(A+ graded) ACER Aspire E15 15.6" Gaming Laptop with 7th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-7200U 8GB RAM 1TB HDD NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M 15.6" FHD Windows 10 £479.99 @ SVP
326°Expired

(A+ graded) ACER Aspire E15 15.6" Gaming Laptop with 7th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-7200U 8GB RAM 1TB HDD NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M 15.6" FHD Windows 10 £479.99 @ SVP

£479.99SVP Deals
41
Found 16th Mar
ACER Aspire E15 15.6" Gaming Laptop with 7th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-7200U 8GB RAM 1TB HDD NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M 15.6" FHD Windows 10

FEATURES

Windows 10

Intel® Core™ i5-7200U Processor ( Latest 7th Generation )

RAM: 8 GB

Storage: 1 TB HDD

Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

Full HD display
Community Updates

Groups

41 Comments
I'm pretty sure 7th gen CPUs and 950 GPU's are not latest generation! Unless it's 2015 again?!
Original Poster
boulmerboy3 m ago

I'm pretty sure 7th gen CPUs and 950 GPU's are not latest generation! …I'm pretty sure 7th gen CPUs and 950 GPU's are not latest generation! Unless it's 2015 again?!


Submitted edit to remove "latest"
There's some great Dell outlet deals right now, 20% off most Inspiron models and a lot have dedicated graphics. Worth looking, can probably get an 8th gen i5 for the same money as this?

m.dell.com/h5/…BKd
Hurm... For the price it's pretty good if you don't want to break your bank..
950m is a bit on the low side, watch some YouTube gaming 950m benchmarks with modern games, to get a feel for it.
Edited by: "Just.Wondering" 16th Mar
Can’t be spending that money with no ssd
Original Poster
Sleightbuzz43 m ago

Can’t be spending that money with no ssd


Good luck grabbing a laptop with that spec plus SSD for that price
One earlier in week Tiny bit more for mx150 no brainer in my opinion
Sleightbuzz1 h, 33 m ago

Can’t be spending that money with no ssd



7200rpm is fine, this is 5400 which is bad
Edited by: "unknownorigin" 16th Mar
unknownorigin24 m ago

7200rpm is fine, this is 5400 which is bad



I would rather go for the cheapest and slowest SSD than 7200rpm HDD. As for the 950m, you won't be able to enjoy games even in medium settings...
unknownorigin2 h, 47 m ago

7200rpm is fine, this is 5400 which is bad


You shouldn't comment if you have no clue.
Horrorwood27 m ago

You shouldn't comment if you have no clue.


Have you ever used a 5400 rpm HDD? its slow, really slow. 7200 rpm is fine like he said but 5400 is pretty bad. Still a nice deal though
In 2018 950M is not a gaming GPU. MX150 is entry level and faster.

If anyone thinks they will buy this and play games from 2018 you'll be sadly mistaken.

This is not a gaming laptop!
Banned
Awesome one...
i wish i can buy this ...
Crazy to buy a 9XX GPU in 2018 when the 10XX series are vastly better.
arealmentalist31 m ago

Have you ever used a 5400 rpm HDD? its slow, really slow. 7200 rpm is fine …Have you ever used a 5400 rpm HDD? its slow, really slow. 7200 rpm is fine like he said but 5400 is pretty bad. Still a nice deal though


Can you provide a link to a £479 laptop with a 7,200rpm HDD?
Add a 128gb ssd and upgrade the screen an this baby will fly.
I didn’t know SVP were still going. Used to get my blank discs off them
Picard12311 h, 44 m ago

Can you provide a link to a £479 laptop with a 7,200rpm HDD?


I doubt it, as 7,200rpm HDDs for laptops aren't really a thing. Some specialist models exist, but they are an insignificant fraction of the market share. They may have been more prevalent in high-end laptops before SSDs came along, but as SSDs completely blow the best 7,200rpm HDDs out of the water for performance, there's less demand for a middle ground between 5,400rpm HDD and SSD.

The difference between a 5,400rpm HDD and 7,200rpm HDD is negligible compared to the boost you'll get from even the worst SSD.
Edited by: "sneakybifta" 17th Mar
Adam_A1 h, 7 m ago

Add a 128gb ssd and upgrade the screen an this baby will fly.


