maybe the last word on mini-laptops/ultraportables/"netbooks".... and lingering questions

i ve trawled the forums and others like the dugout to really try to understand where we stand on these. yes, the info is sparse but i'll try to pen what i can.

foremost, as Neil Brock has mentioned several times, smaller laptops, "netbooks" are not officially supported for FM.

i'm just a romantic. i've owned various laptops from 13" to the standard 15.6" and never had any trouble, even years ago when the specs weren't great.

with my latest power-meister having been burgled i'm on the hunt for a budget laptop, and as i've internet, email on my phone one of only TWO activities i will need to undertake will be to have a decent bash with FM12.

i ve read the official system specs for FM12, 2.0ghz processor if running Win7 or 1.4ghz if running XP. pretty tricky alas to find a new machine running XP tho i'd like to, and of course a lot of the ultraportable laptops etc won't run to 2.0ghz.

but this is basically a misnomer. Some latest gen. AMD A6/A8 processors, which will easily run the game, are clocked at 1.5/1.6ghz.

some say the min.specs are meant just for desktops, some say it s for everything, so already wer have some confusion on the issue.

NOW, most "netbooks" traditionally have insufficient screen resolution, basically 13xx x 600. which means a skin is needed to ably run the game. However, some newer, i won't say netbooks because these go way beyond "standard" specs, "ultra-portables" such as the Lenovo ideapad s205 (which i'm toying with) have 1366 x 768 screen which will be fine.

i'm a romantic, and i'm letting my heart rule my head. i'm tempted to take a punt on the lenovo for £320 (£280 once i've redeemed some amazon vouchers) even tho i could get something larger with some serious grunt, a 2nd gen. i3 or B940/50/60 sandybridge processor.

haven t yet come across ANYONE who has the lenovo with the dual-core E450 processor so no-one can really tell me what the performance would be like, though i have heard people saying they can play WoW or Prey on it with no bother, and another commentator who says that the performance is "better than a netbook"

i wouldnt go with the old atom processors for sure, nor the standard ram - "my" lenovo has 4gb ram.

NOW, for FM processor is king so that's my only concern for now, graphics aren't that important especialy as i prefer to play in 2D classic, ram and screen res would be fine.

obviously i'll be looking to keep the DB to a minimum, something i'm not accustomed to. I intend to only run english leagues prem-->L1, and will load players from countries where i normally find gems, about 10 countries all in.

a question: what does med/small DB size actualy mean? which players would be loaded? i'm GUESSING that if i ask for all players from certain nations to be included, it won't be impacted by DB size in any way?

well, i had copious notes from all my reading, but didn t bring them to the library this time around.

reckon i've covered the basics and though i've questions of my own hope i've clarified a little. will no doubt add from my notes at a future time.

and IF i decide to go with the lenovo i'll naturally report back how it runs.

i will add, that smaller portables WITH an i3 2nd gen processor are now on the market and that if included, plus the screen res being like the lenovo, i really dont see what problems should occur

hope this has been of help to at least someone, and look forward to feedback. i just thought it relevant to put all the info i've found on the site into one place if anyone is thinking of playing fm on a small ultra-portable.

neil

Im currently toying with the idea of new laptop/desktop. Will be following this thread to see your results

haven t yet come across ANYONE who has the lenovo with the dual-core E450 processor so no-one can really tell me what the performance would be like, though i have heard people saying they can play WoW or Prey on it with no bother, and another commentator who says that the performance is "better than a netbook"

The AMD E-450 is vastly-inferior to the Intel Pentium T4500 in terms of processing power, but it has a superior onboard graphics engine. As a newer chip, it probably uses less power and dissipates less heat, too.

The T4500 has one benchmark in this thread: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/285828-Football-Manager-12-Benchmark-Thread

You can therefore deduce that the AMD E-450 is going to be probably worse than that.

The AMD E-450 is vastly-inferior to the Intel Pentium T4500 in terms of processing power, but it has a superior onboard graphics engine. As a newer chip, it probably uses less power and dissipates less heat, too.

The T4500 has one benchmark in this thread: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/285828-Football-Manager-12-Benchmark-Thread

You can therefore deduce that the AMD E-450 is going to be probably worse than that.

ok, thanks. dunno why i ve read that most games are "absolutely playable" on the E-450, especially as i will use a smallish db, only english leagues 1-3.

won't have any editors/scouts running in background, will remove all bloatware.

hmmm, still a risk i reckon, just going with my heart when my head says get a sandybridge i3/ B940/50/60, or an AMD A6.

if i can do that for £320 maybe i should, but will end up wondering "what if".

did you say the graphics card will be ok for 2D classic? read somewhere someone who says "no" but surely?????

have also looked at older XP machines but they're few and far between, new. and going retro and installing XP on a system built for Win7 seems tricky and risky.

ok, thanks. dunno why i ve read that most games are "absolutely playable" on the E-450, especially as i will use a smallish db, only english leagues 1-3.

