HELP! best laptop for MASSIVE multi-tasking?

[Denise92]

^^ What about the graphics card?? Doesn't seem too good... The laptops in XoticPC almost all come with dedicated graphics...

From what I've read, the Ivy Bridge CPUs have significantly better onboard graphics than the current Sandy Bridge ones, even equal to AMD's GPUs by some accounts. Of course, even the current Sandy Bridge's Intel HD2000/3000 graphics would be plenty for a non-gamer like myself.

[Prasad]

If you're sure about it, then it seems like a decent enough offer.

[MYNR]

So he should choose the laptop over desktop in this setup?

[Denise92]

no it wont. you requirements arent that intensive at all. it will use more ram, yes. But not something out of this world

So just an i3 or A6 with 8GB or more of DDR3 would be fine, is that what you would recommend instead?

btw, would using more virtual memory on my current laptop---Asus ULV50T with rather slow Intel U7300 dual core Centrino and 4GB RAM (it won't take more than 4GB, unfortunately)---make much difference? Right now the "recommended" amount is 6GB which is what I've been using...would say, doubling that amount be a good idea?

[Prasad]

I doubt there are as many applications out there today that would utilize as much RAM. With your budget, I'd say get less. And later, it would be a dirt cheap after market upgrade!

[Denise92]

I doubt there are as many applications out there today that would utilize as much RAM. With your budget, I'd say get less. And later, it would be a dirt cheap after market upgrade!

So for big multi-tasking speed/stability you're saying that it's not the speed/power of the CPU or the number of cores, but the sheer amount of RAM that is more important? This is what confuses the heck out of me...what are the most important factors in a multi-tasking oriented system?

RAM amount?
RAM speed?
Motherboard memory speed? (can't remember the exact term)
CPU speed?
CPU # of cores?

Of course, I would be all too happy to spend $400 instead of $600-700 on the laptop or desktop if that's all that's truly needed for my usage.

[Prasad]

That's not what I meant at all, rather quite the contrary. You must understand that when you're configuring a system within a budget, no matter what the budget, you must do so with all components balanced out evenly so as to get the best multi-tasking environment system. In the end, ALL components are equally important and the priority is to ensure no one component is bottlenecking the others...

[Denise92]

That's not what I meant at all, rather quite the contrary. You must understand that when you're configuring a system within a budget, no matter what the budget, you must do so with all components balanced out evenly so as to get the best multi-tasking environment system. In the end, ALL components are equally important and the priority is to ensure no one component is bottlenecking the others...

ok...so what in my proposed setup do you think might be out of balance...the i5 Ivy Bridge CPU? Would an i3 or A6 do just as well for my non-gaming needs?

I don't think 8GB of RAM would be too much. Right now with about 41 Chrome tabs open and all other apps off (except for antivirus), my CPU meter shows 87% of my 4GB of memory being used!

[Prasad]

ok...so what in my proposed setup do you think might be out of balance...the i5 Ivy Bridge CPU? Would an i3 or A6 do just as well for my non-gaming needs?

Well, your proposed system is already rather well balanced for a non-gamer!

[Denise92]

Well, your proposed system is already rather well balanced for a non-gamer!

Well I keep wondering about these AMD APUs since they are at such an attractive pricepoint but *on paper* are a lot slower than the Intel Sandy/Ivy Bridge CPUs.

What I can't figure out though is whether those much faster Intel speeds would make any noticeable difference for someone with my mundane, low-graphics, non-gaming usage.

Hard to find a clear cut answer on these boards because it seems like 95% of the posters are gamers not multi-taskers.