E6520 or M6600 ?? (performance)

Hi all,

I'm looking for some comparison information regarding the Latitude E6520 vs. Precision M6600.
I need a machine that can run 1-2 VMWares, is very fast (CPU, disk, memory).
Graphics is not so important as I will mainly run backend systems (java, databases etc).

Our IT department told me that the performance of the E6520 is comparable to the M6600 but I somehow doubt that.

Would be great if you could tell me your opinion about this!

Thanks
Stefan

 

The M6600 is classified as a workstation laptop. It is equipped with professional graphics card; the nVidia Quadro FX. The E6520 is if you want a cheaper version of the M6600. It is equipped with the intel inegerated GPU or the nVidia Quadro NVS. The Quadro NVS is cheaper than the Quadro FX. Both systems support more or less the same CPUs.

Since you don't use graphics intensive applications such as CAD, and modelling and rendering software you should go with the E6520 and the integrated Intel money to save money. CPU wise, if you think that a dual core processor is not enough, opt for a quad core one. Although, I think that you'll be fine even with a dual core CPU since the latest generation of Intel CPUs is quite fast.

EDIT:
The short answer is: the main difference between the two is the graphics card. Almost everything else can be configurated the same.

 

They are comparable in that the E6520 can run a 2720qm processor.

The M6600 can run the 2820qm and 2920xm which the E6520 can't. The M6600 also has 4 RAM slots when using a quad core processor vs. the 2 in the E6520. The M6600 offers greater flexibility in expansion of hard drives, mSata drives, and other cards. You get USB3 built in. You get a cooling system in the M6600 that is light years ahead of the E6520.

I wouldn't even put these two machines in the same class. The M6600 is a completely different animal.

 

We will need to know the specs before we make any sort of comparison.

First of all, which screens do the configurations have? The E6520 (15.6") needs to have either the 1600x900 or 1920x1080 resolution display for it to be a worthy consideration, and the M6600 (17.3") needs to have the 1920x1080 display.

1366x768 is a bad resolution for a 15" screen, and 1600x900 is a bad resolution for a 17.3" screen.

For programming, your biggest bottleneck is going to be the screen resolution because that's what limits how many windows and lines of code fit on the screen. Regardless of whether you're going to use an external monitor at your desk, you still use the laptop's screen on-the-go and in a dual-monitor setup.

 

Thanks guys for the replies so far. I do not care about the screen too much as I will use it docked most of the time. Right now I have a M6400. For the Latitude I would definitly take the quadcore, 8GB RAM and a 256 SSD.
I really need a damn fast system.

 

If you forget about the graphics card:

Is it it fair to say the same CPU+Memory+disk in E6520 and the M6600 will perform the same?

Or will I still get better performance with the Precision?

 

You are also comparing a 15" to a 17". For a 15" to 15" compare you should take a look at the M4600 also.

 

Yes.

10char

 

stef@n,

Have you made a decision yet? I find myself in the same boat! I am a Network Engineer and while I definitely don't "need" ISV certified hardware, I like the "future-proof-ness" that the Precision M6600 provides with the fact that it's got USB 3 built in. I understand the fact that USB 3 can be added to the E6520 through some option though. According to my Dell rep, the only thing _currently_ that can be used in the second drive caddy on the M6600 is another HDD but he did mention that it used to be used for other things such as batteries and that there wasn't any reason that other options couldn't become available. The main reason that I'm considering the M6600 over the E6520 is for the extra 2 inches of screen real estate. But does that really matter given that the two machines have the same maximum resolutions? Wouldn't the larger screen, oh wait, it just struck me that the two screens _wouldn't_ have the same number of pixels. One actually would end up with more pixels on the larger screen given the fact that the two have the same maximum resolution, right?

 

I will go for the E6520 with a second hard drive in the media bay.