Laptop Specs

[A_name]

I'm trying to figure out whether I need to get a new laptop and if so where my current one is lacking, in terms of being able to run KSP smoothly, so that I know what to focus my upgrade on.

My current specs:

Intel Core i3 3110M 2.4 Ghz

4 Gb RAM

Intel HD Graphics 4000

So do you think any of these are lacking enough to merit a new laptop?

Any other thoughts or recommendations (like on how to make the most of my current specs) are most welcome.

Thanks!

[pxi]

In terms of running KSP, your major bottleneck is going to be the processor.  The i3 is essentially Intels lowest class of processor.  It's generally fine for basic tasks but wouldn't be what you'd normally want for gaming.  Neither is the integrated graphics, but since we're specifically talking about KSP, which doesn't demand as much oomph from the graphics card as most modern games, that's less of an issue.

Beyond that you could look at upgrading the RAM.  In terms of what you can do to upgrade your existing laptop, that's probably your best bet.  It's not a terrible spec, and I'd consider it to have a bit more life in it.

(As an aside, since you seem to be somewhat seriously considering an upgrade I'd gently try to point you towards a desktop, far more upgradeable in the long run, and probably cheaper if you really want to go the gaming-spec route.)

Edited May 7, 2016 by pxi

[CAKE99]

30 minutes ago, pxi said:

(As an aside, since you seem to be somewhat seriously considering an upgrade I'd gently try to point you towards a desktop, far more upgradeable in the long run, and probably cheaper if you really want to go the gaming-spec route.)

Yes, desktops are way better for games, plus there are e-waste places where they have old desktops, ALL the Windows PCs I have EVER got are from e-waste, it's also free. NOTE: There is a chance the place you live doesn't have a e-waste, unless you live in Melbourne, Australia, I know there is a e-waste place in Melbourne.

[A_name]

9 hours ago, pxi said:

In terms of running KSP, your major bottleneck is going to be the processor.  The i3 is essentially Intels lowest class of processor.  It's generally fine for basic tasks but wouldn't be what you'd normally want for gaming.  Neither is the integrated graphics, but since we're specifically talking about KSP, which doesn't demand as much oomph from the graphics card as most modern games, that's less of an issue.

Beyond that you could look at upgrading the RAM.  In terms of what you can do to upgrade your existing laptop, that's probably your best bet.  It's not a terrible spec, and I'd consider it to have a bit more life in it.

(As an aside, since you seem to be somewhat seriously considering an upgrade I'd gently try to point you towards a desktop, far more upgradeable in the long run, and probably cheaper if you really want to go the gaming-spec route.)

 

8 hours ago, CAKE99 said:

Yes, desktops are way better for games, plus there are e-waste places where they have old desktops, ALL the Windows PCs I have EVER got are from e-waste, it's also free. NOTE: There is a chance the place you live doesn't have a e-waste, unless you live in Melbourne, Australia, I know there is a e-waste place in Melbourne.

Thanks guys, I'll take this into account. As a cultural aside, since I'm pretty noobish on these topics, how relevant is the Ghz stat for processors. For example, is an i3 2.4 Ghz better than an i7 2.0 Ghz?

[StrandedonEarth]

I don't know how those compare, but in the end it depends how many instructions per second, or flops, the chip can crank out.  The best way to tell that is to find some benchmark scores, but again, those can only give good comparisons if processor is the only variable. Things like motherboard, RAM, and graphics also affect benchmark scores, and some different benchmarks highlight the different strengths of different chips. I hear AMD chips are lousy for gaming but good if you want to do a lot of video processing.

Edited May 8, 2016 by StrandedonEarth

[pxi]

45 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I don't know how those compare, but in the end it depends how many instructions per second, or flops, the chip can crank out.  The best way to tell that is to find some benchmark scores, but again, those can only give good comparisons if processor is the only variable. Things like motherboard, RAM, and graphics also affect benchmark scores, and some different benchmarks highlight the different strengths of different chips. I hear AMD chips are lousy for gaming but good if you want to do a lot of video processing.

Agreed, benchmarks are the way to go.  Years back the clock speed was your easiest way of determining how good a processor was in a simplistic sense, but in the last decade or so clock speeds have pretty much stagnated in the 2-3GHz range, while the number of processing cores has increased.

 

14 hours ago, A_name said:

For example, is an i3 2.4 Ghz better than an i7 2.0 Ghz?

Short answer, I'd say no.  An i3 will only have 2 cores, wheras an i7 will have minimum 4 and hyperthreading too.  The higher clock speed of the i3 is only part of the story, and I'd still consider it the lesser chip.  It does depend on specific use-cases though, for single-threaded applications a higher clock speed can be more advantageous than additional cores, but less and less applications are single threaded these days, and in the general sense I'd prefer a slightly slower processor with more cores.

[Harry Rhodan]

3 hours ago, pxi said:

Short answer, I'd say no.  An i3 will only have 2 cores, wheras an i7 will have minimum 4 and hyperthreading too.

There are quite a few mobile i7s that are only dual cores.

[pxi]

9 hours ago, Harry Rhodan said:

There are quite a few mobile i7s that are only dual cores.

I have to say, that's news to me.  I stand corrected.

[StrandedonEarth]

4 hours ago, pxi said:

I have to say, that's news to me.  I stand corrected.

And yet it's true, I didn't realize that either.

http://www.cpu-world.com/info/Intel/Intel_Core_i7_Mobile.html