17.3" Lenovo G700, Core i5-3230M (2.6GHz - 3.2GHz), 8GB RAM, 1TB, DVDRW, Nvidia 720M, Windows 8 - £479.99 @ Amazon
379°Expired

17.3" Lenovo G700, Core i5-3230M (2.6GHz - 3.2GHz), 8GB RAM, 1TB, DVDRW, Nvidia 720M, Windows 8 - £479.99 @ Amazon

£479.99Amazon Deals
35
Found 7th Sep 2013
Screen Size: 17.3 inches LED, 1600 x 900
Processor: Core i5-3230M (2.6GHz, 3.2GHz with TurboBoost, 3MB cache)
RAM: 8GB DDR3
Hard Drive Size: 1TB HDD, 5400 RPM
Graphics Card: Nvidia GT 720M, 1GB DDR3
USB: USB 3.0 x 1, USB 2.0 x 2
HDMI: HDMI x 1
VGA: VGA x 1
Optical Drive: DVD/RW
Memory Card Reader: 2-in-1 card reader
Bluetooth: 4.0
Audio: 3.5MM jack
Wireless: 802.11 B/G/N
Ethernet: Gigabit Ethernet 10/100/1000
Webcam: 1.2 Megapixel, 1280 x 720
Operating System: Windows 8, 64
Item Weight: 2.9 Kg
Product Dimensions: 41.8 x 3.7 cm


Don't forget flubit folks, 10-15% average discount off Amazon prices.
- copperspock

35 Comments

Hot! Nice one OP

Original Poster

Mrman123

Hot! Nice one OP



No worries. It's a great spec with the added bonus of a 17.3" screen for under £500. No-brainer really.

Bad points:
Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of this.
Graphics card - only 1gb ? Low end rubbish.
CPU - basic i5 CPU low end
DVD drive - really? It's 2013 Blu-ray should be standard.
VGA - why even bother with this? Why not DVI at least!
Good points:
1tb HDD
USB 3
HDMI

It's ok for light gaming/tasks but overpriced IMO.

^Expectations; lower them. Hint: Price.

Original Poster

8salacious9

Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of … Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of this.Graphics card - only 1gb ? Low end rubbish.CPU - basic i5 CPU low end DVD drive - really? It's 2013 Blu-ray should be standard.VGA - why even bother with this? Why not DVI at least!Good points:1tb HDDUSB 3HDMIIt's ok for light gaming/tasks but overpriced IMO.



Eh? So you expect all of the above on a laptop that's under £500? Good luck with that. Only mid to high-end (mostly high-end) laptops come with Blu-ray drives. If you're after the spec you just listed then you'll have to spend a minimum of £700.

in need of a new laptop, any idea what recent games I can run on this?

Salacious you havent got a clue what you're talking about. It's a very decent mid range machine and will play a lot of good games.

Anyone wondering if this is decent or not, just read the second review on the amazon link. pretty much covers it.

Dont let Salacious' nonsense confuse you.

Good find OP.

Preditah

Eh? So you expect all of the above on a laptop that's under £500? Good … Eh? So you expect all of the above on a laptop that's under £500? Good luck with that. Only mid to high-end (mostly high-end) laptops come with Blu-ray drives. If you're after the spec you just listed then you'll have to spend a minimum of £700.



exactly folks dont realise this

8salacious9

Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of … Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of this.Graphics card - only 1gb ? Low end rubbish.CPU - basic i5 CPU low end DVD drive - really? It's 2013 Blu-ray should be standard.VGA - why even bother with this? Why not DVI at least!Good points:1tb HDDUSB 3HDMIIt's ok for light gaming/tasks but overpriced IMO.



I'd be very keen to see you point us to a cheaper brand new laptop with better specs. I for once can't find anything better than that.

8salacious9

Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of … Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of this.



I'd like to point out only the resolution. it's a perfect 16:9 ratio, more than 720p.
1680x1050 is the standard resolution under 1080p which this almost is, and will do for up to 32" screens.

Is this not the same laptop but with a slightly slower core i3 processor? It's £100 cheaper

argos.co.uk/web…204

Sapphiraez

I'd like to point out only the resolution. it's a perfect 16:9 ratio, … I'd like to point out only the resolution. it's a perfect 16:9 ratio, more than 720p. 1680x1050 is the standard resolution under 1080p which this almost is, and will do for up to 32" screens.


stop posting crap, 1680x1050 isn't a 16:9 resolution, and I've certainly never seen it on a laptop.

dulys

Is this not the same laptop but with a slightly slower core i3 processor? … Is this not the same laptop but with a slightly slower core i3 processor? It's £100 cheaperhttp://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10151&catalogId=1500002951&langId=110&productId=997204



The Argos one isn't even an i3. It's a dual core pentium

Sapphiraez

I'd like to point out only the resolution. it's a perfect 16:9 ratio, … I'd like to point out only the resolution. it's a perfect 16:9 ratio, more than 720p. 1680x1050 is the standard resolution under 1080p which this almost is, and will do for up to 32" screens.



