Home / News / Laptop News / Asus G71 Gets UK Launch

Asus G71 Gets UK Launch


Asus G71 Gets UK Launch

Asus announced the G71 gaming notebook backing October, but omitted to mention the pricing or, indeed, an actual release date. Now we have both and while neither is surprising, the former is still pretty shocking. So, available any time now the quad-core G71 carries a £1,999 MSRP with a cheaper dual-core spec also available starting from £1,349.

Though admittedly expensive, that kind of money does get a pretty decent spec for a portable (compared to a brick bag of bricks). CPU aside there's no difference in the systems, which stack up as follows.

  • Intel quad-core QX9300 (2.53GHz, 1,333MHz FSB, 6MB cache) dual-core T9400 (2.53GHz, 1,066MHz FSB, 6MB cache).

  • 17in 1,920 x 1,200 Display (plus a secondary VFD above the keyboard)

  • 4GB DDR3 RAM (2 x 2GB)

  • nVidia 9700M GT (512MB GDDR3)

  • 2GB Intel Turbo Memory module

  • 500GB hard drive space (2 x 250GB RAID 0)

  • Blu-ray Drive

  • Windows Vista Ultimate

In Asus' usual fashion, the systems also come in a pretty comprehensive bundle, packing a backpack for (ah-ha) carrying the G71 around, a mouse and a headset. Okay, so taking such a laptop to the occasional LAN party might be within the realms of possibility, but calling the G71, in either its quad- or dual-core versions, is a bit of a misnomer if you ask me.

Still, if you've got money to burn and an Alienware system doesn't float your boat, then you know what to do.


Press release (PDF).


December 2, 2008, 6:09 pm

Would go for the cheaper dual-core version every time. That poor graphics card would be the bottleneck for nearly every game methinks (important as it is a gaming notebook!). Don't know why they didn't opt for the top-of-the-line 9800M GT. The extra &#163600 for a quad-core in a notebook is just crazy, especially as most games these days can't even make use of four cores.

Andy Vandervell

December 2, 2008, 6:16 pm

Yes, not sure why anyone would buy a quad-core gaming notebook with that graphics card. It's just not up to task.


December 2, 2008, 6:33 pm

Not that bad a spec to be fair though I think Rock do the better option for the quad core (at that price).


December 2, 2008, 10:17 pm

8700M GT? Seriously? If you were splashing out for a quad core gaming laptop I wouldn't expect to be stuck with a card that isn't a noticeable improvement over even the 8600M GT, and gives you less then half the performance of a previous generation 7950M GTX


December 3, 2008, 11:48 am

Decent gaming on any laptop is questionable. But this is just ludicrous.

Geoff Richards

December 3, 2008, 12:00 pm

That depends on your definition of "decent gaming" but in my book, it's been possible for years. This sort of DTR is more "portable LAN party machine" than commute on the train every day, obviously.


December 3, 2008, 12:25 pm

Oh laptops are capable of playing games no question but I did the gaming laptop thing a few years ago. At home if I fitted a keyboard and mouse so I could relax in my chair whilst I played I ended up peering at a small screen from several feet away. Or I could hunch over the desk for a closer view and use the awful laptop keyboard and get a bad back.

The wonderment of playing on the train and in the airport was soon overcome by the dread of lugging the tank of a thing about. Plus it made a noise like a jet engine the minute anything slightly strenuous was asked of it and its roasted my thighs if I put it on my lap.

I replaced it with a 30" screen and a kickass box for about the same money. Thats what I call gaming.

Geoff Richards

December 3, 2008, 1:42 pm

Fair enough, basicasic, you're probably more qualified than most to comment. Of course, not everyone has room for a 30" and a kickass box, or might appreciate the occasional portability (like students), so to each their own.

I would suggest than enough investing in such a beast spends a little more on a decent lock - these expensive laptops are far easier to steal than an Antec P190 loaded with SLI :)


December 3, 2008, 6:36 pm

what I don't get is the res on these gaming laptops...why have such a high res when the graphics card can't power it?

I would be happier if the res was 1440x900...


December 3, 2008, 9:33 pm

@ cjb110 - Well, it allows for much greater desktop space, so you can have multiple applications and windows open at once, and makes multitasking easier. Although, if the size of the screen is small (17" or less) is small, I personally find the text far too small.

I agree that that graphics card wouldn't be able to power any of the more recent games decently at anything above 1440x900 (let alone 1920x1200), but all games allow you to play at a lower resolution than the native one. As a general rule, more pixels is always better, and would rather have the greater desktop space. A 1680x1050 is about the sweet spot for a 17" notebook in my opinion. Remember, you can always go lower, but never higher than your native resolution!


December 26, 2008, 6:20 am

heres what these kind of laptops cant do. OVERCLOCK and WATERCOOL and EXPAND, essential to a gamer i d say, dont get me wrong im fond of ROG and asus, i own a striker II extreme with outstanding potential but these kind of laptops i believe is for spoiled little kids, true gaming experience is located on desktops people... respect to the machine though

comments powered by Disqus