Upgrading a laptop screen often impossibly difficult, if you can even sort the right parts and get the laptop to accept it.

Some models it must be easier, perhaps this is one of them, but don't buy a laptop expecting to be able to replace the screen without doing very specific reasearch first.
britishguy411 h, 14 m ago

Good luck grabbing a laptop with that spec plus SSD for that price



"that spec" is ****

You wont be able to play the latest games on this even at 720p low settings. The 950m uses gddr3 not 5 so it will be as slow as the old gtx 660m. This laptop is worthless for gaming.
TomH76 h, 45 m ago

I'll probably get some stick for this, but gaming and laptop's really …I'll probably get some stick for this, but gaming and laptop's really don't nor should go together.


Tell that to my Alienware 15 R3 - i7-7820hk, gtx 1070, 16gb with HDD and SSD... If you can fit a desktop, monitor and associated accessories with those specs in a backpack to travel with then I'll agree with you.
SD30132 h, 5 m ago

Tell that to my Alienware 15 R3 - i7-7820hk, gtx 1070, 16gb with HDD and …Tell that to my Alienware 15 R3 - i7-7820hk, gtx 1070, 16gb with HDD and SSD... If you can fit a desktop, monitor and associated accessories with those specs in a backpack to travel with then I'll agree with you.

Do you mean the Alienware 15 R3 that has known issues with overheating...?!
sneakybifta7 h, 58 m ago

I doubt it, as 7,200rpm HDDs for laptops aren't really a thing. Some …I doubt it, as 7,200rpm HDDs for laptops aren't really a thing. Some specialist models exist, but they are an insignificant fraction of the market share.The difference between a 5,400rpm HDD and 7,200rpm HDD is negligible compared to the boost you'll get from even the worst SSD.



Completely wrong. An example - same hardware, usable boot time (as in windows logged on, post boot activity has completed) between 4200rpm/5400rpm/7200rpm: 292 seconds / 220 seconds / 90 seconds - 5400rpm > 7200rpm is the sweet spot of performance vs .cost. SSD is always faster, but its more expensive too.
Horrorwood10 h, 17 m ago

You shouldn't comment if you have no clue.




Lol I was a Windows Internals certified client performance specialist at Microsoft for 14 years...might have a bit more of a clue than you
rigggary9922 m ago

Do you mean the Alienware 15 R3 that has known issues with overheating...?!


20 minutes to repaste sorts that out, worst case just undervolt the CPU but given mine runs at 85°c max core temp under a stress test I don't think that's too bad considering it was £1300.
TomH79 h, 19 m ago

I'll probably get some stick for this, but gaming and laptop's really …I'll probably get some stick for this, but gaming and laptop's really don't nor should go together.


Mainly because your comment is a bit out of touch with reality. My laptop is serving me well as a VR rig and I seem to be gaming on it just fine.

This deal however will struggle to play upcoming games at decent settings so I wouldn't recommend.
eraldo3 h, 31 m ago

"that spec" is ****You wont be able to play the latest games on this even …"that spec" is ****You wont be able to play the latest games on this even at 720p low settings. The 950m uses gddr3 not 5 so it will be as slow as the old gtx 660m. This laptop is worthless for gaming.


I'm not saying this is good, it's dire, non SSD, only 7th gen, etc... However I have a dell with a 940mx dedicated and I play GTA at 1080p absolutely fine. This has to be better than that
unknownorigin1 h, 21 m ago

Lol I was a Windows Internals certified client performance specialist at …Lol I was a Windows Internals certified client performance specialist at Microsoft for 14 years...might have a bit more of a clue than you


Cool. I am glad you said "might"

You see a 5400rpm 2.5" drive is not that far behind a 3.5" 7200rpm drive. Are you saying all 3.5" 7200rpm drives are useless too? Should we only use 10000rpm and/or SSD?

When I say comparable... I mean a 3.5" drive would have faster transfer speeds towards the edge of the disk. But a 2.5" drive should have pretty much the same random access times which make a bigger difference in general use.

