laptop review , laptop battery

All in all we do not perceive the glasses required with all the 3D technologies to be ideal. Especially people who wear glasses will not be content with the “glasses over glasses” solution. On top of this the visible pictures are perceived as being darker due to the shutter glasses, compared to use without the glasses. FUJITSU SIEMENS ESPRIMO Mobile V6505  Battery

For casual gamers 3D in its current form is definitely a worth while experience, serious players will likely not go out of their way for it though. To stay competitive in a shooter using the 3D mode is almost impossible according to our first tests.Detailed information about Nvidia’s 3D Vision will shortly be covered by us in a special article.Asus A31-B43

With the Intel Core i7-720QM CPU and the Nvidia Geforce GTX 460M graphics card,Asus A32-K72 the Asus G53J certainly contains thoroughly potent components which catapult this 15 inch notebook into the upper range of the gaming league. Detailed information regarding the CPU can be found in our mobile processor comparison, with respect to the graphics card in our graphics card comparison, or on details of the Nvidia Geforce GTX 460M.Asus A32-N71

Indeed these are exactly the components that were shortly in the test of the G73JW. The only difference: the included RAM (8 GB DDR3 in the G53, and a whole 12 GB in the G73), as well as the included mass storage device (2x 750 GB @ 7200 RPM in the G53, and 2x 500 GB @ 7200 RPM – hybrid in the G73).Asus A32-K53

Thus the question whether or not the G53 is on a par with its bigger brother with respect to performance is at hand. The first results of the benchmark tests let a positive mood emerge. With 12156 points in the 3DMark 2006 test (1280×1024) and 7383 points in the 3DMark Vantage benchmark test, the G53 only lies marginally behind the results achieved by the Asus G73JW (12520/7366).Asus A32-N55

In the 3DMark 2006 Score test, the G53 is level with the shortly tested Toshiba X500 with 740QM CPU and GTX 460M graphics card (12124). Gaming devices with the ATI HD5870 graphics card are somewhat ahead and start at 12543 points (G73JH). ATIs Mobility Radeon HD5850 lags behind the GTX 460M and reaches up to 11530 points (MSI GX640).Asus A41-U36

In the Vantage test the G53 is barely behind the Toshiba Qosmio X500 (7517). Notebooks with HD5870 graphics card stay ahead, just as gamers with the HD5850 GPU are behind the GTX 460M chip.

The gaming suitability should therefore lie on a comparable level with the G73. How does this look when it comes to the application specific benchmarks, such as PCMark Vantage? Can the G73JW race ahead thanks to its potent amounts of RAM, or the fast hybrid hard drive combination?Asus A42-U36

Cards on the table; with 5570 points the tested G53 is still slightly behind the 17 inch Asus G73, which achieves 5804 points in this discipline. A glance at the individual ratings from the PCMark Vantage benchmark test show higher points in gaming, music, and HDD score (hybrid hard drive), which eventually lead to the better overall result.Asus A33-M50

A glance at our library shows the G53JW on a level with Lenovo’s office notebook T410 (620M/NVS3100M), which is similarly equipped to the Qosmio X500, but stays slightly behind the G53 with 5441 points.Asus a42-u31

New limits are set by the Asus G53JW in terms of storage capacity. The 15 inch case contains, as already the case of its 17 inch relative, space for two 2.5 inch hard drives. Asus has fitted two 750 GB hard drives from Seagate into our tested device. The ST9750420AS turns with 7200 revolutions per minute. On our tested device, the total storage capacity of 1.5 Terabytes was divided among four partitions. How this will be configured in detail for the final retail version is still not clear.Asus 90-NVA1B2000Y

In the HDTune benchmark test the ST9750420AS gives good results. Data transfer rates up to 108.7 MB/s, and access times from 17.1 milliseconds are definitely among the best for conventional hard drives.Asus 70-NF51B1000

Due to the already carried out benchmark tests the performance capabilities of the adopted Intel Core i7-720QM CPU and the GTX 460M graphics card from Nvidia are not unfamiliar. Asus A32-A8A comprehensive comparison can be found in our benchmark list of mobile processors, in our graphics card comparison, as well as in our games list for mobile graphics cards, which give a clear indication of how smoothly different current games can be played with certain settings and graphics cards.Asus A32-F80

In the case of the Asus G53JW at hand, we were much more interested as to how far the 3D function effects the potent components. Following is a comparison using several current games, which we benchmarked with and without activated Nvidia 3D Vision.Asus A32-F80A

