Computer question

feddoc · Nov 27, 2016

WapitiBob · Nov 27, 2016

neither

I've been using laptops exclusively for the last 15 years and nowdays I keep the cost to about 700. My first one was 2200 and obsolete in 8 months. I have had good luck with HP though. Be sure to get a usb drive and create a data folder on it and back your stuff up to that folder. After 6 months of porn and MM cookies slowing down your box, you can restore to factory and put your data back on it.

DW · Nov 27, 2016

You know feddoc well.

computerguy · Nov 27, 2016

The first question that you should always be ready to answer regarding buying a computer is "What are you going to do with it?"

Are you playing hard core 3D games where maximum frame rates are worth a premium on price, or are you just posting to MM and uploading some photos once in awhile?

So, you can evaluate the processors at this page:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-vs-Intel-7500U

They seem to be very closely matched in performance, despite the fact that the 6700HQ has twice the cores and operates at a faster clock speed.

The 7500U is faster and also more energy efficient if that is important to you. That also translates to less heat output if you're using the thing literally on your lap.

One large difference I noted is the first one has both the 2 TB HDD AND the 128 GB SSD. I have that kind of setup on my Toshiba. I have a 2 TB HDD drive for lots of storage room, but my Windows and applications are installed on the SSD so that it boots faster and it loads my software apps faster. If that is not important to you, then it may not be worth the $500 extra. I doubt that you could just add an SSD to the second laptop. It has to have two hard drive bays, which most laptops do not.

But CPU power and boot time are not the only measures of speed. The first one also has the GeForce GTX 960M graphics card vs the AMD R7 M440 in the second. You can evaluate the comparison others have already done here:
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-M440-vs-GeForce-GTX-960M

The GeForce is much faster in running games. Again, you have to decide whether that is worth it to you for the extra $500 for the first one.

The first one also includes a month of HP's "Smartfriend" Tech Support:
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/services/consumer/smartfriend-overview.html

Again, you have to decide for you whether it is worth the extra $500.

Also from my POV, the first one has four five star reviews, whereas the second has one five star review from a self-admitted technologically challenged grandma.

You should read those reviews if you have not. If I were looking at these two, I would search for more reviews on the second if I were leaning toward that one due to lower price.

Darth Vader was a sap.

feddoc · Nov 27, 2016

LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-16 AT 10:25PM (MST)[p]I won't be doing a lot of gaming...might loan it to my kid.

Thanks, lots of stuff to think about. I want lots of storage room and using the 128 SSD for windows and apps is kind of a big deal for me, which is one of the two reasons I liked it.

Yea, I did read the reviews...not much there.

The second reason I was interested is possible better clarity in the pictures. Is 4K really worth it whilst sitting on my lap?

Thanks again for the info.

elkassassin · Nov 27, 2016

'might loan it to my kid'

JUDAS!

That's Probably why You're lookin for a New PUTER Now!

[font color="blue"]She put a Big F.U. in My Future,Ya She's got a
way with Words[/font]

computerguy · Nov 27, 2016

>That's Probably why You're lookin for
>a New PUTER Now!

That's one reason I'm building my son his own (from a used one on eBay).

Darth Vader was a sap.

257Tony · Nov 28, 2016

One other thing to keep in mind is that 4k screen is going to make for some really tiny icons on a 17" screen, and using windows scaling to make them bigger is still not a perfect science. For most guys the 1080p screen on the cheaper one will be a better way to go.

Even if you do game on the more expensive one, that GTX 960m is not enough horsepower to run games at 4k, you'd have to run them at a lower resolution which is not ideal either.