Asus G73hj ...do what now?! 8D

[x88x]

Engadget article here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/asus-rog-g73jh-launches-with-core-i7-radeon-hd-5870-bragging-r/

Long story short, Asus's new line of gaming laptops. Base config:
Core i7-720QM
8GM DDR3-1066
Radeon HD 5870
2x 500GB 7200RPM HDD
BD-ROM/DVD-super-multi


...basically about the most powerful gaming laptop on the market (ok, so it's not quite on the market yet...give it time), definitely the most powerful single-GPU gaming laptop.

After reading through some of the Engadget comments, I found a link to a site that's accepting pre-orders: xoticpc.com Never heard of them, and after spending a little time on their website, I'm not convinced that I would be comfortable buying from them, but they're the only place I could find a projected release date/price: late Jan/early Feb, for just under $1,600 for the base config.

If these dates and prices are actually correct...I forsee a lot of business for Asus in the coming months...because quite honestly, both for the performance and the price, nobody has anything that can compete with this.

[Luke122]

So glad I didnt buy the G71GX now. :D

[billygoat333]

guess I wouldnt know, I've only ever owned one ATI card, and it was so long ago i honestly don't remember the model/specs! lol

EDIT: ermm... I thought I was posting to something else. ??? lol either the board screwed up on me or I screwed up on the board. either way... sorry!


PS. On-topic: That thing is gonna be a beast of a laptop!

[biggoofy]

That thing is a monster, not to expensive either.

[knowledgegranted]

This is pretty damn epic, I'm gonna wait till then next "Tock" from intel until I invest in a new gaming laptop.

The one downside is that they went with a 16:9 screen at the 1920x1080 resolution. Gaming machines should be a 16:10 at 1920x1200. Other than that, Epp ii ck.

[x88x]

The one downside is that they went with a 16:9 screen at the 1920x1080 resolution. Gaming machines should be a 16:10 at 1920x1200.

I've been hearing that a lot from some other people too. OOC, why is that in your opinion? IMO it doesn't really matter all that much to me that much whether it's 1080p or WUXGA. Yeah, 1080p loses 10% of the screen, but oh well, I don't need vast amounts of desktop real estate on my laptop; that's what my desktop is for ;P. Other than the historical tendency to 16:10 screens for monitors (and before that 4:3 or 5:4), what makes a 16:10 so much better for non-video stuff? (Not just bitching, I seriously want to know your thoughts.) The main thing for me is that 16:9 panels are just so cheap now; take my Samsung 2343 for example; 23" 2048x1152 (16:9), slightly more pixels than WUXGA: $200. To get an equivalent WUXGA panel I would have to pay at least $60-100 more.

[billygoat333]

120 extra pixels yo! lol thats about the only good side about it I would think!

[knowledgegranted]

I've been hearing that a lot from some other people too. OOC, why is that in your opinion? IMO it doesn't really matter all that much to me that much whether it's 1080p or WUXGA. Yeah, 1080p loses 10% of the screen, but oh well, I don't need vast amounts of desktop real estate on my laptop; that's what my desktop is for ;P. Other than the historical tendency to 16:10 screens for monitors (and before that 4:3 or 5:4), what makes a 16:10 so much better for non-video stuff? (Not just bitching, I seriously want to know your thoughts.) The main thing for me is that 16:9 panels are just so cheap now; take my Samsung 2343 for example; 23" 2048x1152 (16:9), slightly more pixels than WUXGA: $200. To get an equivalent WUXGA panel I would have to pay at least $60-100 more.

There is alot to consider if you want to break down a standard (computer resolution standard is 16:10). Websites are designed around the fact that people are using a 16:10 resolution, and we all know how much the internet is used each day. Computers should not be a wide screen, it just isn't right. That 120 pixels in the photography field, and web developing field would be life and death (ask CJ about photography, I'm not sure if he uses 16:10 or not). The standard was put into effect for a reason really, and computer manufacturing companies should not stray from it. For me, I 3d model and game a ton on my pc. 3D modeling programs (such as Maya, and 3DS MAX) actually have certain special settings if you have dual 16:10 monitors.

[x88x]

You make a good point about photography and CAD; I can see stuff that needs a large, continuous space being hurt by that cut-off; I wonder if that's one of the reasons that some manufacturers started making the 2048x1152 panels. Gaming I don't really see being an issue though; pretty much any modern game can auto-detect your monitor's max resolution, and personally I use horizontal space more than vertical space in games. I suppose as a disclaimer, I don't really have a direct comparison with my stuff since I went from 1680x1050 to 2048x1152, and I haven't had the occasion to compare WUXGA and 1080p panels side-by-side.

I will challenge the websites though. In my travels around the internet, the pages I see are almost universally designed for a 4:3 ratio (or auto-adjusting) and I have yet to see a web page that is specifically designed to look better on a widescreen monitor of any resolution (possibly a product of faulty memory, idk). Also, as a bit of an aside, how many people with high resolution displays actually use their browsers in fullscreen?

16:10 has only been a standard for computer monitors for about 4-5 years now, and already it has become so ingrained into our culture; it makes me wonder if in a few years we'll be having a similar conversation about some new standard... :think: