I was thinking this would be a good gaming PC that could play GTA V and other PC games in general, based on the recommended settings area, however, I want your input. Do you guys think this is a suitable enough PC for GTA V and gaming on in general? Do you have any others you'd like to suggest? Do you use one, if so, what is it? Post all of your replies below, thanks for your input guys, it's much appreciated! Figures i'd ask you guys before going to make a purchase so here you go, the link to the laptop I deem would be good enough:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TI6TASK/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=DK8Z33QCGYRF&coliid=I1X1GK2E4NUK0B&psc=1

Now your inputs! Respond below! Thanks again! 

EDIT: I forgot to mention I am only going to be accepting laptops as suggestions! I do not want a giant bulky desktop computer, I want to be able to game on the go! Forgot to mention that earlier. So yeah if any suggestions, leave them below! Thanks again! 

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by 1supermiguel

A laptop...seriously? Gaming laptops are way overpriced in this day and age...For 1,200 you could get your self a 970 or even a 980 rig. I would recommend building a pc, or getting one through cyberpower. I know you said you dont want something bulky..well there is Micro ATX cases you can get. Im not sure how well a 960m could handle gta v, there is no way your getting anything near 60 fps maxed out. Again, if you dont want to build, cyberpower is the way to go. Here is where you should start if I have convinced you to get a smaller case. If you want a laptop, then go ahead. Like I said, you wont be maxing out GTA V with that thing.

What I heard from reviews and other people, laptop has shorter lifespan. Desktop's cooling system is better and it won't overheat easily.  Laptops are more expensive because of the technology needed to make the parts smaller, etc. But it is really up to you. GTX 970, i5 processors and 8GB of RAM would be aldready good for ultra settings in GTA 5. 

What I heard from reviews and other people, laptop has shorter lifespan. Desktop's cooling system is better and it won't overheat easily.  Laptops are more expensive because of the technology needed to make the parts smaller, etc. But it is really up to you. GTX 970, i5 processors and 8GB of RAM would be aldready good for ultra settings in GTA 5. 

​That is what I am saying. According to this, the recommended settings for GTA V, that PC would exceed the requirements:

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/grand-theft-auto-v/12455/?p=r

By quite a bit I may add, and from doing research i7 processors are even faster than i5 processors and it also surpasses the GHz recommended so I am pretty sure this would run fine. Only needs the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 and this one has the NVIDIA Geforce GTX 960 so again that should be more than acceptable. They do make cooling systems for PCs, they are like 15 bucks so easily an attachment I could buy with this. And laptops do last less than desktops, it is only natural computer 101, but i'd rather get a laptop rather than desktop because I want to be able to take my PC with me and game at various locations, not just at home, which is again why desktops aren't accepted. So then do you've any additional things to suggest?

Four GTX Titan Z's should do alright.

Kidding. I have a GTX 645 (unfortunately) and I can run GTA V just fine. A 760 is what I would get if I were you.

Four GTX Titan Z's should do alright.

Kidding. I have a GTX 645 (unfortunately) and I can run GTA V just fine. A 760 is what I would get if I were you.

​Fuck GTX Titans man lol. And 760 huh? But how does the GTX thing work exactly if you don't mind me asking? Is it the higher the number the better the card is or is it reverse where the higher the number the worse it is?

​That is what I am saying. According to this, the recommended settings for GTA V, that PC would exceed the requirements:

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/grand-theft-auto-v/12455/?p=r

By quite a bit I may add, and from doing research i7 processors are even faster than i5 processors and it also surpasses the GHz recommended so I am pretty sure this would run fine. Only needs the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 and this one has the NVIDIA Geforce GTX 960 so again that should be more than acceptable. They do make cooling systems for PCs, they are like 15 bucks so easily an attachment I could buy with this. And laptops do last less than desktops, it is only natural computer 101, but i'd rather get a laptop rather than desktop because I want to be able to take my PC with me and game at various locations, not just at home, which is again why desktops aren't accepted. So then do you've any additional things to suggest?

​The "Requirements" are not the "Needed for 60+FPS on Ultra Requirements". Keep that in mind.

​The "Requirements" are not the "Needed for 60+FPS on Ultra Requirements". Keep that in mind.

