Hi, I'm relatively new here and was wondering if you guys could recommend me a laptop i could buy for less than 1500 dollars.  I plan to use it among other things for some gamming like for example command and conquer generals, battle for middle earth, things like that.
 
I would really aprreciate it if you guys could help, or at least point me in a general direction. thank you.

the laptop that i got, a toshiba a70 is great for gaming, it has a ati mobility 9000 video card that can support up to 3 monitors (laptop screen, a tv, and a standard computer monitor) its 64mb, but u can dedicate your ram to let it be 128. it comes with 512mb of ddr ram which can be upgraded to 1.5gigs(i upgraded mine to 1 gig) it has a very powerful pentium 4 with ht technology 3.02ghz of prosseser power. it has a great internal wireless g. network adaptor. and it runs great with games and it has exlent multitasking power. the only bad thing about it is there is only a 80gig hard drive. but overall its great and i only got it for $1300(CDN)

i have an asus z70va, centrino 1.86, ati x700, gig ram... for about 1700can in last september so it should be less now, especially in US$...plays all new games even fear at medium settings quite well
 
check out notebookforums.com theres lots of info there
 
good luck

Best System ay $1,500 range
Go to my site KillerNotebooks.com
Configure a system
Choose MT-37 2.0 GHz as a Processor.
Choose 100 Gig 5,400 rpm for a Hard Drive.
Choose 54G for Internal Wireless.
 
Total cost $1,577 for one heck of a gaming rig! Email me and I can see if there is anything else I can do for you.
 

 
Dell 9400 / E1705 with coupons (found on gotapex or techbargains...act fast) - $1100 base after coupon/rebate, plus $300 for the nVidia 7800 graphics card - $1400 for a 17" notebook with a SERIOUS, *gamer* graphics card.  No wimpy cards here!  And it's not the old Pentium M "Centrino" design - it's the new dual CPU "Centrino Duo" design - double the CPU horsepower (albeit not double the speed).  Going with less, unless size/weight is an issue, seems silly to me.

Firstly Intel is the king of the dog and pony show. The "Core Due" is a marketing scam. You might want to check out my Features page which describes what I mean.  
Would you rather have a dual core modified 32 bit Pentium 3 or a state of the art 64 bit Turion?
 
Using normal single apps you aren't even going to have the processing speed of a regular Centrino.  
 
Second, it isn't even 64 bit. Why buy something that is going to be obsolite next year? (Really right now) Check out my Why Choose a Turion Processor page for more info.
 
Unless you plan on running virus scans when you are doing your other work, this is going to do you no good. Get a Turion and you will see a definate improvement in your system speed and stability.
 
KillerNotebooks.com
 

 
Spoken like a true salesperson.  But I don't work for Dell - do you work for "KillerNotebooks"?  They'll be selling Core Duos soon, like all the other notebook vendors, as soon as Intel ships them - then what do you bet you'll completely change your tune?    
 
No one runs one single app.  With OSs being heavily multitasking/multithreaded, more CPUs are better.  Sure, if a single app isn't multithreaded (and most games still aren't, but that will change) then there's not as much of an advantage, but you can still offload the OS tasks (plus anything else you like running in the background, which would normally slow down a single-core CPU) to the second core.  Advantage: Dual Core.  AMD sees the future - their X2 architecture is where their development (and marketing) muscle is headed, and likely will be for years; single core is dead.  Tri- and Quad- core is the future.
 
Benchmarks?  Tom's Hardware completely disagrees with your assessment:  http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] age18.html  
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] age19.html
 
64 bit?  Are you running a 64 bit OS?  64 bit apps?  I'm not.  And given the benchmarks the Turon got, in the mobile sector, I don't yet see a compelling reason.  Don't run 64 bit for 64 bit's sake - run it if it's faster, with all else being considered.  Nothing against 64 bit, but it hasn't yet achieved anything other than buzzword status unless you're in the minority that must run >2GB/4GB memory spaces.
 
Stability?  Speed?  Tom's benchmarks show the Centrino is clearly faster, and concerning stability, well, Intel is still king of that game.
 
I don't think we're going to agree on this one.    Point is, for ~$1400, the Dell Centrino Duo with nVidea 7800 *rocks* and delivers a blazing fast GPU and a blazing fast dual-core CPU setup.  And a great 17" screen!

Here's the bottom line.  
 