Not only the performance interested us with the multi player shooter. How does a direct comparison in a shooter look with respect to the competitiveness using 3D images – disadvantage or perhaps a helpful cheat?Asus A32-F80H

Straight away after the first few exchanges of fire, we were already struck by dismay. We even had difficulties trying to overcome the first easy minutes of the game using the 3D mode with a low difficulty setting in single player mode. The optics were definitely attractive and compelling, the lack in precision however quickly led to aggravation.Asus L0690LC

On the performance side the Asus G53JW managed 68.9 frames per seconds on average in our 2D benchmark test (intro single player), using medium detail settings (1366,768, HBAO off, 1xAA, 1xAF) and 53.5 FPS using high presets (1366×768, HBAO of, 1xAA, 4xAF). The comparatively equipped G73JW was only able to achieve a marginally better 54.2 FPS in our tests. The Toshiba Qosmio X500 has a slight lead with 58.0 FPS, probably also due to the somewhat more powerful 740QM CPU.Asus NB-BAT-A8-NF51B1000

In 3D use the halving of the performance that takes place is to be expected, even if with only small deviations. Using medium detail level settings the G53JW offers 35.2 FPS on average, using high detail settings this was only 26.1 FPS. In the latter case this already led to some performance problems in the game. The following diagram depicts the frame rates in the test using different detail settings, with and without 3D images.Asus A32-F5

The current version of Call of Duty falls into the same category as BFBC2. With respect to playability the gaming performance in Battlefield can’t really be improved. The 3D effect can be described as less successful than with Battlefield. Nvidia also displays information regarding the 3D rating of the relevant game (“Excellent”), as well as the divergences that can be expected.Asus 90-NQY1B2000Y

With 73.2 FPS with medium details (1024×768, all on, medium, 2xAA) and 62.5 FPS with high benchmark settings (1366×768, all on, high,Asus 90-NGF1B1100 4xAA) the Asus G53 can get slightly ahead of the tested G73 (58.5 FPS, high). With attractive 3D display the frame rate quickly drops by about 50% as before. Using medium graphics settings the tested device then provides smooth 36.2 FPS on average, with demanding applications there is just enough room to play this game with 31.9 FPS.Asus A32-N50

After the discouraging results of the shooter genre, we also decided to try some representatives from the racing simulations games. Asus A33-N50 Following the installation of the Demo-Version we had to come to terms with a distorted menu, that was not correctly displayed three dimensionally through the shutter glasses. After the start of the game this fortunately changed, and we were able to glide across the country roads in 3D. The racing simulation is significantly better suited for using 3D images. The gaming experience can definitely be improved this way, and the competitiveness is not effected as much as was the case with the previously tested shooters.Asus A42-V1

Interestingly the performance reduction is not as extensive with Dirt 2 as with the previously tested games. Using medium details (1024×768, medium, 0xAA) the game offers 104.5 frames per seconds, and using high details gives 69.9 FPS, without 3D. With the 3D function activated, the frame rates drop to 56.8 FPS using medium details, and 40.0 FPS with high details.ASUS 90-NER1B2000Y

The performance of the adopted hardware is definitely on a par with the bigger Asus G73JW. The native resolution of the included display (1366×768) can be used for the highest details settings without problems. Merely hard nuts such as Metro 2033 can cause difficulties.ASUS A31-F9

Altogether the performance reserves of the GTX 460M graphics card are even sufficient for 3D representation reducing the frame rate by up to 50%, and still use high detail settings for current games with smooth enough frame rates.ASUS A32-F9

Regarding the practical gaming use of current 3D technology, this can be a contentious issue.ASUS A32-T13 Altogether this is also largely dependent on the particular game, as to what extent the 3D display provides for an improved gaming experience. Performance orientated gamers will likely opt to give the 3D technology a miss, since the 3D mode can easily be deactivated. Using 2D the Asus G53 is a potent gaming device that effortlessly keeps up with its bigger brother the G73JW. A slightly higher native resolution without 3D would have been favorable though.Asus A42-G70

The Asus G73 made a name for itself with its good cooling system, that kept the device comparatively cool under a high load, and above all also kept it quiet. A positive aspect in this respect was of course also the spacious case of the 17 inch notebook. Now the more compact G53 is subjected to our tests, and contains the same components as its bigger brother the G73.Asus 90-N10BT1220