​I didn't say I wanted to run it at 4K or 60+FPS on ultra high settings however now did I? No, I just asked if it was a good choice for GTA V PC and PC Gaming in general, and for people to suggest changes or other LAPTOPS if they knew of any more that would be better or offer if they used one what it was, a Laptop, so I could take a look is all. I do not care about running 60+ FPS or 4K or stuff like that, I only care if it can run it at all, and if so, if at a decent paste, one that wouldn't be that slow or laggy. Not everything is about the graphics, I just want a laptop that could run GTA V and run it well is all. That was why I made this post. Please re-read it next time, I didn't ask if the PC was good to run GTA V on maxed settings, I said in GENERAL, there are key words. Please re-read next time before posting, thank you.

​I didn't say I wanted to run it at 4K or 60+FPS on ultra high settings however now did I? No, I just asked if it was a good choice for GTA V PC and PC Gaming in general, and for people to suggest changes or other LAPTOPS if they knew of any more that would be better or offer if they used one what it was, a Laptop, so I could take a look is all. I do not care about running 60+ FPS or 4K or stuff like that, I only care if it can run it at all, and if so, if at a decent paste, one that wouldn't be that slow or laggy. Not everything is about the graphics, I just want a laptop that could run GTA V and run it well is all. That was why I made this post. Please re-read it next time, I didn't ask if the PC was good to run GTA V on maxed settings, I said in GENERAL, there are key words. Please re-read next time before posting, thank you.

​You could probably run it great on normal settings, from what I've experienced, normal and ultra arent that different, the textures are just a bit softer. I mean if you have the money, go for it. PS: Im not talking about 4k, Im talking about 1080p. I'd be suprised if a 980 could get a stable 60 on 4k.  

​Fuck GTX Titans man lol. And 760 huh? But how does the GTX thing work exactly if you don't mind me asking? Is it the higher the number the better the card is or is it reverse where the higher the number the worse it is?

​That's how it generally works, but not entirely. Usually in a series, the higher the number, the better it is. Then, if there's a ti it's even better, but not as great as the next.

For example, the GTX 980 is better than the 970 (but screw the price man), and the 970 than the 960. However, the 960 is worst than say the 780 or 780ti.

​You could probably run it great on normal settings, from what I've experienced, normal and ultra arent that different, the textures are just a bit softer. I mean if you have the money, go for it. PS: Im not talking about 4k, Im talking about 1080p. I'd be suprised if a 980 could get a stable 60 on 4k.  

​That is all I wanted to hear, I do not care about the graphics so much as getting them perfect like real life, never cared much for graphics, all I just wanted to know was if it could run it and run it well, tis all the information I needed. Thanks!

​That's how it generally works, but not entirely. Usually in a series, the higher the number, the better it is. Then, if there's a ti it's even better, but not as great as the next.

For example, the GTX 980 is better than the 970 (but screw the price man), and the 970 than the 960. However, the 960 is worst than say the 780 or 780ti.

​Interesting, tell me more about this ti and series and stuff. Just been looking for GTX's because that is what the recommended settings had listed as all that was recommended.

​Interesting, tell me more about this ti and series and stuff. Just been looking for GTX's because that is what the recommended settings had listed as all that was recommended.

​Well, the GTX 960 is like the common/basic card since it was released a few months ago. It's got slightly better performance than the GTX 760, and on higher resolutions it plays much better than the 760. Both the 970 and 980 are better with higher settings, and with higher resolution. However, for a laptop, the 960m should do fine.

GTX is just NVIDIA's (they make graphics cards, them along with AMD are the two main brands) main graphics card line. They're mostly intended for gaming, though the Titan series is supposed to be for gaming/rendering and is also ridiculously expensive. It is generally the higher the first number is then the higher the performance is, or the better overall it is. Really, though, in a series that rule is followed. In the 900 series (newest and best price/performance so far), 960<970<980. The 700 series, 750<750ti<760<770<780<780ti. There is an 800 series, though it's only for notebooks+laptops, and it's relatively outdated at this point. The 700 series is probably the bottom line at this point, unless you get your hands on a cheap 680 or 690 (but both are outdated).

