Precision M6400 Owner's Lounge

Does anyone know the difference between the two rgb led screen options? One is +$300 and the other is 'edge to edge' and +$600. Besides the 'edge to edge' thing (and I really am not sure what that even means) they don't elaborate on what the extra 300 bucks is for.
And what would be the major differences in performance and/or heat/durability/performance between the x9100 dual core and the quad 2.53 extreme processors? I'm about to order and this seems like as good or better a place as the Dell 'chat' people, who don't always seem to speak the same English as I do. Always helpful, but sometimes not very conversational as far as colloquial use of the language goes.

 

Edge 2 Edge means a sheet of glass that goes over the whole front screen.
This gives reportedly better contrast but also comes with major reflection issues.

Regards,
Simon

 

E2E is standard feature on the covet. A nifty sheet of glass.

Heat wise, the 6400 has excellent cooling. The Quad Core runs much cooler than it did in my HDX18t under sustained load. It really comes down to your apps. If they are multi-threaded for Quad support, the Quad is the way to go. Quad is more future proof, but if your set of apps are single or dual threaded at most and fixed for quite some time, then the X9100 will give you better performance.

 

Thanks to you and simonpickard for quick answers. You're saying 300 bucks more for a sheet of glass over the screen? Sounds steep for a piece of glass. And as far as 'multi threaded' goes, it's another computo term I'm only vaguely aware of. I run some light weight CAD, do a lot of graphic work, mostly on photos, but with mulitple pics and dozens of layers at once and some good flight simulators. They're about the most processor hungry programs I use. So would you recommend the quad or the x9100? Had the x9000 on my just stolen m6300 and it was just fine, astounding to me, but my experience is limited. But if a couple hundred bucks for the quad is a good idea I'll go with that. And thanks again.

 

Personally, and this is just me. I'd stick with the 3.06Ghz Dual.
The apps you are talking about for my money would run faster on this than the Quad.

The only time I can see a Quad being faster is when rendering, or high end video or audio mixing, etc. Almost all other apps the dual will be faster.

Regards,
Simon

 

That's the way I've been leaning. This will only be my third computer and I want it to be at least as good as the other two. The x9000 on my 6300 was mind boggling. Boggled even the local experts. Dell's been very good to me so far and the m6400 sounds like a beauty, though I'd prefer to just have my m6300 back. Thanks again, P. Jaxon

 

One thing to note about the quad. XP really doesn't take advantage of a quad at all. Before its time. Vista takes more advantage of quad goodness. However the real deal is going to be Win 7 that should be out before the end of next year. Right now some of the cooler feature in Win 7 should take direct advantage of a quad core. One example is that prior to Win 7 Windows has loaded drivers in serial. Where its one after another after another. With Win 7 they will be loading in parallel so being able to process more with a quad should definitely help in that area. What it boils down to is future proofing your system. No system will ever be fully future proofed, however with the specs of a fully blinged out M6400. You should be able to handle at least 2 more Windows iterations (win 7 and whatever is next) without any difficulty.

Also keep in mind that the processor in the M6400 is not soldered in place. While its a PITA to get at, the processor can theoretically be upgraded down the road. As processor dies shrink it should be possible to place a 3Ghz quad core in the sucker. As long as it runs cool enough, which moving to a 45nm process should allow this, and as long as the BIOS support it.

Just my .00000000002 cents.

 

What does this mean?
And I, who thought that I could understand internet jargon...

 

"Pain in the @ss"

 

internet jargon can be a pain in the azz (PITA)