Need suggestion :
Acer Nitro 5 Ryzen quad core VS Acer Aspire 7

Which one should I consider mainly for gaming and coding related stuff??

There are probably a few dozen hardware variants for each of those two.

@gronostaj yeah. So, I am confused 8n this two,
Acer Nitro 5 Ryzen 5 Quad Core - AN515-43-R2M9 VS Acer Aspire 7 Core i5 9th Gen - A715-75G-50SA

Maybe you could post the specs so I don't have to look them up? These numbers don't tell me much.

Doesn’t matter.

AMD for performance and future proofing.

Intel for compatibility, power efficiency and long lasting life.

@010001111 i agree with all but long lasting life?

@hjk101 I don’t know about your experience, but so far, none of my intel CPUs died. A few of the amd did, though.

To be fair, mainly because of the physical pin design. But the oldest just outright doesn’t work, even though the pins are perfectly fine.

My dad is collecting some of the old hardware and the intel things “just works”(tm)

@shakur why not?

For gaming the GPU is the bottleneck, go with the one that has a better GPU. Probably the Nitro.

@shakur not even close to a dedicated GTX 1660 or rtx 2060 or whatever. OP hasn't mentioned the kind of games he likes to play.

Heck not even close to a 1650.

@shakur
1. Still less than half the performance, modern games would be unplayable except at lowest settings and resolutions and it's rubbish going forwards whereas a 1660 or something will do modern games very well even at 100+ fps with lower settings (high refresh rate reeeeally makes a difference) and it'll stay relevant for a while.

2. You get GTX 1650 based laptops for the same price as pure 4700u based laptops, and 1660 for like 200 dollars more, in all and you basically pay like 20-40% more for massively better graphics and much better future proofing. Sounds like a good deal to me. That's hardly "a quarter of the price".

Again depends on the use cases, I'm using mine. The best deal will naturally be a 4700u or something with a discrete 1660 or whatever.

I can definitely see uses for a 4700u-only laptop, and if you're into light gaming it's enough. But if you're into something a bit heavier (even free to play games like Path of Exile and Warframe really benefit from discrete graphics), then consider upgrading, since laptops can't be upgraded after you buy them so you're basically stuck with what you have.

@shakur an admittedly cursory glance through amazon india shows a 4500u laptop for 63k INR and a i5/1650 for 60k INR. So the prices are relatively stable and my argument is not something US specific (something I was concerned about because prices here can be weird at times, but the comparison for the two places I'm familiar with worked out).

@shakur I'm quite aware of how well the Ryzen can perform, thanks. My roommate has a 4700u and I've used a 2400G desktop for quite a while. Perhaps you want to

1. Ask OP the kind of stuff he plays
2. Ask how long they want to be able to play those on this laptop.
3. Ask what form factor is suitable.

@shakur numbers, then
Here's the gpu in the 4800H https://notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeo...

(Why you'd want a 4800h only is beyond me, at that TDP you might as well get a dGPU. A U-series on its own makes sense).

Let's take The Witcher 3 as a benchmark. I see it manages an incredible 16.5 fps at full HD.

Here's the GTX 1650 https://notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-Ge...

It has The Witcher 3 running on the same settings at a comfy 56-62 fps. You can see the results for other games too.

Now I'd don't know about you but 16fps to 56fps is one heck of a jump and it's the difference between basically unplayable and smooth.

Sure you can run it on 1280x720, but do you really want to buy a new (explicitly gaming) laptop to run games at 720p?

Even if those are the numbers for the u-series, a 40% increase (which I highly doubt is the case for iGPU performance, because again, why) is 22fps. Still much less than half of a 1650.

The maxq GTX 1650 still manages 42-60 fps in witcher 3 depending on config/temps etc. That's literally double of the theoretically 40% better iGPU Ryzen and is all the difference between absolutely unplayable and enjoyable.

tl;dr if all OP wants to do is stuff like light CSGO, Overwatch, Dota etc, older AAA games at low res and low settings, and various older games with varying degrees of tweaking, and doesn't care much about playing stuff a few years down the line, then sure, go for an iGPU only laptop. Also if you don't have the budget, an APU makes for an excellent low end gaming machine. I've myself used one that way for the better part of a year, because money.

Anything else? You definitely want a dGPU. It's absolutely worth it.

@shakur also, may I point out that
1. Intel Ice Lake graphics are actually pretty good.
2. The laptop you suggested, the G14, is like $1200 minimum and comes with a GTX 1650 in its cheapest configuration.

@shakur it doesn't matter, the point is those are the *same* settings. And why would you want your *new* gaming laptop to not be able to max out settings at Full HD?

Also, an integrated gpu equal to a RX5700? No way. Not happening. Clockspeed is an irrelevant metric when comparing two things that don't even have the same core count, let alone microarchitecture.

Internal buses can't compensate for the fact that an iGPU
1. Doesn't have the raw compute power of a dGPU, especially one as big and expensive as a RX5700. I feel you're grossly underestimating how powerful the 5700 is.

2. Doesn't have dedicated RAM, especially not graphics RAM that's optimized for high throughput GPU workload patterns

3. Has to share power and die space with the CPU, so it's severely constrained both in size and transistor count. The 5700 has a pretty large power headroom and a massive transistor count.

Seriously, a 512 shader core APU (source https://extremetech.com/computing/...) comparable to a relatively massive 2304 shader core discrete GPU with much faster RAM and a more efficient microarchitecture (https://techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/...)? Please. Do your research.