Ti is a boost on the previous card, for example the 780ti is better than the 780. Usually, the ti version is more costly, but higher tweaked, sometimes with VRAM (more=better with textures+resolutions), sometimes with a factory overclock (slightly better performance), and sometimes they just do a bunch of different things. Obviously, the price increases by a good majority.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by theninja35
Forgot the ti part

​Well, the GTX 960 is like the common/basic card since it was released a few months ago. It's got slightly better performance than the GTX 760, and on higher resolutions it plays much better than the 760. Both the 970 and 980 are better with higher settings, and with higher resolution. However, for a laptop, the 960m should do fine.

GTX is just NVIDIA's (they make graphics cards, them along with AMD are the two main brands) main graphics card line. They're mostly intended for gaming, though the Titan series is supposed to be for gaming/rendering and is also ridiculously expensive. It is generally the higher the first number is then the higher the performance is, or the better overall it is. Really, though, in a series that rule is followed. In the 900 series (newest and best price/performance so far), 960<970<980. The 700 series, 750<750ti<760<770<780<780ti. There is an 800 series, though it's only for notebooks+laptops, and it's relatively outdated at this point. The 700 series is probably the bottom line at this point, unless you get your hands on a cheap 680 or 690 (but both are outdated).

Ti is a boost on the previous card, for example the 780ti is better than the 780. Usually, the ti version is more costly, but higher tweaked, sometimes with VRAM (more=better with textures+resolutions), sometimes with a factory overclock (slightly better performance), and sometimes they just do a bunch of different things. Obviously, the price increases by a good majority.

​I see....interesting. But then, if the "t" is just higher in its class, then how is a 780 or 780t better than a 960 which is higher in class based on what you told me from above?

​I see....interesting. But then, if the "t" is just higher in its class, then how is a 780 or 780t better than a 960 which is higher in class based on what you told me from above?

​It goes like this: the first number is the generation (or "series") and the second two numbers are what specific card it is. The 780 is better than the 960 because the 780 is the 7th generation 80 card, and the 960 is the 9th generation 60 card. Every card with the same second and third number (usually the third is 0, but there are mobile and non-gaming cards that have 5 as the third number) will have similar performance, but the newer generation of that card (the higher first number) will be better. You just need to separate the first number from the second. Instead of thinking of it as nine hundred and sixty (960), you need to think of it as nine-sixty (9-60).

This may not necessarily be true from a technical standpoint, but based on the numbering system it would go like this (from worst to best):
750<760<960<770<970<780<980

I'm not sure if a "ti" would be better or worse than the same standard card in the next generation (i.e. whether 780ti<980 or 980<780ti; however I do know this would be true if the 980ti was out: 780ti<980ti)

Edited April 24, 201511 yr by willpv23
Trying to pick cards that actually exist...

​It goes like this: the first number is the generation (or "series") and the second two numbers are what specific card it is. The 780 is better than the 960 because the 780 is the 7th generation 80 card, and the 960 is the 9th generation 60 card. Every card with the same second and third number (usually the third is 0, but there are mobile and non-gaming cards that have 5 as the third number) will have similar performance, but the newer generation of that card (the higher first number) will be better. You just need to separate the first number from the second. Instead of thinking of it as nine hundred and sixty (960), you need to think of it as nine-sixty (9-60).

This may not necessarily be true from a technical standpoint, but based on the numbering system it would go like this (from worst to best):
750<760<960<770<970<780<980

I'm not sure if a "ti" would be better or worse than the same standard card in the next generation (i.e. whether 780ti<980 or 980<780ti; however I do know this would be true if the 980ti was out: 780ti<980ti)

​So GTX 480 is better than GTX 960?

The GTX 780 vs. the GTX 970 is a tricky one.

