Hey guys. Haven’t played in some time, but with D4 eventually coming, I’m gonna need a new computer.
Looking for a laptop, don’t really have the space for a desktop. Any recommendations?
High end preformance or not that much? What’s the price range you’re looking for? Because i can say buy the most expensive and you’re good, but that would be just ignorant.
D4.
Find an Intel or AMD Ryzen based model.
Look for graphic cards starting at the xx60 model or higher for nvidia based cards. (2060, 3060, etc or better)
SSD based.
16GB memory minimum. 20GB or more would be better.
And built within the last 2 years. That opens you up to refurbished/renewed/open box options which can save you money.
Look for brands that are gaming oriented, not off the shelf stuff like HP or Dell. Most are physically larger, have better cooling, etc.
You should be able to find something decent in the 900-1500 range, but obviously they get more powerful the higher you go, if you shop carefully and don’t go solely by pricing.
I used to play D3 on laptop back when D3 came out.
I will never play onlline games on a laptop ever again.
Always stick with a PC.
But if you’re going to go laptop then don’t under spend.
Get at least 16 GB SDRAM with a 2 TB SSD inside along with one of the latest GPU’s.
This will run over $2k but is worth it.
Bit overkill, but ok.
You don’t need to spend 2k to get a gaming laptop. But if you have plenty of disposable income, then sure, shop smart and get the best bang for your buck, regardless of price point.
1 Like
I’ve been using a Lenovo Legion for about 18 months. Cost me just under $1000 USD.
Runs PoE and D3 like a dream.
Not at all.
I always use no more than 65% of a drive’s capacity.
This keeps the SSD in great shape.
I do the same thing with an AC unit or an engine for a car as an example.
This is basic engineer thinking.
Keep it cool and running smooth.
But let everyone do what they want in buying a gaming laptop.
We all learn the hard way.
It rly depends on price range and how much u play. And if d4 will be simular to d3 then i would look into laptops with good cooling system.
I always been happy with laptops from asus when it comes to gaming. MSI i would say struggle especially at the lower range. Lenovo is okayish. Stay away from HP though they are just terrible.
Obv it depends on the model etc but generally speaking.
However laptops doesnt last very long. Paying for a overpriced laptop isnt worth it imo.
I used to have gaming laptops.
Not a joke, when I bought my first laptop, my question to the shop assistant was…
“Can it run crysis”. That was 2008. I bought another laptop in time for D3 (2012). I have 2 desktop since. I figured I barely need laptop when travel, & rather just bring my ipad, & the saving, I can get a beefy destop PC.
I am well aware of that and often setup systems to operate with well over 50% free at worst.
But in reality, most people never use 50% of a 1TB drive, let alone a 2TB drive. I was just saying, unless you are installing a LOT of games, you aren’t going to hit that level.
I have a 2TB SSD for all but 2 games (its SATA based) and it has every single Blizzard game installed, several other games installed, AND has all my desktop files on it (400GB in just that) and its still only using about 50% of the drive. And I purposely even set aside 50GB as spare space on it.
So unless you are keeping a ton of crap and a hoard of videos, 2TB is more than enough, and 1TB is plenty.
My 512GB NVMe drive is using about 30% and it has 2 games installed, D3 and OW.
But hey, you do you.
I think what he may be referring to is some mechanical hard drives tend to read/write better when they’re not quite so full but with NVMe, it’s really a non-issue.
No, it applies to both.
Mechanical for performance reasons.
SSD for reliability reasons. The fuller the SSD, the faster it will wear out, especially on smaller sized drives.
I was sitting here thinking about something though. I still have the very first HDDs I ever bought for the first PC I ever built.
At that time they were among the largest you could buy for a reasonable cost. 1GB and 1.2GB IDE WD. I ran Windows 3.1 on them, then later Windows 95, 98 and eventually NT4, before I retired the system. It was a 486 DX 66 with 64MB of memory (maxed).
Those drives still function. If I wanted to hook them up and use them, they would still work. They were $500 each at the time. lol Glad I got my money’s worth out of them.
Game on.
I’ve heard that before but I believe it to be a myth. I’ve never had any issues with any SSD I’ve ever used no matter how full it was. I saw a video of a guy doing “tests” on this for SSD but his tests were flawed as they didn’t even use the same parameters. However, mechanical yes.
You are right too, older mechanical HDDs were more reliable. It’s as if they focused on capacity and less quality elsewhere.
