Is e6520 already outdated?

Hi,
I'm in the market for a new 15" business class notebook and have been comparing the e6520 to the HP 8560p. Two of the key differences that I see between the models are:
- the Dell supports up to 8 GB RAM whereas the HP goes up to 16
- USB 3.0 is not available on the Dell

To someone who is not nearly as technical as most in this forum, it would seem to me that the e6520 is built on an outdated platform. Pricing of the two computers are more or less comparable and I'm struggling to see the advantages of the Dell over the HP. Thoughts from the group? Any other considerations that set the two apart that I might be missing?
Thanks!

 

They'll both get the job done. If you need 16GB of memory (a meaningless spec for most users), buy the HP. If you prefer Dell over HP, buy the Dell.

You can add USB 3.0 to the Dell. Future peripherals may be migrating to the light link bus.

>>Is e6520 already outdated?

No, of course not.

GK

 

Thanks for the reply - I somehow missed that USB 3.0 can be added and will look into this further.

While I do not plan on going up to 16 GB RAM right now, I was wondering if this is a capability I might wish I had 2 years from now. It just seems a lot of the other machines on the market now allow you to go up to 16 GB hence the question if the foundation of the model is outdated. Is this simply a function of MoBo selection or is this indicative of other design limitations?

 

Very, very few people actually need more than 2GB of RAM. If you tell us what programs you will be running on this laptop and whether you do a lot of multitasking, we may be able to tell you whether you need more than 8GB.

IMO, don't buy the latest and fastest computers unless you absolutely need them. These computers depreciate in value really fast, and sometimes they even have bugs because they are so new. I always prefer buying laptops that are two to three generations old.

 

I agree 16gb is over the top for most users, but I think 2gb is pretty sparse for Win7 64, even for light use. For the $25-$30 a 2gb stick will run (adding it yourself after purchase) to bring it up to 4gb, it's well worth it for the breathing room imo.

 

I run Win7 x86 on a P4 with 1GB 400MHz DDR... that's all she'll hold (Dell 4400). Boots up with about 512MB free for use. Also ran ok with 768MB 266MHz DDR... but it's quicker with the 400MHz. Yeah, it's a design limitation!

So, 16GB of 1333MHz DDR3 is more than enough memory.

GK

 

Multitasking is my primary concern. Primary program usage is Office related - I almost always seem to have 10 spreadsheets, 3 or 4 PPTs and several Word docs open at a time in addition to generally 6-10 SAP sessions (I am an SAP consultant).

The spreadsheets I work with often involve complex formulas spanning extremely large datasets (well beyond the old Excel row limitations). I will occasionally peg the CPU for several minutes on my current machine which is a Dell Precision M65 with 2GB RAM.

I would hope that 8GB would be well more than I would ever need, although I can't help but wonder if this is being shortsighted. I remember not too long ago when having even 1GB was considered a 'luxury'. My hope is to be able to use the laptop for 4-5 years.
Thanks!

 

4/6/8 gigs of RAM should be enough.
18 is just way too much unless working with virtual machines.

 

Yeah the E6520 should be good for your usage. 8 GB RAM is the realistic maximum for most laptops unless it has 4 DIMMs, which you can get 8 GB RAM for ~70-80 bucks.

 

When Office went from 2000 to XP to 2003 to 2007, RAM requirement did go up with each new version. But 2010 doesn't require any more than 2007, and I think that's partly because Microsoft made an effort to ensure that netbooks (which usually have only 1 or 2GB RAM) would be able use Office 2010. In addition, Microsoft learned from their Vista fiasco that if their product suddenly required much more RAM (or CPU) than the previous version, it would backfire. So, I am cautiously optimistic that the next two versions of Office won't require much more RAM than Office 2010.

P.S. Speaking of Vista, Vista with SP2 runs better than the original Vista.