I HAVE built both systems because I OWN KillerNotebooks.
 
We droped the Intel line altogether because they are inferior products.  
 
You can point to benchmarks and reviews all you want. I have notebooks in the field I have to support. Problems with AMD systems are next to non-existant. I can't say that for Intel with the exact same components I put in the Turions, and it is all top of the line.  
 
You think reviews on sites that are paid big advertising dollars and sent free products are more impartial than I? Well, all I am saying is go to my site and read it for yourself. There is links so you can research it all. Features Link
 
The Pentium M Centrino, and Sonoma are derived from highly modified Pentium 3 chips. The "Core Duo" is a variant of these chipsets. That technology is ancient. It is 32 bit.  
 
The Turion is a variant of the Athlon 64 bit desktop chip. It has a 1,600 MHz front side bus compared to Intels 533 Mhz. It's memory controller is by far superior and 'on chip.' It is common knowledge that AMD destroys Intel in the desktop arena and now you expect me to believe a synthetic benchmark that says a Centrino Core Duo (modified pentium 3) has turned the tables on AMD's mobile chip which is derived from the Athlon 64? Does that even REMOTELY make sense to you?  
 
AMD WROTE the 64 bit instruction set YEARS ago AND implemented the first 64 bit desktop chip AND notebook chip. Intel took AMD's 64 bit code and rebranded it EMT64, it is that simple. They still can't get it to work right because their architecture is antiquated. Read my page and check the facts.
 
Build a few of each notebook and I bet you will choose the same route we did. Regardless if 64 bit is faster right NOW at this particular point in time is irrelevant. The apps aren't re-written yet, what about when they are?  
Common sense says they are going to be faster. Are you using Windows 3.11 and 16 bit apps, or are they all gone? Speed is one thing, but what are you going to benchmark when your computer CAN'T RUN 64 bit APPS? Do you want to invest in a whole new computer or 32 bit Vista? Have you ever run a 64 bit OS? It is noticably faster, even running all 32 bit apps. I have used x64 and Beta Vista, and I can say with certainty 32 bit has a quantifiable lifespan.  
KillerNotebooks.com
 

 
I will trust Tom's Hardware reviews (public reviews that can easily be attacked and checked) more than an opinion of a seller posting marketing phrases.  That's just basic logic.  Tom's Hardware did a review of the notebook you sell (MSI1029, IIRC) and didn't exactly shower it with praise (http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/02/09/is_64_bit_mobile_computing_more_promise_than_reality/page13.html)  
- it's nice, but it uses an older GPU (X700) compared to the Dell's nVidia 7800 - and for games, a fast GPU is what you want.  It also uses an older Turon design - the Turon is AMD's basic single-core chip, and it's really nothing special WRT the benchmarks...it is fairly light, though, at 6.4 pounds.  But benchmark-wise, the Centrino Duo tears it apart.
 
Your link you keep posting (/features.aspx) sounds like the Mac user's argument - use a G5 because it has 1600 mhz FSB and cooler-sounding architecture.  We know how that turned out - Apple's switched to (you guessed it!) Intel's Duo for better performance, with "only" a 533 mhz bus - yet the Intel Duo performance is clearly better...go figure.  The 533 mhz FSB, Pentium 3 "base" (and THAT is misleading - only in the simplest terms, and everything is "based" on the 486 to some extent...how far will you go?) etc. themselves aren't reasons to use a particular architecture.  The performance (ie the benchmarks) are - and in those, the Turon typically doesn't do that well compared to Intel's latest (but bear in mind the dual-core Turon should be here in Q3 2006).  Also misleading is your CAS2.5 marketing jumbo - you should know as well as anyone that, particularly with on-board memory controllers (like AMD has, as you state) the difference in the (lower, better) latencies for the RAM chips is tiny - immaterial compared to just about anything else in the machine.  
 
I admire your salesmanship.    
 
Concerning "ancient" technology, please tell me, without using buzzwords, why I would care about 32 bit vs. 64 bit.  I'll start you off with FarCry, one of the incredibly few 64 bit games out there:  http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=2411&p=2
Hint:  It's all of 4% faster (under AMD; 6.5% faster under Intel), and that's IF you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of trying to find 64 bit drivers for that notebook, AND you're willing to deal with all the flaws in existing 64 bit drivers.  Want to read about how difficult that is?  Here you go:  http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/0 [...] age13.html
 
64 bit isn't here yet.  No amount of salesmanship will change that.  The driver situation is horribly immature, the support from vendors is horrid, and, in general, it just isn't ready.  And given how small the 64 bit market is, that won't change for several years.  So, aside from buzzword compliance, for a notebook (where, assumedly, we don't need to run 16TB RAM databases), why would I care about 64 bit?  
 
