Ehm...is there a store Dell?
I want to see firsthand what I will buy...from what I know, Gateway have them, TOshiba and Compaqs can be seen at any comp stores...so, has Dell a store?
Actually, now you are confusing me. I like my laptop because I can take it to work and use it at a client site, whip it out on the train ride, take it to a friends house for some gaming, or plugin at home. When I say plugged in, I just mean the power supply and nothing more. I don't use a docking stations because I'd have to have one at 4 or 5 different places, and that seems to defeat the purpose of a portable computer if you are dependant on something that you can't carry around with you. However, plenty of people use docking stations which is cool, so thats only my opinion. Weight isn't an issue because I've never seen where an extra pound is a big deal, and I commute to DC every day with a 8 pounder strapped to my back, and have never had a problem with it. If I end up getting back surgery later in life, then I'll probably think back and regret it I'm sure, heh. Oddly enough, I've never been a big fan of the widescreen, but after playing with Longhorn I may give in and take the plunge. Also, I'm a hobbyist game developer, so I'd like to be able to upgrade cards as they come out, whether supported by the manufacturer or not as long as it is technically possible.
dextius wrote:
leedgitar.. You got me confused.. again.. You want an uber "plugged in" portable computer, but you don't mind that the sager's are devoid of a docking station? I don't know what I'd do with a 15 inch lcd all the time..
I looked at Sager, Winbook, Alienware, VoodooPC (nice system).. but the battery time, the massive amount of heat, weight, and reports from certain websites complaining about stabilty issues, there really is no comparison ..
cheers,
dextius
Message Edited by leedgitar on 12-06-2003 01:51 AM
@sobolan wrote:
leedgitar...having a "desktop" CPU build into a notebook chassis is not the ideal solution.
The BIGGEST problem a laptop builder is faced with is "HEAT GENERATION"...you can not push it too far or the laptop will auto ignite after a few hours of intensive gaming.
THUS, they search different ways when designing and building it.
That 5150 with it's HT processor is generating huge amount of heat...put in the equation the heat generated by the memories, HDD and/or CD...at one moment you will reach a critical temp (even with the cooler spinning madly), point from which certain features will be run with less power/lower heat production...usually at heat the RAM works slower, the CPU will dethrotle itself, same for GPU...
So, I prefer a computer with TWICE cache, running cooler, consuming less power (you never know when you will have to use your laptop AS A LAPTOP, AKA PORTABLE COMPUTER). Running cooler allows it to run full specs.
Just for fun, go see on zdnet some test, especially 3d Mark and some office productivity benchmarks. Eurocom has 10500 or so in 3D Mark 2001, but running Radeon 9600, 3.2s GHz HT, 400MHz memories, 1GB of RAM, etc. The SECOND SCORE (9980) belongs to an INSPIRON 8600, with slower memories (333MHz), with the FX5650 card and ONLY 512MB RAM...I am REALY curious what that score looks like with 1GB RAM and the new 9600 Pro Turbo in the Inspiron....
I had a dell for 4 years (PII, 400MHz, 128MB RAM, 8MB video, 6GB HDD, infrared, two batteries, CD, FDD, 15 inch)...4 years ago it was the monster. Well, IT NEVER GAVE ME ANY TROUBLES...choosing between a Sager and a Dell...well, I will go with the later one.
Extra system memory will not make the slightest bit of difference to a 3Dmark2001se score and faster system memory would make little or no difference either. That said, I agree that with the 9600 pro, the 8600 is likely to be the fastest gaming notebook on the market.
The Pentium-M is a very very strong gaming CPU and the imminent Dothan revision sporting 2MB will be killer.
Message Edited by caboosemoose on 12-06-2003 04:08 AM
Caboosemoose, the bottleneck on laptops is actually the ram and the motherboard, not the GPU.
Anyways, this argument about Dell not allowing supported upgradability is not achieving much.
Just drop this issue, because the people that do not support upgrades will never be convinced that Dell should allow upgrades.
I've read that it is possible to put a geforce fx5650 go in an 8500, but has anyone tried putting the NEW ATI mobility Radeon 9600 in the 8500?
Sorry, but that's entirely incorrect. For 3D gaming the bottleneck is most certainly the GPU and video memory, not the system memory or motherboard. That's why when you overclock the 4200go in a Dell 8500 by 20% games run pretty much exactly 20% faster. If the bottleneck was elsewhere on the system that would of course be impossible. Also, if the bottleneck were not the video card, then there could not be an advantage, for example, in specifying on video card over another.
Oh, and by your theory there's no point in putting a 9600 in your 8500!