You mentioned World of Warcraft - yes, games like World of Warcraft are playable on the E-450. However, World of Warcraft's minimum requirements are along the lines of a Pentium 4!

The E-450 is a slow processor but its onboard graphics means it can do HD video without any problem. It's a trade-off.

hmmm, still a risk i reckon, just going with my heart when my head says get a sandybridge i3/ B940/50/60, or an AMD A6.

if i can do that for £320 maybe i should, but will end up wondering "what if".

Is it a risk? I think so. The E-450 lacks processor "oomph". It's a processor meant for general-purpose media usage (i.e. watching videos while on the train). It's not a gaming processor. You should get an i3 or something.

did you say the graphics card will be ok for 2D classic? read somewhere someone who says "no" but surely?????

Graphically, performance will be fine. However, I think the processor speed will become a bottleneck anyway, defeating the purpose.

agree wholeheartedly with x42bn6 here.... the processors you're looking at are purely browing/watching some light video, generaly purpose chips .. they arent designed to handle processing like fm.. especially for long periods of time...

get an i3 or i5 if you can afford it... and you'll be set... really think your going in completely the wrong direction here neil

I think the temptation is to go for an E-450 as laptops based on it are often quite cheap... But laptops naturally carry a premium anyway, for reduced performance. A £350 budget laptop is not going to be very fast, while a £350 budget desktop can be pretty good (as long as you have some old hardware, like a monitor, to reuse). For example, toss in a decent monitor and add this, and you have a very nice gaming desktop (note: Don't get this one without shopping around first. See if you can get an i5-2500K/i5-2500/i5-2400, which are quicker and better value for money).

I'm not sure I'd trust a £320 laptop to do much beyond surfing the Internet, watching the odd video, playing the odd lightweight video game ("apps" - ugh) and writing up some documents.

I've been looking on saveonlaptops.co.uk for a while now, and they have some nifty laptops. If you spend £50 more than your £320 E-450, you can get this:

http://www.saveonlaptops.co.uk/Toshiba_Satellite_Pro_C660-2ND_1177864.html

Notebookcheck.net suggests that this is below the i5-540M, but the benchmark thread puts the i5-540M below the i5-480M (the OS is different). But it will likely be a lot quicker than the E-450 and has 6 GB of RAM.

Again, I'm not suggesting you go out and buy it without shopping around... But I would seriously consider spending a little extra for a gaming laptop.

thanks dudes!

it took me a while. But i'm listening to you guys now. the S205/E450 processor too much of a risk.

so i'll go the other way: hunt for a bargain GRUNT-meister.

not entirely sure if i'll have nearer £300 or nearer £400

best would be an older yet sturdy processor, something discounted at the mo.

OR a new AMD A6 or A8

Now i've got £40 of amazon vouchers, so that would normally be my first port of call, but sometimes the Lenovo site offers £50 discount.

and i could get one there, if the offer came back, for £266 and upgrade to a souped-up A6 for about £320. sort of build my own on their site.

not keen on an i3 because i used to have a pretty decent i5 and it just wouldnt sit right. my previous beAST had 5* performance tho i always had 1/2* game speed probably because my DB was 228,000 players.

really gonna aim for PC performance 3* and game speed 3* this time by seriously trimming DB. i know roughly who i m after and where they are and where all my gems seem to come from so should be doable.

what's the difference between med and large db? i've only ever gone with large. does it just filter out the reserves etc? never seen this explained.

can 't think of a lot else right now.

but certainly looking for a lappie with 15.6" screen now i guess, PROCESSOR = FM PLAYABLE!, don't really need a large hard drive or excess ram (nought over 4gb really useful).

cheers!

not keen on an i3 because i used to have a pretty decent i5 and it just wouldnt sit right. my previous beAST had 5* performance tho i always had 1/2* game speed probably because my DB was 228,000 players.

What was the i5 you had? Sandy Bridge i3s are somewhat comparable to Nehalem (the previous generation before Sandy Bridge) i5s. For example, the i3-2100 (Sandy Bridge) is largely comparable to the i5-750 (Nehalem), with it beating the i5-750 in some tests, and the i5-750 beating it in others.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=109

(And that website is useful if you want to compare things)

what's the difference between med and large db? i've only ever gone with large. does it just filter out the reserves etc? never seen this explained.

More players, I guess. Not sure of the mechanics...

What was the i5 you had? Sandy Bridge i3s are somewhat comparable to Nehalem (the previous generation before Sandy Bridge) i5s. For example, the i3-2100 (Sandy Bridge) is largely comparable to the i5-750 (Nehalem), with it beating the i5-750 in some tests, and the i5-750 beating it in others.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=109

(And that website is useful if you want to compare things)

More players, I guess. Not sure of the mechanics...

would really like to know, re. the DB. don't want to miss out on gems by having a medium DB but feel i should do it for game speed.

