentive.

Thank you for showing everyone how little you understand of any of that.

I definitely do play at 7 on the laptop i said, prove me wrong if you're so sure. And no, you can't see the difference between 120/144 and 240Hz, you're welcome to again prove me wrong, unfortunatly for you a simple search will show you plenty of tests made with professional gamers where they couldn't see the difference in blind tests, so I'm 100% sure that you won't either. And wtf does being "blind" has anything to do with perceiving FPS. Why don't you take your ignorant opinions and keep it to your self next time so you don't make your self look ever dumber.

[Dax1983]

You'd be better off building a gaming desktop. MMO champ has guides for what parts to buy.

This is exactly what I am hoping to get advice on now. I just hadn't gotten around to making a thread for it.

[Kagthul]

Thank you for showing everyone how little you understand of any of that.

I definitely do play at 7 on the laptop i said, prove me wrong if you're so sure.

Id love to. Post up the make and model, kiddo.

And no, you can't see the difference between 120/144 and 240Hz, you're welcome to again prove me wrong, unfortunatly for you a simple search will show you plenty of tests made with professional gamers where they couldn't see the difference in blind tests,

Uh... what? The videos will show that they DO notice and ACTUALLY PERFORM BETTER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA&t=1s

You know, with like... Shroud. A professional gamer. And thats just the last one in the series. And thats literally just the very first ones that come up in YouTube. Tell me again how ill find all sorts of videos saying the opposite?

This comes up as an answer from a PHD student in optical technology at MIT:

Oh my... This myth kills me more than any other out there, due to having such a vested interest in PC gaming. This is such a common myth that it honestly makes my head hurt.

I'd like to correct this and if only 4 people walk away after seeing this thread and know better, I'll feel great. I'm going to keep this simple.

Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.

So, yeah. You're wrong. Completely, totally wrong. Oh, and the next post in that very topic is from an opthalmalogist (thats a Medical Eye Doctor, since the big words might be an issue for you), confirming that. Its like the second or third response in Google on the subject. Man, that was tough to find!

so I'm 100% sure that you won't either.

I just did. Right there. Above. Couple of times.

And wtf does being "blind" has anything to do with perceiving FPS.

If you knew the first thing about how the nerves and receptors in the eyes work, you wouldn't ask completely nonsensical questions.

Why don't you take your ignorant opinions

The correct term you're searching for is "scientific facts", not "opinions". YOU had an opinion that was incorrect. I corrected it with proven science.

and keep it to your self next time so you don't make your self look ever dumber.

... says the guy who just got proven totally wrong.

The irony of you calling someone ignorant when you couldnt even take the time to read the top 3 responses to the google search "can the human eye see more than 60fps" and realize that you were utterly wrong is... staggering.

Staggering, sonny.

Staggering.

You can go now. Unless you're gonna post up that laptop

- - - Updated - - -

Oooh, oooh, some more fun:

The origin of the myth: The origin of the myth probably has to do with limitations of television and movies. Movies, when they were recorded on film reel, limited themselves to 24 frames per second for practical purposes. If there is a diminishing return in how many frames people can claim to actually notice, then the visual difference between 24 fps and 60 fps could not justify DOUBLING the amount of film reel required to film a movie.

With the advent of easy digital storage, these limitations are mostly arbitrary anymore.

The numbers often cited as the mythological "maximum" the eye can see are 30 fps, 40 fps, and 60 fps.

I would guess the 60 fps "eye-seeing" limit comes from the fact that most PC monitors (and indeed many televisions now) have a maximum refresh rate of 60hz (or 60 frames per second). If a monitor has that 60 fps limit, the monitor is physically incapable of displaying more than 60 fps. This is one of the purposes of frame limiting, Vsync and adjusting refresh rate in video games.

tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.

Bold and Italics added by me.

And moar!

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

[m4xc4v413r4]

The irony of you calling someone ignorant when you couldnt even take the time to read the top 3 responses to the google search "can the human eye see more than 60fps" and realize that you were utterly wrong is... staggering.

tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.
And moar!

Funny that you say all that when you yourself can't even read the same comment you quoted from me saying "And no, you can't see the difference between 120/144 and 240Hz, you're welcome to again prove me wrong" I didn't know that 60 fps and 100 fps were above 120/144, I guess your MIT studies failed math.

By the way, why don't you go actually watch the video you posted, where they clearly show the pro's not actually improving at 240hz vs 144hz, I guess you missed that part in your extensive studies.

Maybe next time you should take some time to research something before you pretend you know anything about it "kiddo".

[Bryntrollian]

I definitely do play at 7 on the laptop i said,

That sounds decent for a $500 purchase, what CPU / GPU does that laptop have?

[m4xc4v413r4]

That sounds decent for a $500 purchase, what CPU / GPU does that laptop have?

Ryzen 5 3550H - RX 560X - 8GB DDR4 - 500GB NVMe SSD

It was 529 around 5 or 6 months ago.

[Kagthul]

Funny that you say all that when you yourself can't even read the same comment you quoted from me saying "And no, you can't see the difference between 120/144 and 240Hz, you're welcome to again prove me wrong" I didn't know that 60 fps and 100 fps were above 120/144, I guess your MIT studies failed math.