You mention I should buy 64 bit for the future.  The typical lifespan of a notebook around here is probably measured in the 1 to 3 year timeframe - then people upgrade to get better components.  Rest assured that 32-bit-using platforms will be the vast, vast majority for long past that timeframe, and will be supported for a decade or more (Vista plus 8 years, at a minimum, per MS's roadmaps - and that's IF MS completely discontinues 32 bit support immediately after Vista, which no one really believes they will).  And with that nonexistant 4% performance advantage that 64 bit has (Farcry; other apps will differ), for most people there's no reason to prefer one over the other.

I have an x1600 256 MB model coming out next month taht can compete with your precious 7800.
 
I am not sure how you can call a Turion MT-40 the older model... oh, maybe because in the REVIEW they were using an ML-42. Honestly, your entire argument is revolving around someone elses synthetic benchmark tests.
 
You completely lost me as credible when you said CAS latency is 'mumbo jumbo'.  
 
Then you go on to say that they didn't shower the system with praise in the article, this is what I read, "The MS-1029 is a solidly built notebook PC. It seemed to me that the computer I received had traveled the world going from one reviewer to another. In fact, it's my guess that this is the same computer that was used in tests done for MobilityGuru's September 2005 article on AMD's Turion processor line. For all its world-circling travel, the MS-1029 showed very little wear and tear. If anything took a hit it was the unit's pretty near perfect keyboard.
 
The MS-1029 has a very nice 15.4" (39.1 cm) display with resolution running up to 1280 x 800. The display is sharp and easy on the eyes in spite of some of the numbers I'm about to give you.
 
The mean brightness of the display is 122 candelas per square meter. That's not bad, though in previous tests HP's dv4000 delivered 135 candelas per square meter and Toshiba's TV-quality Qosmio G25-AV513 wowed all with its brightness score of 335 candelas per square meter.
 The MS-1029 has unusually dark blacks, which gives it a contrast ratio (whites/blacks) of 342. This compares well with the dv4000's score of 141 and is only outshone by the Qosmio's contrast ratio of 450. Since the Quaimo has dual lamps in it's LCD and eats batteries like a feind, I'm not sure it is a fair comparrison. I will tell you this is a nice screen, you wouldn't be disappointed.
 
Now the majority of his review was NOT about the chassis itself, but about the viability of 64 bit Windows running on the machine. He actually said that the machine had been through a ton of people's hands, traveled the globe before he got it and it still performed very well.  
 
You probably aren't old enough to remember Windows 3.11 and 16 bit apps. So you probably haven't heard all this non-sense before and seen it play out. If you want to stick with 32 bit and invest current dollars into it fine. If you want to think a 2.2 Ghz 64 bit notebook is only going to last you 1 - 3 years that is fine too. It's amazing we ever were able to compose a word processing document with less than 128 MB of video memory.  
 
You can think what you want, based on what you read, but I am going to stick with my real world experience. It's one darn good system with top of the line components for a fair price. No review is going to argue that. If you can point me to any other system that has the STANDARD features that I do under 2 grand I would like to see it.

The X1600 doesn't compete against the 7800 - the X1600 is slower than the 7800.  The X1800 is ATI's competition for the 7800.  Do you sell that, now, for a price in the Dell's pricerange?  Dell requires a coupon to get the incredible deals I've posted, but they're available frequently.  If you can take advantage of it, you can get amazing systems for very little $$.  Now, without delay.
 
For the original poster wanting a fast gaming system, a Dual Core Intel box with 7800 and 17" LCD screen is better than a Turion with old X700 architecture and 15" LCD screen that costs about the same or more $.
 
Concerning CAS latency, for the AMDs with integrated memory controllers, little is gained by switching from CAS2.5 to CAS3.  It's marketing-speak for getting a few more $ from customers that don't know better.  Anand and other sites have had reports on this from time to time.  Overclocking has some benefit with different memory timings, but we aren't talking about overclocking, and few would overclock a notebook that already runs hot.
 