What was the i5 you had? Sandy Bridge i3s are somewhat comparable to Nehalem (the previous generation before Sandy Bridge) i5s. For example, the i3-2100 (Sandy Bridge) is largely comparable to the i5-750 (Nehalem), with it beating the i5-750 in some tests, and the i5-750 beating it in others.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=109

(And that website is useful if you want to compare things)

More players, I guess. Not sure of the mechanics...

i had a first gen. i5. so comparable, yes, to a 2nd gen. decent i3. but i can t really live with going down from i5 to i3 so i'll shop about and go for :Intel B940/50/60 (also sandybridge), AMD Phenom II or A6.

really want to reduce db size, but retain "gems" in key european and SA leagues, and get game speed up to 3* if i can: even my i5 gaVE me 1/2* as i opted for a DB of 228,000 players! can DRASTICALLY reduce this methinks!

cool. lenovo always have deals on. this one is a new 11.6" but is an i3 sandybridge!!

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/gbweb/LenovoPortal/en_GB/builder.workflow:Enter?sb=%3A000000F0%3A00000252%3A&smid=7DC88DC46B8321F759F36448171B2BD2

i had a first gen. i5. so comparable, yes, to a 2nd gen. decent i3. but i can t really live with going down from i5 to i3 so i'll shop about and go for :Intel B940/50/60 (also sandybridge), AMD Phenom II or A6.

All five processors are (much) worse than Sandy Bridge i3s. The B960 is a budget budget chip. In fact, the B960 is specifically below the i3 Sandy Bridge! You would be better off keeping your i5. The Phenom II is much worse than a Sandy Bridge i3. The A6 isn't even better than the latest Core 2 Quad for low-threaded workloads!

Go for the i3. It's Intel's way of branding things, and it's copied by many companies. The AMD Radeon 5970 is better than the 6850, for example, despite the fact that the number 6850 is greater than 5970.

It's not a downgrade. At worst, moving from an i5 Nehalem is a sideways move to a Sandy Bridge i3.

Ignore the numbering. Go out there and look at raw benchmarks (just search for "b960 benchmark"). This shows that the B960 competes with a Nehalem i3!

You need to ignore the branding.

All five processors are (much) worse than Sandy Bridge i3s. The B960 is a budget budget chip. In fact, the B960 is specifically below the i3 Sandy Bridge! You would be better off keeping your i5. The Phenom II is much worse than a Sandy Bridge i3. The A6 isn't even better than the latest Core 2 Quad for low-threaded workloads!

Go for the i3. It's Intel's way of branding things, and it's copied by many companies. The AMD Radeon 5970 is better than the 6850, for example, despite the fact that the number 6850 is greater than 5970.

It's not a downgrade. At worst, moving from an i5 Nehalem is a sideways move to a Sandy Bridge i3.

Ignore the numbering. Go out there and look at raw benchmarks (just search for "b960 benchmark"). This shows that the B960 competes with a Nehalem i3!

thanks. i'll look at the new i3 as an option, though the cheaper B series as well as an AMD will still be considered. my i5 was stolen in the laptop so can't go back to that.

i'm guessing lots of people use inferior processors to play FM, and do so at an adequete pace.

i DID look at a benchmark for the E-450, 361st best processor there is, so won't be going down THAT particular road.

i reckon keeping db size down this time will help me, my i5 (5* for pc performance) got 1/2* for game speed because my db was absolutely massive! yet i found it plenty fast enough....

oh , one further question. specs say "2.0ghz" or higher processor. but i've seen i3-2nd gen clocked at 1.4ghz, A8s clocked at 1.5ghz (tho quad core). SURELY these are sufficient to run fm. wld be V.surprised if they werent, i go back to my previous point that a LOT of people are running slow-ish processors and i dont see a procession of people on this site moaning that it won t run, or runs painfully slow........

oh , one further question. specs say "2.0ghz" or higher processor. but i've seen i3-2nd gen clocked at 1.4ghz, A8s clocked at 1.5ghz (tho quad core). SURELY these are sufficient to run fm. wld be V.surprised if they werent, i go back to my previous point that a LOT of people are running slow-ish processors and i dont see a procession of people on this site moaning that it won t run, or runs painfully slow........

A Pentium 4 3.73 GHz is smashed to bits by an i3-2100 that runs at around half the clock speed.

Ignore the processor frequency. Stock speeds peaked years ago with the Pentium 4 (3.73 GHz) - few processors nowadays come close to this, and in order to beat it, you will need to overclock.

A Pentium 4 3.73 GHz is smashed to bits by an i3-2100 that runs at around half the clock speed.

so just to clarify, an i3 or anA8 clocked at 1.5ghz would be ample??

so just to clarify, an i3 or anA8 clocked at 1.5ghz would be ample??