The sad desperation of you trying DESPERATELY to move the goalposts and not be utterly wrong is great fun!

here, let me requote for you, since apparently more than 2-3 sentences in a row confuse you:

tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.

The mistake you made here was reading "the average person can accurately guess the framerare up to around 150fps" and taking that to mean "and they cant tell if anything past 150 is smoother".

It never says that. You literally invented that in your head.

What it says, is that even the average schlub can accurately guess a framerate up to 150fps just by looking at it. It does NOT say they cant also tell that 240fps is smoother than 150pfs. Because they can. All the way up to 1000 fps. Which is what it says.

Also, did we want to not address this?

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

I mean, i get why you want to only quote things that you think you can twist into saying something they dont say, and try to ignore the ones that completely and utterly destroy you.

Turns out, people can see ONE FRAME out of over 200 accurately enough to ID the plane.

By the way, why don't you go actually watch the video you posted, where they clearly show the pro's not actually improving at 240hz vs 144hz, I guess you missed that part in your extensive studies.

Uhh... better scores = not improving? Its a special, special reverse-world you live in, kiddo.

Maybe next time you should take some time to research something before you pretend you know anything about it "kiddo".

Since i categorically proved you wrong... why would i need to do more research?

You're wrong. Full stop.

Notice you haven't posted up that make and model of laptop.

Ill just go with that doctor from Scrubs:

"Wrong wrong wrong wrong; wrong wrong wrong... you're wrong!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc

- - - Updated - - -

Ryzen 5 3550H - RX 560X - 8GB DDR4 - 500GB NVMe SSD

It was 529 around 5 or 6 months ago.

....

you're trying to claim that a laptop RX 560X, a GPU that is slower than a seven-generation old GTX 480, is driving "settings 7"?

Just because you set the draw distance to 7, does not make it "settings 7" - when you turn down all the GPU intensive settings like water to low, thats not settings 7.

RX 560X - 3520
RX 570 - 6967
(gpubenchmarks.net)

HALF as fast as an RX 570.

Oh, and that massive Ryzen 5 3550H - (2111 (SC) 8149 (MC)) - 20% slower single-core than even an R5 2600, really tearin up the charts and maxing out those CPU limited situations in WoW.

Oh.. and thanks for proving my point:

No you dont.

At least, that wasn't the original price of said laptop. Laptops with discrete GPUs dont start to appear until you get into the ~650$ range, unless you catch them refurbed, open box, or on fire sale.

Why do you feel the need to constantly make shit up too attack people?

Since you wouldn't post up the make and model, i went looking.

Only manufacturer that used that combo was ASUS, in its TUF lineup.

Cheapest model is 700$, and that one has really sub-standard RAM and Storage.

So.. you got it on a steep sale, disproving your claim of:

WTH are you talking about, I play the game at 7, 1080p 60 fps on a just over 500 buck laptop. Why do you feel the need to give people advice about shit you don't know anything about?

No, you (claim) to game at high settings, 1080p, 60fps (lol no), on a (bare minimum) 700$ laptop. 850$ for the config that isn't hobbled by junk RAM and Storage and a terrible screen.

And 60fps? LOLNO. Not all the time. Do you AVERAGE 60fps? Sure.

Do you maintain 60fps in busy capitals, raids, and large scale PvP? No, no you do not. Not with that gimpy (no insult, its a laptop part, Intel parts in that range dont do any better) mobile Ryzen. People with rigs OCed well over 5ghz cant even reliably maintain 60fps 100% of the time, on CPUs that have much better IPC (thats a Zen 1 part) and no thermal limits.

You done yet? I can do this all day. (well, likely ill get bored in an hour and go do something more fun, but hey, its the thought that counts).

[Bryntrollian]

Ryzen 5 3550H - RX 560X - 8GB DDR4 - 500GB NVMe SSD

It was 529 around 5 or 6 months ago.

No shit, that was a great deal! Equivalent systems are going for $800+ at the moment.

[m4xc4v413r4]

...

The day your opinion matters anything you can keep yapping around, until then good luck

[chazus]

Going to drop this warning once at this point. Discussion is great but name calling and insults won't be tolerated. Keep it civil.

[Dax1983]

For some reason.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a post limit

- - - Updated - - -

To add links.

- - - Updated - - -

And I need to post links

- - - Updated - - -

To get advice on a PC build.

- - - Updated - - -

And that all counts as one post doesn't it?

[Temp name]

For some reason.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a post limit

- - - Updated - - -

To add links.

- - - Updated - - -

And I need to post links

- - - Updated - - -

To get advice on a PC build.

- - - Updated - - -

And that all counts as one post doesn't it?

Yeah, it does.

The limit to add links is 10, so you should be good. And if not, then just add a space instead of the . in .com
so instead of, say, google.com just have google com. Sometimes it also works as long as you don't have the https://www. at the front, so you can post the entire link like that without breaking it up, as you can see with google.com and with the above showing as a link

[ricardo8]

I also need some kind of help buying a new laptop for me. I will wait for someone good suggestions.

[Kagthul]

I also need some kind of help buying a new laptop for me. I will wait for someone good suggestions.

Better off mkaing a new thread, broheim

[ricardo8]

Better off mkaing a new thread, broheim

Okey! Going to do that. Thank you!