LOL!

1366x768 is 16:9 and marketing likes to call HD+ i have never ever seen 1050p screens! on a 17" 1600x900 or 1920x1080 is your standard specs

Bad res, wish there were some decent 17 inch models. All seem to be mainland Europe only.

just get a base unit pc

Nice laptop however How about this dell atop. Evalue code CN57140. Extra £50? Heat added. Link dell
Edited by: "RB1978" 7th Sep 2013

Don't forget flubit folks!

thanks for the post i pulled the trigger and bought one. only negative for me is windows 8 so i will have to fork out for a copy of win7 pro 64bit from fleabay secondhand for the 3rd time. i'll flog win8 to some daft git at work who want to upgrade ( cough cough moron )

aSp00kyGhost

Bad res, wish there were some decent 17 inch models. All seem to be … Bad res, wish there were some decent 17 inch models. All seem to be mainland Europe only.

The Dell Inspiron 17r Special Edition is an excellent 17 inch machine with a 1080p display, an i7 processor, 8 gigs of ram, a blu-ray player, a 2gb nvidia gt 650m gddr5 GPU, etc. although currently it is a little costly at £849. However, Dell seem to routinely have sales going on, and add in online coupon codes and you may be able to pick this up for around £650 before Christmas time. That's what I'm holding out for.

RB1978 I have that machine. It's good.

khamito

stop posting crap, 1680x1050 isn't a 16:9 resolution, and I've certainly … stop posting crap, 1680x1050 isn't a 16:9 resolution, and I've certainly never seen it on a laptop.

I had this resolution on a Dell laptop a few years ago, and it's great - it's the old widescreen 16:10 resolution, but it's been phased out now in preference to 16:9.

driver8

I had this resolution on a Dell laptop a few years ago, and it's great - … I had this resolution on a Dell laptop a few years ago, and it's great - it's the old widescreen 16:10 resolution, but it's been phased out now in preference to 16:9.



Yup, me too. Before the full-hd craze, almost all laptop screen resolutions were 16:10 1280x800, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 – I owned one from each resolution class. I did prefer the 16:10 for screen real estate, but granted, 16:9 is more suitable due to the wide shape of the keyboard.

A good laptop from a reputable brand. Now more importantly, is the 1600x900 screen of good quality in terms of colour reproduction ect.?
Edited by: "wibin" 8th Sep 2013

8salacious9

Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of … Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of this.Graphics card - only 1gb ? Low end rubbish.CPU - basic i5 CPU low end DVD drive - really? It's 2013 Blu-ray should be standard.VGA - why even bother with this? Why not DVI at least!Good points:1tb HDDUSB 3HDMIIt's ok for light gaming/tasks but overpriced IMO.

You want all these better specs for £480? Unrealistic expectation, I would say. If you got such a product to the specifications that you stated at £480 +/- £30 post it here then. If I start at a reference point of £300 for an i3 15.6" screen. Add £50 for i3 to i5. Add £30 for 4GB to 8GB ram. Add £15 for 1TB over a 500MB disk, £50 for a 17"3 screen compared with 15.6" or less. Larger capacity battery for 17" laptop £20, £10 for the Nvidia graphics. So the price for the features and performance is decent.
Edited by: "splender" 8th Sep 2013

copperspock

Don't forget flubit folks!



Just 2% cheaper than Amazon, around £11. Not sure it's worth the saving over dealing with Amazon directly in case of problems.

wibin

Yup, me too. Before the full-hd craze, almost all laptop screen … Yup, me too. Before the full-hd craze, almost all laptop screen resolutions were 16:10 1280x800, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 – I owned one from each resolution class. I did prefer the 16:10 for screen real estate, but granted, 16:9 is more suitable due to the wide shape of the keyboard.A good laptop from a reputable brand. Now more importantly, is the 1600x900 screen of good quality in terms of colour reproduction ect.?