The GTX 780 is better in these aspects:

Better floating-point performance	5,040 GFLOPS	vs	3,494 GFLOPS	Around 45% better floating-point performance
Significantly more texture mapping units	240	vs	104	136 more texture mapping units
More shading units	2,880	vs	1,664	1216 more shading units
Wider memory bus	384 bit	vs	256 bit	50% wider memory bus
Better passmark direct compute score	4,624	vs	4,131	More than 10% better passmark direct compute score

 

The GTX 970 is better in these aspects:

Significantly higher clock speed	1,050 MHz	vs	875 MHz	20% higher clock speed
More memory	4,096 MB	vs	3,072 MB	Around 35% more memory
Higher turbo clock speed	1,178 MHz	vs	1,020 MHz	More than 15% higher turbo clock speed
Slightly higher pixel rate	58.8 GPixel/s	vs	52.5 GPixel/s	More than 10% higher pixel rate
More render output processors	56	vs	48	8 more render output processors
Lower TDP	148W	vs	250W	More than 40% lower TDP

 

I'd say it's a tie. The GTX 970 is better if you want more memory and the capability of higher quality visuals. The GTX 780 is better if you want better processing and computing capabilities. Both are great for gaming, but it's definitely confusing how they rate and classify these cards. 

 

Edited April 24, 201511 yr by Original Light

The GTX 780 vs. the GTX 970 is a tricky one.

The GTX 780 is better in these aspects:

Better floating-point performance	5,040 GFLOPS	vs	3,494 GFLOPS	Around 45% better floating-point performance
Significantly more texture mapping units	240	vs	104	136 more texture mapping units
More shading units	2,880	vs	1,664	1216 more shading units
Wider memory bus	384 bit	vs	256 bit	50% wider memory bus
Better passmark direct compute score	4,624	vs	4,131	More than 10% better passmark direct compute score

 

The GTX 970 is better in these aspects:

Significantly higher clock speed	1,050 MHz	vs	875 MHz	20% higher clock speed
More memory	4,096 MB	vs	3,072 MB	Around 35% more memory
Higher turbo clock speed	1,178 MHz	vs	1,020 MHz	More than 15% higher turbo clock speed
Slightly higher pixel rate	58.8 GPixel/s	vs	52.5 GPixel/s	More than 10% higher pixel rate
More render output processors	56	vs	48	8 more render output processors
Lower TDP	148W	vs	250W	More than 40% lower TDP

 

I'd say it's a tie. The GTX 970 is better if you want more memory and the capability of higher quality visuals. The GTX 780 is better if you want better processing and computing capabilities. Both are great for gaming, but it's definitely confusing how they rate and classify these cards. 

 

​Oh wow...you aren't kidding that is definitely extremely confusing...well...which one would you use then? Perhaps you can find me the perfect gaming laptop you'd use so you could suggest it to me and I could take a look at it? You seem to know very well what you are speaking of. But if not that then, at least which card would you suggest to me would be the best for gaming in your opinion?

 

​So GTX 480 is better than GTX 960?

The 480 is so outdated that I'm pretty sure the 960 is better. Going any earlier than the 700 series isn't a good idea.

​Oh wow...you aren't kidding that is definitely extremely confusing...well...which one would you use then? Perhaps you can find me the perfect gaming laptop you'd use so you could suggest it to me and I could take a look at it? You seem to know very well what you are speaking of. But if not that then, at least which card would you suggest to me would be the best for gaming in your opinion?

​I would go with the 970, only because it's Nvidia's newest generation, and more energy efficient. But these cards are only for desktops. For a laptop, there's M cards which are smaller, compact, slightly less powerful versions. But as we said above, you can get much more performance per dollar with a desktop than a laptop. Go desktop all the way. 

​I would go with the 970, only because it's Nvidia's newest generation, and more energy efficient. But these cards are only for desktops. For a laptop, there's M cards which are smaller, compact, slightly less powerful versions. But as we said above, you can get much more performance per dollar with a desktop than a laptop. Go desktop all the way. 

​Thanks for your input, i'll stick with the 900's then. And not true, the reason we brought up the 960 and all those others is actually because that is the graphics card used on the laptop I had shown above, actually half of all of the laptops had the GTX ones of 960 and the other ones, and a few only had standard geforces and one only a radeon. The highest majority is GTX. I don't know what you mean when you speak of these "M" cards. Haven't seen no M's. And nah, like I said, desktop isn't an option, I want to game on the go, not be stuck only being able to game at home where the desktop would be but thanks anyways for the other information, much appreciated! You guys all helped clear some stuff....i'll keep an eye then for the 700 and 900 series but not 800 which apparently isn't used very often. Thanks again to all who responded! But if you've still more suggestions, this is to everyone: Feel free to include your input! Thanks again!