Message Edited by caboosemoose on 12-06-2003 04:04 AM
"Intel Pentium M with “Dothan” core processor will go into mass production using Intel’s strained silicon 90nm fabrication technology in the fourth quarter of the year. The company will even ship the CPUs to its partners, but will formally launch the parts only in the Q1 2004. The code-named Dothan processor will use the 400MHz Quad Pumped Bus, but will feature 2MB of L2 cache and higher core-clock compared to the original Pentium M “Banias” core. Thanks to the improved micro-architecture, the Dothan will not have to run at too high clock-speed. It will start at 1.80GHz (at $637 price-point) in the Q1, will gain 100MHz or more in the Q2 and additional hundred or two megahertz in the Q3 2004 to reach the 2.0GHz milestone. Specifically for mainstream notebooks Intel will release the Pentium M 1.70A processor with 2MB L2 cache and reduced pricing."
Imagine that RAM IS a factor in 3d benchmarking, and the same opinion I saw in different computer and IT magazines (one is zdnet.com)
I was asking about those Dell kiosks bcs I wanted to touch/see one before buying, especially compare the differnence between WUXGA and WSXGA+.
And #^#&$^#, I have to pay taxes if I buy a dell...but with the new 9600 in the 8600:), it might worth it.
Amount of RAM is a factor in some 3D benchmarking, but not in 3dmark2001SE - it loads the entire scene into system memory and then runs it, if you have enough memory toi run the scene then it doesnt matter how much more you have, it's not used, at all.
For some reason, you seem to interpret my post as a theory I have about Gpu's. It's not my theory...It's a fact that ram is a major bottleneck in laptops...Not the GPU. Not to say that gpu's don't make a performance difference, they obviously do. But when it comes down to which component is the bottleneck, it's the ram and motherboard. Dell laptops still use SODIMM PC2100. This is ancient in the desktop world, now with the quad channel DDR2 ram.
For some reason, you seem to interpret my post as a theory I have about Gpu's. It's not my theory...It's a fact that ram is a major bottleneck in laptops...Not the GPU. Not to say that gpu's don't make a performance difference, they obviously do. But when it comes down to which component is the bottleneck, it's the ram and motherboard. Dell laptops still use SODIMM PC2100. This is ancient in the desktop world, now with the quad channel DDR2 ram.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think ram makes a huge amount of difference to most 3D games and I think that with laptops it's pretty obvious that it's the video card slowing down games, not the memory. If you think that a laptop with dual channel DDR400 ram, but only with a radeon 9000 would be faster for gaming than another, otherwise identical laptop with single channel DDR266 ram but a radeon 9600 then you are completely misguided in my not so humble opinion.
Takes me back to '99, same story,.. all corporate gain, no help.
I75k's (Inspiron 7500's) came with Rage Mobility -P 8mb cards, which were superceded by rage 128's 12 days later. Dell never did let anyone upgrade. Dell never satisfies when it comes to that.
For some reason, you seem to interpret my post as a theory I have about Gpu's. It's not my theory...It's a fact that ram is a major bottleneck in laptops...Not the GPU. Not to say that gpu's don't make a performance difference, they obviously do. But when it comes down to which component is the bottleneck, it's the ram and motherboard. Dell laptops still use SODIMM PC2100. This is ancient in the desktop world, now with the quad channel DDR2 ram.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think ram makes a huge amount of difference to most 3D games and I think that with laptops it's pretty obvious that it's the video card slowing down games, not the memory. If you think that a laptop with dual channel DDR400 ram, but only with a radeon 9000 would be faster for gaming than another, otherwise identical laptop with single channel DDR266 ram but a radeon 9600 then you are completely misguided in my not so humble opinion.
I agree, it never ceases to surprise me when I see prebuilt computers these days. The thing that bothers me is that the video card always is junk, complete and utter junk. Why even bother having gobs of ram and a fast processor if all you are going to be doing is typing a word document? No, the video card makes the most difference in gaming by far, adding another gig of ram to a notebook with a radeon 9000 is not going to make it better than a desktop with 512 megs of ram and a Mobility Radeon 9600.
The video card makes up for over 60% of the performance bottleneck in nearly every 3D game or Benchmark.
A perfect example is that ridiculous Comparison of the Pentium2 300Mhz system with a Radeon 9700 Pro Beating a Pentium4 2.8Ghz system with a radeon 9600 Vanilla now clearly a system with a 2.5ghz clock speed advantage would knock socks off a inferior system one a video card one generation ahead in 3dmark2k3
Message Edited by Maverick2o2 on 12-10-2003 10:47 PM
LOL! Hey Maverick2o2, I am very curious and would love to see that "rediculous comparison" that you mentioned. Give me the link just for kicks. Thanks.
Message Edited by TazExprez on 12-10-2003 09:22 PM
RAM, CPU, and the graphics card are all equally important, though RAM is a bit different in that while it has a huge impact on performance there is a point at which adding more does very little (right now that's about 512MB or 768MB depending on the game). There are exceptions of course (like if you play the Dark Age of Camelot and run multiple instances of the client on the same box), but by and large around 768MB is perfect right now. You can have the most 'uber' box available, but if you only have 256MB of system RAM your system will be a dog.
