GS60 Ghost Pro 052 vs 3K

I'm really assessing the pros and cons of both these laptops. For $200 more, I get

• 3K screen
• slightly faster CPU
• 16GB vs 12GB RAM

Albeit, the screen is glossy and I'm trying to avoid that. Regardless, I think $200 for the above is still a great deal. I can't decide between the two... any pointers?

 

The 052's screen will be much easier to drive at native resolution vs. the 3k, I feel 1080p is more fitting for the 870m. Driving the 870m at 3k resolution will also drive up temperatures due to higher GPU usage. I'd like to see a colour comparison between the two displays as well.

 

I wonder why the refreshed 4710 CPU isn't offered in the 052. I guess they just wanna empty their stock.

 

I went for the Ghost Pro 3K edition at first, then wasn't patient enough to wait as it kept getting delayed, who knows how much longer it'll take for preorders to get through. 1080p has enough pixel density to satisfy my needs, even though I do a lot of photo and video editing, as long as it has a good RGB percentage according to other reviewers, it meets what is required to carry out such tasks.

In terms of the CPU; its the same Maxwell i7 with a 100Mhz boost which won't be as noticeable, infact the CPU is capable of overclocking with undervolting, so it won't be an issue for you to get the same rates.

And in terms of RAM, you won't go past 8GB usage unless you use your laptop as a virtual machine, which I have no need for, but some might.

I have heard that the 3K display is wonderful to look at, but windows has awful scaling which leads to blurring in text and a lot of retina discomfort, and most apps are only designed for 1080p or less nowadays. So unless Microsoft come up with a solution and software developers make their apps in 3K, I wouldn't recommend a 3K display just yet, unless you like to watch videos in 3K and play your games in lower settings at native resolution. Windows isn't 3K capable and the amount of processing power required will produce more heat and reduce battery life. The Mac OS however, produces the best scaling results for such high pixel density displays, looks like Apple have prepared themselves for this a long long time ago.

You probably know all this stuff anyway. Then again, you're asking for opinions. I've given you mine.

 

Going with the 4710 would mean ditching current stock of CPUs. In this industry I imagine products are pipelined, and as such the current 052 product life cycle mandates the use of the 4700MQ processor. This would mean MSI probably has stock or orders for as many 4700MQ processors as they think they'll need for this product, so upgrading it to the 4710QM would mean they'd have build up of old stock, which is not good. To be honest you'll never even noticed the 100mhz bump since at max turbo speed it counts as a 3% increase in performance.

 

Personally with the 1080p screen now being IPS too, I would go for that over the 3k myself since the 3k screen does not have any nice 1:1 scaling options.

 

Thanks guys. I guess I'll stick with the 052. This is the first time I'm hearing it's an IPS display.

 

They can't call it an IPS screen due to licensing issues, but it's the same technology.... VERY nice screen!

 

Yeah, a real step up over other options

 

What about 003 version, Does it have the same IPS screen?

 

I have a 1080p version with the 4710hq it overclock max 3.7ghz 1 active core 3.5 for all 4 cores active.
The screen is a beauty! Trust me even people who don't notice things like that have commented on the quality of it.
I think if you go for 3k you'll just be creating headaches for yourself.

 

LOL Mardon, you sound like me commenting to those that wanted the 870m over the 860m months ago before I gave up.... sure, it's "higher spec" but it also requires tweaking/flashing/undervolting etc to keep temps under control that many aren't comfortable with or will never even know is an option and IMHO isn't ok out of the box. 3K is the same, it's a higher spec so OMG gotta have it!!! but it sucks for new games and a lot of popular programs With proper scaling and tweaks it too will be acceptable and have it's benefits, but not without similar "headaches"

 

IMO, the reason to look at the GT60 3k-XXX is really the 3k-475... it is the form factor, 3k display and 880M 8GB.

The form factor is nice. 15.6", and with the more modern output for video (dual mini display port, 1 hdmi), seems a good paring with the 880M. So... its this combo under the msi brand that is attractive.

Many of the other GT60 models have dsub/vga, hdmi, etc. EDIT. Whoops.I was talking GT not GS, my bad.

 

The 870m with 1080p ips display is an excellent option too.

 

3k version actually has about 20% less colors (sRGB) so I would go for 1080p

 

If you need colour accuracy that is a factor, most people won't notice however.

 

72% vs 95% vs 135%.
It's still noticeable if you switch from 72% to 95%. Very noticeable if you have 2 units that sits side by side next to each other.
By jumping from 72% to 135% it's absolutely noticeable but too bad there isn't such panel available for mobile platform.

 

So non ips is 72%, the 3k is 95% and the non 3k 1920x1080 is 135%?

I haven't seen a 3k screen on a 15inch laptop but the 1920x1080 on the gs60 is pretty nice. It's so much sharper then both my desktop monitors. So I'm pretty happy with the pixel density.

 

No, it depends by the spec which can be determined if you have the panel's part number.

 

Hey guys! I'm trying to decide between these two computers as well. Does the 4GB of Ram make a large difference in performance for standard gaming?

 

Hey, Do you mean between 12 and 16 gigs of ram?
Well, do you like to have a lot of programs open or tabs? On your current computer now do you use all your ram if you open the task manager? Do you do anything other than regular internet use?

 

I generally keep many tabs open, but it's never been a problem for my 8GB of Ram. I also tend to game a lot, I'm just wondering if the 4GB difference is worth the money for just a standard gamer. I suppose my question is would games load much quicker with 16gb vs 12 gb?
Computers aren't my forte, sorry if this seems like an inane question.

 

Lets say youre only using 8 gigs of ram total with what you do. Because youre only using 8 then 12 and 16 aren't any faster. It only becomes important if you are maxing out your ram. Like if you are finiding that you are using 12gbs of ram or all your ram then you might want to have more.

One thing to think about though is to guess how long youll have the laptop and how much you think youll be using at that point. Like down the road applications that require more ram will use more so, it'll get closer to your max amount. Does that make sense?

 

Yes it does, thank you! I guess I think even in the future I won't be running 16GB of RAM all at once. If it becomes a problem, I suppose I could upgrade? I'm tentative to buy the 16GB because of the 3K screen which as the previous comments have stated isn't very windows friendly. Thank you for your help.

 

The GS60 has the ram sodered onto the motherboard so you cant upgrade it later like some other laptops. It's so they can get it so thin.
I have the 1920x1080 gs 60 pro and I love it.. I dont know about the 3k version but yeah ive heard text can be blurry. But im sure pictures look better.

 

Not really, only if you do something related to photoshop/autocad/video editing.

 

No worries! And no, games won't really load quicker (unless you're utilizing all of your memory and then launch a game, in which case the pagefile on the drive comes into play more and is slower than RAM). You should be fine with 12 GB. 16 GB is a nice upgrade for the long haul, though, especially if you end up keeping this system for years to come.

 

The RAM is not soldered on the motherboard, except the CPU and GPU.
You can do 16GB maximum with 8GB per slot.

Additionally, you can also refer to RAM upgrade video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsF0Bpuj8ss