The smaller drive has less size to travel across, hence it doesn't need to be as fast.

Then you have the size of the platters too. A single 1tb platter drive is going to be faster than 2x 500gb platters in a drive.

Then you have the type of recording/read method. Example:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wik…ing

Here you have 5400rpm drives with faster access times than 7200rpm ones:

tomshardware.co.uk/cha…tml

Here you have 5400rpm drives beating 7200rpm at transfer rates:

tomshardware.co.uk/cha…tml

So to write off all 5400rpm 2.5" drives as "bad" just because of their RPM? Wow.
Horrorwood22 m ago

Cool. I am glad you said "might"You see a 5400rpm 2.5" drive is not that …Cool. I am glad you said "might"You see a 5400rpm 2.5" drive is not that far behind a 3.5" 7200rpm drive. Are you saying all 3.5" 7200rpm drives are useless too? Should we only use 10000rpm and/or SSD?When I say comparable... I mean a 3.5" drive would have faster transfer speeds towards the edge of the disk. But a 2.5" drive should have pretty much the same random access times which make a bigger difference in general use. The smaller drive has less size to travel across, hence it doesn't need to be as fast.Then you have the size of the platters too. A single 1tb platter drive is going to be faster than 2x 500gb platters in a drive.Then you have the type of recording/read method. Example:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingled_magnetic_recordingHere you have 5400rpm drives with faster access times than 7200rpm ones:http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2014-mobile-hdd-charts/-07-Read-Access-Time-h2benchw-3.16,2985.htmlHere you have 5400rpm drives beating 7200rpm at transfer rates:http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2014-mobile-hdd-charts/-05-Write-Throughput-Maximum-h2benchw-3.16,2990.htmlSo to write off all 5400rpm 2.5" drives as "bad" just because of their RPM? Wow.


You have lots of bits of information, but do not understand how IO works. 4 year old charts with meaningless data on a bunch of random hardware proves nothing.

e.g. "The edge of the disk is faster". This is true on paper, but not true in practice due to fragmentation. Windows actually installs to the outer ring of the disk, then will move to the middle of the disk during defrag lifecycle. Why? Because data fragments across the disk, it is resultant faster to sit the data in the middle so your read horizon is only 50% each way - but you wouldn't know this.

Do you know how application load IO is optimised and how this translates at the hardware layer? no...

You are one of these "home taught" people that don't actually have a depth technical background and make the associated assumptions and mistakes. Instead of reading someones elses analysis, do it yourself with this: docs.microsoft.com/en-…pt/
unknownorigin2 h, 27 m ago

Completely wrong. An example - same hardware, usable boot time (as in …Completely wrong. An example - same hardware, usable boot time (as in windows logged on, post boot activity has completed) between 4200rpm/5400rpm/7200rpm: 292 seconds / 220 seconds / 90 seconds - 5400rpm > 7200rpm is the sweet spot of performance vs .cost. SSD is always faster, but its more expensive too.


Not completely wrong at all. Where have you got those figures from? You can spend all day watching videos like this that generally show the SSD to be much, much faster, and relatively not much difference between 5400rm and 7200rpm.

You realise you're claiming 7200rpm hard drives to be 144% faster than 5400rpm there? It's more like 33% in ideal circumstances.
Edited by: "sneakybifta" 17th Mar
sneakybifta38 m ago

Not completely wrong at all. Where have you got those figures from? You …Not completely wrong at all. Where have you got those figures from? You can spend all day watching videos like this that generally show the SSD to be much, much faster, and relatively not much difference between 5400rm and 7200rpm. You realise you're claiming 7200rpm hard drives to be 144% faster than 5400rpm there? It's more like 33% in ideal circumstances.


Ignore him. He is still literally generalising all 7200rpm and 5400rpm drives in to the same category, regardless of their actual performance.
sneakybifta52 m ago

Not completely wrong at all. Where have you got those figures from? You …Not completely wrong at all. Where have you got those figures from? You can spend all day watching videos like this that generally show the SSD to be much, much faster, and relatively not much difference between 5400rm and 7200rpm. You realise you're claiming 7200rpm hard drives to be 144% faster than 5400rpm there? It's more like 33% in ideal circumstances.