I have had a total of 3 SSDs fail over the years. Two just took a crap and died for no reason. The other had developed bad sectors, and yes it was full or near capacity. (I hadn’t built it originally). I moved the data to a new larger drive, been fine since.
Quality may matter too here. But here’s the why this can occur:
-
All the sectors of an SSD have finite amount of write cycles to start with. Then they can start to develop errors.
-
All drives have spare sectors to use when sectors go bad they can replace up to a point.
-
Drives with higher density memory spaces have a shorter life span. 3D memory tech for example.
-
You have static data and active data. Static data is data that is rarely interacted with and just occupies space. Active data is data that is constantly updated and changed, much of it multiple times a second.
-
SSDs write data in concurrent blocks. So if writing a file out, it will use blocks as they are available in a linear fashion. That helps lower the amount of wear by preventing data to be re-written in place in the same block over and over immediately.
Ok so far?
Now. If the drive is full and most of the content is static data, the active data is going to be written across fewer blocks concurrently over and over, wearing those fewer blocks out faster…
Does that help explain it? 
Most people will never run into this on most computers, but it can happen, and I have seen this failure on one instance.
This is also a reason that on some situations/setups I will often allocate 10% of the SSD as blank space as the drive will still use ALL the blocks on the drive to store files, even though you have set aside a “blank” spot. This helps lower the wear out rate if the drive gets too full.
Drive quality matters too. The more expensive drives like for example the 2TB SSD Samsung Pro I have. Its a lower density design, which has a higher cost. Despite me using for the past 5 years and it being about half full, it has not even hit 1% wear. At the same time, the 512GB SP NVMe drive that’s about 30% full, has 8% wear already, because of Windows and how it constantly has active files.
In fact, my log shows errors with that drive now, despite the SP utility telling me the drive is ok. Silicon Power drives have been pretty good for me, I have sold hundreds of them as instant upgrades for various laptops, and only had 2 go bad so far.
Anyway.
Just my thoughts.
Man, I hope your fingers aren’t tired from that!
I know how drives work. I know all the failure modes for them. I just think some failures are exaggerated. This is just me personally from my experience. Your experience may differ completely from mine even if we’ve both done things for the same amount of time, which it does sound like it if you were installing Windows 3.1.
My worry is the long-term reliability of the new generation console’s internal memory. 
With that, I have no idea. I don’t deal with consoles. The latest one that I have is PS3 Slim 500GB and I use it watch BluRay movies. And I haven’t even done that in a couple years. LOL
Memory tends to be pretty hardy, unless you are talking storage on the console. I would guess that if the console storage is full all the time, that might cause issues?
Thinking like a computer in that regard, but that’s me.
I wonder if you were aware of MicroSofts’s Win 10 SSD frag mistake in a major patch three years ago.
It lasted almost a year when you turn your PC/Laptop off for the night and when you boot up it would defrag your SSD no matter what you did.
MicroSoft caused millions of users SSD’s to run slow until they died.
They did no recompense private users like you and I.
Well, considering you don’t “defrag” SSDs to start with and Windows 10, Windows 8 and even 7 with its later patches wouldn’t “defrag” SSDs either. They have an Optimize tool.
Defrag was the original method used on mechanical drives to align data to make it more easily accessed by a mechanical drive. Such methods are of no help on an SSD and can lead to premature wear if used.
Now, that said, there was a bug that would run the optimizer on all drives at boot up, because Windows wouldn’t remember the last time it was ran. It would optimize and trim all drives, regardless of type. Fortunately that was fixed, though it was a slow response. I think that was fixed twice if I recall, toward the end of 2020. The first patch didn’t fix it completely, but a later patch did.
I would like to point out, that I rarely ran into this problem with most systems I worked with, but was aware of the bug. That doesn’t help those that may have had their SSD damaged early as a result.
And the examples I gave above were drives that just stopped responding completely. I did have one other one that came in and the data was locked. You could try to delete things, create a partition, but no matter what you attempted the drive would not change. You could read and access the files, but unable to make any changes to the drive at all. It was like working with an optical disk. lol
Love how these threads always devolve into the big brains trying to prove who knows more about computers.
/smh
1 Like
Not trying to prove anything. But I do know things. *shrug
If it makes you feel better to try to throw down on others, go for it. Makes me no nevermind, but the passive aggressive stance is a bit obvious.
1 Like