I don't want to start an argument here, so just some facts:

1)Article:"What is important, this notebook is superior to all other models in its class in terms of sheer speed. "

This is just untrue. The G2 is merely in the medium range of its class. The Dell M1710 (just ONE example), scores roughly double the score in most games. Proof: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=396&type=expert

1) "The ASUS G2P not only competes with desktop gaming stations, it wins the competition!"

This is just a joke. Please show me a SINGLE PC that is marketed as a gaming station that has scores as low as the G2. You won't find one.

Now to your comments:

1)"All modern games will work in normal resolutions like 1280x800 with no AA on high details, and 30 - 60 FPS."

Not correct. Again, please have a look here with benchmarks for the G2 on modern games like F.E.A.R. For information the tests have been run BELOW the native screen resolution on a mere 1024x768 pixels, and still the G2 failed:

"In FEAR, we can see that the X1700 512MB isn't quite up to the task at running FEAR with all the details enabled. 29 FPS average and a sad 11 FPS isn't enough for a smooth gaming experience."

Or, take HL2:Lost Coast (this is not even a actual game, but more than 18 month old):

"Once again the Asus G2 doesn't do too badly, but not enough to play games at the highest screen resolution with a decent amount of details enabled. The emerging picture here is that the X1700 512MB is probably better suited as a mid-range gaming solution, rather than something to compete with the GeForce 7900 series."

Or, how about PREY?:

"In these few Prey test results, we can see what the Asus G2 is capable of at a modest screen resolution of 1024x768. With low details it fares well with a playable frame rate of 44 FPS. But once you increase the shaders and details, performance drops 11 FPS to a still respectable 33 FPS."

You can find the benchmarks in the article linked above.

Please don't get me wrong: I am not saying that the G2 is a bad notebook at all. It is just not what the article advertises - it is NOT the most suitable gaming notebook in its class. There are notebooks out there with triple the gaing power of teh G2 and even if you look only at the more balanced non-SLI products with 17'' screen, there are some out there (i.e. the Dell) that score twice as high, for the same $$$.

To say it competes with any desktop gaming station or even wins is just hilarious and only true if you look at 3-4 years old platforms.

I intentionally did not respond to your insults, I guess you had a hard day today, so enjoy the weekend.

qwertz

I really dont understand, there is some problem with their tests. I had notebook with 6600 Go which is much slower than 1700 (maybe even twice slower) and I get 60 FPS in Prey on maximum details and native LCD resolution. F.E.A.R also run smoothly with medium details (and without that fog). I also have much better results in all other games. Now I have 7600 Go and all modern games are playable if not on high, on medium details. I played many games recently released I dont know whats the problem with their tests. BTW, I dont use AA in any game, I dont even use that on my desktop PC because (although I can) I dont see big difference with AA on and off. Now I have 2 Gb RAM, Turion X2 56, 7600go 256 DDRII, and it is enough to play all games with good experience (I dont play RPG's like Oblivion, so I did not test that one, but RTS and FPS yes). I also have desktop PC with much better graphics card but I still play all games on notebook, because its simply enough and I can carry it anywhere.

I dont know if you are using notebooks extensively. I used them for years and I would always choose this ASUS over Dell (although I currently own FSC). You know when someone looks at gaming notebook its not only
performance in question, there is build quality, weight, design, heat, etc. So although there are better gaming notebooks out there in terms of performance I agree with most of the text in this
article. They maybe sound as false if you just look at performance but many people will agree this one is better. For example I would never buy SLI notebook (I find it disguisting, heat from one gx card is more than enough).
As for insults they were not aimed at you of course, I am just sick of this media hype. 1024x768 is now considered as 320x240. Why? Because they would not be able to sell all that crap which heats like fire and consumes 300W.
Now 2560x1600 is satisfactory resolution. 16x AA is a must and DX 10 of course (there are currently 0 games made for DX10, not to mention that everything that can be done in DX 10 can be done in DX 9).
I mean pumping up resolution does not add so much to visual quality its polygons per sec and fill rate that are important (for example if we had games like Final Fantasy VII movie that would be enough, although resolution is 640x480!)

FF movie may be 640x480, but your arguement is weak and uninformed. I can assure you that FF was rendered at a res many times higher. When transfered to analog video, (NTSC or other) the resolution looks far better because the lines are softened and blurred. Analog resolutions are near infinite. With TV/DVD you have a near infinite analog resoution being presented at 640x480. Those pixels aren't beign rendered in the same way computers have to deal with them.