DELL G3: https://www.cyberport.de/?DEEP=1C33-1TA&APID=276
MSI GL 73: https://www.otto.de/...=987233228
ACER Nitro 5: https://www.google.com/...SpU5oB7E2e
In terms of hardware, the Acer device has not only a slightly more powerful processor than the other two, but also a much more powerful graphics card. Personally, I would not buy it because I can't get anything from Acer.
Look at the following device for 1.250 euro: https://www.notebooksbilliger.de/...7+cd0121ng
It is also a 17.3-inch device. You save 150 euro, but you also have an Intel Core i7-9750H, a GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, 16 GB RAM and a 1 TB HDD + 512 GB SSD installed.
I do not consider the P / L but only the performance.
And that's the largest at the Acer?
Yes that is so.
Much more?
Yes, much more, but not thanks to the CPU. The extra power comes from the GPU performance when it comes to games.
I'll write that again!
I only rated the raw performance, not the price!
There are certainly better prices in the net.
Oh, who counts? 😟
Always thought the cpu is the measure of things
So in terms of performance, the Acer is clearly superior in terms of performance - it has a larger PCIe SSD and the better GPU (= graphics unit), which has a significant impact especially in games.
In general, I find Acer but not very high quality - although I have rather distance for some reason from Acer notebooks, so maybe that may now be different.
Personally, I would rather tend to a Lenovo (Thinkpad), HP or Dell notebook, where there are also significant differences between the different series. A Dell XPS or Alienware notebook is virtually not comparable to a Dell Inspiron I-Will-Talk toy. Similar differences exist with other series (Lenovo T / P / X vs. Lenovo IdeaPad).
Therefore, you should have your vote s.besten still add a third choice "None of the above"…
No, that is of secondary importance especially for laptops.
More important is the GPU performance.
Example:
CPU 6 x 3.0 GHz with GTX 1050
Cpu has high performance, but pushes boredom because of the lame GPU.
CPU 6 x 3.0 GHz with GTX 1650
Cpu has high performance, but pushes boredom because of the lame GPU.
CPU 6 x 4.0 GHz with GTX 1660
Cpu has high performance, but pushes boredom because of the lame GPU.
Better:
CPU 6 x 3.0 GHz with GTX 1660
Cpu has high performance, fits with the performance of the GPU.
…
Roughly speaking:
rather 4 x 3.5 GHz CPU with good GPU
as a 6 x 4.0 GHz CPU with a bad GPU
Too bad. So we always had Dell and Toshiba and were very satisfied.
Hp I do not like that much: /
So about 1200 euro I would spend
Unfortunately, you have not written what you intend to do with the notebook - are games on the notebook for you a topic or not?
Not too big games. I would like to play a flight simulation on it.
The MSI I like visually very good.
Following requirements:
CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, or i7 CPU with 2 or more cores, or AMD
RAM: 8 GB RAM RAM: 16 GB
VRAMGPU: DirectX 12-capable video card from NVIDIA or AMD w / 4GB
VRAMDX: Version 11
Store: 20GB
Is that bad when the CPU is bored? So this results in problems with the PC?
No, of course not… But it shows that it is not a meaningful setup… Therefore, my statements. What do you have from a great CPU if the GPU is "bad"?
What good is a golden bathing faucet if only 1l the minute run out?
Oh well… There you are right. But why are they building something like that. They are professionals without limits
Well, not everything makes sense… Many unbelievably use their notebook NOT for gaming but for working or video editing, etc., there's a very good CPU needed and GPU secondary.