That's right, those harking about 1080p don't know about design points, horses for courses, 1080 and 720 specifications are intended for movies; 16:9, 4:3, 3:2 are for photos; where laptop resolutions like VGA, SVGA, XVGA and similar derived resolutions are generalised for computer documents in the main and optimised to view from 60-70cm away. Those people harking about 1080p (full HD) is a nice to have for a laptop and these are expensive to replace. But for the documents work needing 1080p or above as a must have, users usually work around this by using at least two screens (the laptop screen and a slave monitor. In practice it is better to the eye using two monitors stretching at a meter width rather than the same density of data packed densely onto a 17:3" or 15.6" or even less screen size.
Lastly, higher density screen have significantly higher pixel density (number of transistors) and switching these pixels of light cost battery power : 1920*1080 is 44% more transistors to power than 1600X900 which translates to about 30mins or an hour loss of a battery power (or the equivalent of an extra 2 cells of lithium). Also the weight of a 1080p screen is heavier than a 1600X900 screen for the same technology simply because of the higher density of circuits driving the 44% extra pixels.

splender

That's right, those harking about 1080p don't know about design points, … That's right, those harking about 1080p don't know about design points, horses for courses, 1080 and 720 specifications are intended for movies; 16:9, 4:3, 3:2 are for photos; where laptop resolutions like VGA, SVGA, XVGA and similar derived resolutions are generalised for computer documents in the main and optimised to view from 60-70cm away. Those people harking about 1080p (full HD) is a nice to have for a laptop and these are expensive to replace. But for the documents work needing 1080p or above as a must have, users usually work around this by using at least two screens (the laptop screen and a slave monitor. In practice it is better to the eye using two monitors stretching at a meter width rather than the same density of data packed densely onto a 17:3" or 15.6" or even less screen size. Lastly, higher density screen have significantly higher pixel density (number of transistors) and switching these pixels of light cost battery power : 1920*1080 is 44% more transistors to power than 1600X900 which translates to about 30mins or an hour loss of a battery power (or the equivalent of an extra 2 cells of lithium). Also the weight of a 1080p screen is heavier than a 1600X900 screen for the same technology simply because of the higher density of circuits driving the 44% extra pixels.



...how dya like them apples

8salacious9

Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of … Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of this.Graphics card - only 1gb ? Low end rubbish.CPU - basic i5 CPU low end DVD drive - really? It's 2013 Blu-ray should be standard.VGA - why even bother with this? Why not DVI at least!Good points:1tb HDDUSB 3HDMIIt's ok for light gaming/tasks but overpriced IMO.



It wouldn't make a difference if it had 12 GB - the actual power of the GPU determines the quality of the image, the RAM determines the size of the textures it can handle.

3GB is optimum, but I use a 1GB 7850 and have had no problems - it's overclocked @ 1175 Core and can't remember the memory. I run pretty much everything on high/medium and have no problems.

notebookcheck.net/NVI…tml
Edited by: "Cameron583" 8th Sep 2013

oos

8salacious9

Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of … Bad points:Resolution - 17" screen no full HD? Editors can't make good of this.Graphics card - only 1gb ? Low end rubbish.CPU - basic i5 CPU low end DVD drive - really? It's 2013 Blu-ray should be standard.VGA - why even bother with this? Why not DVI at least!Good points:1tb HDDUSB 3HDMIIt's ok for light gaming/tasks but overpriced IMO.



I am sorry to be so brutally honest but if you assessing graphic card looking at the amount of memory only (especially on 'm' gpu), state that 3rd gen i5 is a ' low end cpu' and you do not seem to understand the rationale behind VGA port (especially that the laptop has HDMI as well) you shouldn't pretend to be an expert ! You do not know much about it do you ? Stop misleading people then.

Edited by: "7777777" 8th Sep 2013

windows 8? meh

mould

just get a base unit pc


LOL
And to do what with it?
I've just seen an all-in one system here on HUKD, but even that is just not worth it... how do you work on that? I can't see myself sitting in my bed with a desktop on my lap or trying to get the AC to switch on my desktop on a train to edit my .ppt files...
Since 2005 the number of desktops are on decline, now it's only 1 in 5 computers, and they are mainly used by businesses:
See a graph here Desktops won't take part much of the 21st century in general house holds.

(PS: I have to think hard to name any of my relatives or friends who still use or just even have desktops)

haritori

LOL!1366x768 is 16:9 and marketing likes to call HD+ i have never ever … LOL!1366x768 is 16:9 and marketing likes to call HD+ i have never ever seen 1050p screens! on a 17" 1600x900 or 1920x1080 is your standard specs



I didn't say anything about 1366x768? Crazy sir.
Never seen a 1680x1050 screen? You can't have seen that many screens, it's a 16:10 resolution, a standard also known as WSXGA+ and usually a better screen due to the increased height.

Original Poster

Back in stock.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text