The "facts" benchmarks you post on your site are very, very misleading.  You took the top graph from this site (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/x86-64-rc1_11.html) but you didn't also paste the other 2 graphs, both of which clearly show Intel-64 has *BETTER* performance than the AMD-64 part.  That's misleading marketing.  
 
The rest of Tom's Hardware review on the MSI 1029 wasn't as flattering as the quotes you posted.  Some included problems with the keyboard, problems with the drivers or poor functionality of the drivers, heat problems, and various other issues.  You can read the entire review (rather than just snipping what you liked) and you'll see that overall, it's an OK notebook, but there were things they didn't like about it.  
 
The review concluded that 64 bit just isn't here for gaming or normal home (or office) use, and I don't think there is anyone (aside from yourself) that would disagree with that.  XP Home isn't even offered in 64 bit flavor... that should tell you something.  What OS do you include with all of your systems?  I didn't see that mentioned on the sales prices part of your site.  XP64 has many, many problems - immature drivers, incomplete drivers, or drivers that just don't exist.
 
I'm still waiting for your rationale of why someone should run XP64.  4% performance gain (Farcry - the only 64 bit game I see out there) just doesn't cut it as a reason - why should I switch from 32 bit to 64 bit?  Hint:  It isn't twice as fast.  Bigger numbers aren't always better.
 
Concerning your comments about my age, I've got to laugh.  I understand why going from 16 bits to 32 bits was significant; I also understand why going from 32 bits to 64 bits, particularly in the memory-limited notebook sector, is so unimportant as to be meaningless for most people.  And yes, I word processed on machines with 64KB total memory (and 5KB total, if we count a VIC 20).  You still haven't answered my questions for why one would want 64 bits - please feel free to answer, in non-marketing buzzspeak, at any time.  Please use technical terms.  I suggest starting with something like "Kernel memory space..." and total memory space.  Please define exactly how that is important in the laptop sector, too.
 
Your "real world experience" post is geared towards selling your products.  (As is your entire swarm of recent posts on this board; commercial usage of forums is typically looked down upon.)  My post is geared towards answering the OP's question - and at that, for games especially, an nVidia 7800 GPU + Intel Core Dueo will toast an ATI X700 GPU + Turion.  Graphics card matters far more than CPU once you get into the higher resolutions, as even basic benchmarks clearly demonstrate.   (See:  Tom's Hardware's review of AGP/PCI-E graphics cards, any edition.)  
 
I look forward to AMD's release of the Turion Dual Core on Q3 2006 so they can become competitive.

Yea, you're right.
 
Seriously, dude you win... you're the winner.
 
AMD and ATI should just close their doors.
 
INTEL rules the world!
 
DELL is the best! Michael Dell might as well cut out the middle man and just write all his checks to the Chinese nuclear weapons program.
 
We shouldn't go to 64 bit either. There is absolutely No benefit whatesoever. When all the apps are 64 bit, you can just refuse to accept they don't work on your machine and everything will be ok.  
 
CAS latency doesn't matter, that's all marketing hype. 0-60 acceleration times for cars, that's BS too.
 
The on chip memory controller is non-sense... acording to Intel. That marketing doesn't have anything to do with AMD's U.S. Patent on it.
 
All my marketing is misleading, that is why I put the link to the original article right on the same page.
 
A 17" screen is just automatically better than a 15.4" because it's bigger. Nice and portable, I might as well just throw a LAN strap on my desktop and have my 24" monitor.  
 
We should ALL get DELL's 17" screen, nVidia graphics chipsets, with Intel's 32 bit CORE-Duo.
 
17" screens and graphics chipsets are all we should consider, the fact that KillerNotebooks come with 7,200 rpm hard drive STANDARD, and 108 MBps a/b/g/G+ internal wireless STANDARD, and that I have upfront pricing and don't burn the majority of my customers that don't know about "online coupons" like DELL shouldn't factor into your decision.
 
Just wanted to throw in a reviewthat completely takes the opposite view of what you have said. Review 'wars' are kind of dumb since there will always be one that can support your personal pet theory's, again, I will rely on real world experience

So you have no reason to recommend 64 bit over 32, other than it's a bigger number?  Did you read the link (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/x86-64-rc1.html) you mention on your marketing page?  I have to hope you hope your customers won't read it - it isn't flattering of 64 bit, either.  Doom is slower in 64 bit.  So is FarCry, in that review.  So is Quake4.  So is Half Life.  In fact, they're *ALL* (games) slower in 64 bit.  Zip is faster in 64 bit, as are some math applications, but the common stuff that people (gamers) will run now and in the next few years is slower.   That article is very old; hopefully newer articles will demonstrate the 64 bit advantage.  
 
