Which of these laptops is better?
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: KVM choice
Next: Asus M2V-MX SE
From: Mark Smith on 11 Dec 2009 17:26 On Dec 11, 10:15 pm, Larc <l...(a)notmyaddress.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:16:23 -0800 (PST), Mark Smith > > <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > | Thanks, that's what I was leaning towards. > | > | Will the fact that the memory is DDR3 instead of DDR2 will make a > | marked difference too? > | > | Also, I'm puzzled a bit by the turbo mode. I thought most CPUs these > | days intelligently went into a low power mode when not in use? I know > | clock speeds aren't that important, but 1.6 GHz does seem a bit on the > | slow side. I have an Atom 1.6 GHz netbook, which couldn't play 1080p > | H264 HD video files without badly stuttering. Would this laptop be > | able to handle that? The presence of HDMI video out would lead me to > | hope so... > | > | Thanks again > > Forgive me if this has already been covered, but I haven't been keeping up with > this thread and older posts are gone. Does either laptop have a separate > display adapter with its own memory or is each an onboard adapter that shares > system memory? The ability to play such things as H264 video smoothly usually > has more to do with adapter abilities than with the availability of an HDMI > connection or not. Of course, good video can make good use of an HDMI port. > > Larc Really? The thread is only a few hours old... Anyway yes they both have the same dedicated graphics card, a 512MB ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4570 Here is the original link again: http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Laptops/laptop-studio-1555/pd.aspx?refid=laptop-studio-1555&s=dhs&cs=ukdhs1
From: Mark Smith on 11 Dec 2009 17:27 On Dec 11, 9:59 pm, Metspitzer <kilow...(a)charter.net> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:16:23 -0800 (PST), Mark Smith > > > > <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > >On Dec 11, 2:20 pm, "Marcel Overweel" <moverw...(a)gonen.nl> wrote: > >> > "Mark Smith" <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> schreef in bericht > >> >news:5e74a33f-2d46-48a2-b17b-428ecfdc2db3(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > >> > Hi, > > >> > I'm looking at buying a laptop, I hope this isn't too OT as it is > >> > hardware related. > > >> > Narrowed my choice down to 2. > > >> > Is the 2nd one worth the extra money (considering the architecture is > >> > older)? > > >> > I'm also a bit confused as Dell claims 'The fastest mobile processor > >> > on the planet!' for both options... > > >> > Thanks for any advice. > > >> > Option 1 > >> > Intel® Core i7-720QM Mobile Processor (1.6GHz, turbo up to 2.8GHz, > >> > 6MB L3 Cache) > >> > 4096MB 1333MHz Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM [2x2048] > >> > 320GB (7,200rpm) Serial ATA Hard Drive > >> > Cost: £699 > > >> > Option 2 > >> > Intel® Core 2 Duo Processor P8700 (2.53Ghz, 3MB, 1066MHz) > >> > 6144MB 800MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM [1x4096 + 1x2048] > >> > 500GB (5.400rpm) SATA Hard Drive > >> > Cost: £799 > > >> > Link for more info: > >> >http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Laptops/laptop-studio-1555/pd.as.... > > >> Option 1: > >> - much faster (in turbo) > >> - faster hard drive (7200rpm instead of 5400rpm) you will notice the > >> difference > >> - 4GB instead of 6GB doesn't matter much in real-life situations unless > >> performing very memory hungry operations (3d rendering?) > >> - Windows 7 PRO > > >> Option 2: > >> - older architecture > >> - slower although larger hard drive > >> - dual channel memory with different size rams using 2 rams instead of 4?? > >> Weird. I thought this wasn't possible. See also: > >> http://www.techsupportforum.com/hardware-support/motherboards-bios-cp... > >> - 6GB instead of 4GB doesn't give much noticeable difference in real-life > >> situations > >> - Windows 7 home premium (which can't connect to a network domain, afaik) > > >> Dell claims everything to be good and fast. > >> It's pure marketing. > > >> I think option 1 is better unless you need more harddrive space (and you > >> don't care about boot and program loading time) or you can't live with > >> having 'only' 4GB memory. > > >> Hope this helps. > > >> regards, > >> Marcel > > >Thanks, that's what I was leaning towards. > > >Will the fact that the memory is DDR3 instead of DDR2 will make a > >marked difference too? > > >Also, I'm puzzled a bit by the turbo mode. I thought most CPUs these > >days intelligently went into a low power mode when not in use? I know > >clock speeds aren't that important, but 1.6 GHz does seem a bit on the > >slow side. I have an Atom 1.6 GHz netbook, which couldn't play 1080p > >H264 HD video files without badly stuttering. Would this laptop be > >able to handle that? The presence of HDMI video out would lead me to > >hope so... > > >Thanks again > > Before you buy a Dell just call tech support. 800-624-9896 > For a laugh, just follow the menus to talk to someone about a laptop > for the home. > > After 10 min a tech support answered in broken English. I explained > my problem, and she put me on hold again. I was on hold for another > 10 min and the phone disconnected. > > F$$k Dell. Yeah never had much need for tech support. Not sure any company has good support - unless you really want to pay extra for it?
From: Paul on 11 Dec 2009 20:43
Mark Smith wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at buying a laptop, I hope this isn't too OT as it is > hardware related. > > Narrowed my choice down to 2. > > Is the 2nd one worth the extra money (considering the architecture is > older)? > > I'm also a bit confused as Dell claims 'The fastest mobile processor > on the planet!' for both options... > > Thanks for any advice. > > > Option 1 > Intel� Core� i7-720QM Mobile Processor (1.6GHz, turbo up to 2.8GHz, > 6MB L3 Cache) > 4096MB 1333MHz Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM [2x2048] > 320GB (7,200rpm) Serial ATA Hard Drive > Cost: �699 > > Option 2 > Intel� Core� 2 Duo Processor P8700 (2.53Ghz, 3MB, 1066MHz) > 6144MB 800MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM [1x4096 + 1x2048] > 500GB (5.400rpm) SATA Hard Drive > Cost: �799 > > Link for more info: > http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Laptops/laptop-studio-1555/pd.aspx?refid=laptop-studio-1555&s=dhs&cs=ukdhs1 You can find comparison articles, for rating the effectiveness of the two processor types. This is just the first link I could find. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Core-i7-Processor-Clarksfield.21684.0.html As that article mentions, there could be an impact on battery life, for the two hardware configurations you show in your table. Maybe they compensate with a different battery pack ? The Intel "Spec Update" for 720QM gives some more info on the Turbo Option. i7-720QM Regular speed is 4 cores * 1.6GHz Turbo options include 4 cores * 1.73GHz 3 cores * 1.73GHz 2 cores * 2.40GHs 1 core * 2.80GHz Those are achieved by using different multiplier values, and are adjusted on the fly. The compute power would also be subject to thermal management. If the CPU or the computer is overheating, or too much power is drawn, a lower setting than those shown might be used. The head to head comparison article above, shows the 720QM is doing a good job. The part I can't get over, is the difference in price. The P8700 processor is cheaper, and yet that computer is more expensive. Is that 4GB DIMM really affecting the price that much ? I'd much rather have a matched pair, like 2x2GB dual channel. http://www.intc.com/priceList.cfm 720QM $364 P8700 $209 HTH, Paul |