Internal testing at Microsoft, as mentioned I spent years as a windows internals specialist, focusing on performance - I had source code access.

They are designed to indicatively represent deltas. Most hardware testers are not performance experts, they look at numbers without understanding how they will actually perform in production.
unknownorigin40 m ago

Internal testing at Microsoft, as mentioned I spent years as a windows …Internal testing at Microsoft, as mentioned I spent years as a windows internals specialist, focusing on performance - I had source code access. They are designed to indicatively represent deltas. Most hardware testers are not performance experts, they look at numbers without understanding how they will actually perform in production.



Coming in as the Devil's Advocate, why does it take so long to see files (e.g. photos), launch the simple calculator or even view a photo in Windows 10. There things were pretty much instantaneous, with Windows 7?
I’ve got a 950m in my gaming laptop that’s a couple of years old now and it runs PUBG fine for me which is all I really play on it. Yes I’d love a 10** series as they are much better, but the 950m is still plenty capable depending on your needs.
gtd6527 m ago

Coming in as the Devil's Advocate, why does it take so long to see files …Coming in as the Devil's Advocate, why does it take so long to see files (e.g. photos), launch the simple calculator or even view a photo in Windows 10. There things were pretty much instantaneous, with Windows 7?


Initially when an application is launched it will parse the associated prefetch file (.pf) from the windows\prefetch folder. If you look in there you will see a file named for each application that has been executed.
33457571-ujvUe.jpg
The purpose of this file is to "prefetch" the minimal required amounts of code to allow notepad (as our example) to run. The prefetch file then tells Windows how to load notepad with the least amount of disk reads (superfetch will further co-locate data on same parts of the disk to expedite application load).

This is performing cold reads into memory (the slowest part of your computers operation), which is why its slow - but that "slowness" is dictated by your disk speed primarily (you mention photos, this is disk speed + GPU capability). Should you immediately close notepad after it had opened, and then reopen - it would be quick, because the required code is now in memory and doesn't need to be paged back in (the structures would only be immediately paged out in a low memory scenario).

So, straight back to disk speed - it is likely you have a slow disk, although these are a few things that you could check:

- Check the disk type and speed first, if you have a slow disk this will be the bottleneck that will never go away. In fact, over time, performance will get worse as the in-built optimisation routines fail to run etc.

- Defragment - Overlooked, auto scheduled by the system but is actually rarely executed. This also optimises the boot routines.

- Delete the prefetch folder and allow it to recreate. This will not improve performance, actually it will slow it down first of all - but it ensures the .pf's are cleanly recreated in the instance of corruption

- Check superfetch is running properly (SSD's auto-disable this, but doesnt sound like you have one)

The no nonsense, cut straight to the root cause way would be to run performance monitor, or the windows performance toolkit during normal operation to work out where delays are occuring. In reality my money would be on it being a simply issue of laptop performance not meeting your requirements.

I haven't mentioned memory, if you have a low amount of RAM the machine will spend lots of time performing hard page faults as it copies data to and from the disk to memory. If you have a sufficient amount of RAM this will not happen. You can check this very easily by confirming the amount of hard faults the system is performing.
I get what you are saying - especially about the prefetch.

It was more about how slow it appears to be, after moving to Win 10 after using Win 7 on the same system and the apparent lack of performance thereafter.

I just don't understand why it takes a good 5 seconds to open a calculator app, when previously, it was almost instantaneous?

Seems to be an issue with Windows 10 in general. It's very apparent that under (my experience of) Windows 10 the initial load is far longer than it used to be. example here:

answers.microsoft.com/en-…306

Way back in the day (1995/96) we had a computer at work that ran an AMD 486 @ 90Mhz, that little computer was so fast and snappy it was unbelievable (it mainly ran MS Office applications). One day we decided to check diskdefrag and it was 97% fragmented....lol
I have this laptop and its so heavy don't recommend for school or carrying anywhere gave me crazy back pain when in my bag
Please can everyone stop commenting about this deal, there's a far more important discussion about disk speed going on.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text