C'mon - simple question - why do you suggest it?  No URLs, just post, in your own words, why you think it's a big deal and why you think it's worth spending money on.  Benchmarks so far don't bear out that it's faster for most of what people do with it, and the driver situation is still terrible.
 
Oh - and what OS do you ship with your notebooks?    
 
I'm fully willing to agree at some point compiler technology, driver maturity, and customer demand will propel 64-bit technology forward; that day isn't today or anytime soon, though.  
 
*Some* of your points are good - 7200 RPM drives are good, better wireless, for those that have the appropriate base stations, can be good.  But the point's *I* have raised don't talk about those things - they talk about why a Dell laptop with the current best GPU, the nVidia 7800, is the best notebook for most people concerned with games; they also rebut your suggestion that the Intel Core Duo is "marketing" - it is, essentially, having *two* Pentium Ms in there, rather than just one; that's not marketing - it's performance.

Ok, one last time.  
 
Q: Why choose a Turion over an Pentium M?  
A: (over simplified) I have built and owned them both. My real world experience has shown me the Turion is noticeably smoother running (no hangs, pauses, lock ups with multiple programs etc.), noticeably faster and 64 bit.  
 
Q: Why is buying a 64 bit chip now smarter than buying a 32 bit chip?  
A: Whether 64 bit is better, stronger faster is a mute point. It can be debated and 'reviewed' to death, but I'm sure everyone agrees that we are going to 64 bit sooner or later. 64 bit apps WILL NOT RUN on your precious Intel. Period, end of story.  
 
Since the Turion can run today’s 32 bit apps and tomorrows 64 bit apps WHAT WOULD POSSIBLY BE THE BENEFIT OF BUYING A 32 BIT PROCESSOR?  
 
You're claiming it's faster now but it WILL NOT EVEN WORK IN THE FUTURE. You then state this is a non-issue because notebooks only last 1 - 3 years. I'm sorry, but a 64 bit 2.2 Ghz 1,600 fsb notebook with 1 Gig of RAM (and 2 gig potential) is going to last you more than 1 - 3 years. WHAT is it that you are doing that it can not handle?  
 
Since your diatribe centers around the gamer based on your GPU argument, you bring up that the core due is faster. Can you name a game that is ported to take advantage of dual core technology? I mean, I don't know about you, but I am not running virus scans encoding DVD’s and background processes when I am playing games on my laptop.  
 
I have a desktop for the heavy lifting, as do all hard core gamers. There isn't a notebook around that is going to unseat a tricked out SLi desktop for that, it just isn't going to happen.  
 
If we are talking about gaming on a laptop, it is a part time gig, it is BETWEEN what we are actually using the notebook for. When the app you NEED your laptop for goes 64 bit, you're out of luck. There is no gaming because you can't use your notebook for its primary function, if we go with the Intel at this particular point in time we COULD be burning ourselves down the line.  
 
Is a 64 bit O.S. faster? Without a doubt, I don't need reviews and tests to know that because I run x64 Pro ON MY DESKTOP and it is FASTER. Period, you can argue this until your blue and it isn't going to make any difference to me because I am actually using it.  
 
I DO NOT use it on my laptop because I need total compatibility, drivers for off site work and it is just not mature enough to be a notebook OS. I have tried it on my notebooks, and it does work, but like you said there are issues RIGHT NOW of drivers, hibernation, screen luminosity, main stream virus scanners etc.  
 
Do I think it will mature, absolutely. Is it 100% now, NO. Do I recommend x64 as an OS now on a laptop? No, not unless you are using it on a desktop or have a need for 64 bit Linux.
 
One final point, when you are wirelessly gaming on a laptop with your DELL and your fancy 7800 GPU, don't be surprised if you see, in beatiful color YOU getting dragged on your wireless connection by someone with a KillerNotebook with 108 G+ wireless and massive throughput! You can see yourself being ghosted immediately after it happens due to your split second of lag that took you out.   Everybody wants to be the Killer