Chris
I would still say the graphics card and processor make the most difference. 2.8 vs. 3.2 ghz isn't going to make a big difference, but if you are talking about 2.2 vs 3.2, then processor does have a big difference.
sobolan
10 Posts
0
December 6th, 2003 02:00
I want to see firsthand what I will buy...from what I know, Gateway have them, TOshiba and Compaqs can be seen at any comp stores...so, has Dell a store?
RojasTKD
105 Posts
0
December 6th, 2003 04:00
leedgitar
22 Posts
0
December 6th, 2003 05:00
Message Edited by leedgitar on 12-06-2003 01:51 AM
caboosemoose
240 Posts
0
December 6th, 2003 08:00
Extra system memory will not make the slightest bit of difference to a 3Dmark2001se score and faster system memory would make little or no difference either. That said, I agree that with the 9600 pro, the 8600 is likely to be the fastest gaming notebook on the market.
The Pentium-M is a very very strong gaming CPU and the imminent Dothan revision sporting 2MB will be killer.
Message Edited by caboosemoose on 12-06-2003 04:08 AM
caboosemoose
240 Posts
0
December 6th, 2003 08:00
Sorry, but that's entirely incorrect. For 3D gaming the bottleneck is most certainly the GPU and video memory, not the system memory or motherboard. That's why when you overclock the 4200go in a Dell 8500 by 20% games run pretty much exactly 20% faster. If the bottleneck was elsewhere on the system that would of course be impossible. Also, if the bottleneck were not the video card, then there could not be an advantage, for example, in specifying on video card over another.
Oh, and by your theory there's no point in putting a 9600 in your 8500!
Message Edited by caboosemoose on 12-06-2003 04:04 AM
sobolan
10 Posts
0
December 6th, 2003 09:00
Imagine that RAM IS a factor in 3d benchmarking, and the same opinion I saw in different computer and IT magazines (one is zdnet.com)
I was asking about those Dell kiosks bcs I wanted to touch/see one before buying, especially compare the differnence between WUXGA and WSXGA+.
And #^#&$^#, I have to pay taxes if I buy a dell...but with the new 9600 in the 8600:), it might worth it.
Message Edited by sobolan on 12-06-2003 05:05 AM
Message Edited by sobolan on 12-06-2003 05:22 AM
caboosemoose
240 Posts
0
December 6th, 2003 09:00
ROTC
1 Rookie
•
50 Posts
0
December 10th, 2003 07:00
Caboosemoose,
For some reason, you seem to interpret my post as a theory I have about Gpu's. It's not my theory...It's a fact that ram is a major bottleneck in laptops...Not the GPU. Not to say that gpu's don't make a performance difference, they obviously do. But when it comes down to which component is the bottleneck, it's the ram and motherboard. Dell laptops still use SODIMM PC2100. This is ancient in the desktop world, now with the quad channel DDR2 ram.
caboosemoose
240 Posts
0
December 10th, 2003 09:00
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think ram makes a huge amount of difference to most 3D games and I think that with laptops it's pretty obvious that it's the video card slowing down games, not the memory. If you think that a laptop with dual channel DDR400 ram, but only with a radeon 9000 would be faster for gaming than another, otherwise identical laptop with single channel DDR266 ram but a radeon 9600 then you are completely misguided in my not so humble opinion.
mountrcg
11 Posts
0
December 10th, 2003 13:00
jack500
36 Posts
0
December 10th, 2003 19:00
Takes me back to '99, same story,.. all corporate gain, no help.
I75k's (Inspiron 7500's) came with Rage Mobility -P 8mb cards, which were superceded by rage 128's 12 days later. Dell never did let anyone upgrade. Dell never satisfies when it comes to that.
Nerdtalker
276 Posts
0
December 10th, 2003 21:00
I agree, it never ceases to surprise me when I see prebuilt computers these days. The thing that bothers me is that the video card always is junk, complete and utter junk. Why even bother having gobs of ram and a fast processor if all you are going to be doing is typing a word document? No, the video card makes the most difference in gaming by far, adding another gig of ram to a notebook with a radeon 9000 is not going to make it better than a desktop with 512 megs of ram and a Mobility Radeon 9600.
Maverick2o2
2 Intern
•
155 Posts
0
December 11th, 2003 00:00
The video card makes up for over 60% of the performance bottleneck in nearly every 3D game or Benchmark.
A perfect example is that ridiculous Comparison of the Pentium2 300Mhz system with a Radeon 9700 Pro Beating a Pentium4 2.8Ghz system with a radeon 9600 Vanilla now clearly a system with a 2.5ghz clock speed advantage would knock socks off a inferior system one a video card one generation ahead in 3dmark2k3
Message Edited by Maverick2o2 on 12-10-2003 10:47 PM
TazExprez
190 Posts
0
December 11th, 2003 00:00
Message Edited by TazExprez on 12-10-2003 09:22 PM
Nerdtalker
276 Posts
0
December 11th, 2003 01:00
I would still say the graphics card and processor make the most difference. 2.8 vs. 3.2 ghz isn't going to make a big difference, but if you are talking about 2.2 vs 3.2, then processor does have a big difference.