[NEWS] Studio XPS 15 and XPS 17 !!

I do, as do most of the 90% or so of PC users that have little or no use for a powerful GPU. Saves power usage, saves money, saves maintenance.

I've had NVIDIA and ATI video cards fail, multiple times. I've never had an Intel GPU fail. I've had far more trouble with both NVIDIA and ATI video drivers than I've had with Intel drivers.

I have a 2.4GHz Core2Duo system and an i5-540M system at work. The Core2 system has a powerful GPU. The i5 system uses Intel integrated graphics. Absolutely everything I do on those systems is far faster on the i5 system, and they have the same I/O components which means it's all down to memory and processor.

As for performance relative to modern discrete GPUs, Anandtech posted a test showing Sandy Bridge's integrated GPU mostly out-performing an ATI 5450. So, it's now up to at least par with modern entry-level GPUs.

 

There was this video of a presentation by Intel where they demoed a Sandy Bridge chip and showed it to be better than a "Other Discrete GPU". But it was a presentation, they had to make it great. Maybe it was all smoke and mirrors. In any case, it is close/similar to what having i5 and switchable graphics, whether it performs well or not, since people who want discrete GPUs will get good discrete GPUs.

 

I read allot of negativity on these pages. But I think some people forget that in other countries outside the US the Studio 16 version with the ATI 5730 is not available. Here in Holland we only have that notebook with a ty Ati 565v. meaning it doesn't even perform at the level of a normal 5650. Now I'm looking for a new notebook where I can play decent games on (SC II, new MoH, CoD, Borderlands) and I am still doubting between the 15 and 17 inch. I have to take the notebook also to school with me and possible run some VM's on it. I just hope there will be some reviews on the GPU. In particular the 435 and 445 (445 = GDDR5 ???). So till that time I am waiting for a review.

 

I haven't seen any professional or credible reviews that support this notion that ATI cards run cooler or are more power efficient. In fact, the big complaint about the Envy line, which packed powerful ATI hardware into a relatively sleek body, was that the battery life was very short and the laptops generated a lot of heat.

People here are making the 5730 out to be some sort of miracle card that cranks huge performance, generates no heat and sips power. The studio XPS line had throttling problems because Dell's AC plug couldn't feed the power needs of the ATI cards.

And I see no reason to believe Nvidia cards will have poor performance. The Nvidia 420 scores 6k in 3dmark. It has 75% the fill rate of the 435 according to Nvidia's documentation. Anandtech estimates that the new gpus are nearly 50% more powerful than comparable 300ms. The 5730 puts out just over 7000 in 3dmark, and the 5830 in the Envy hits around 8000.

You people seem to assume the significantly higher clock speed and extra memory on the upper-midrange 435 will provide minimal or zero performance gain over the 420, which is a budget part.

I don't believe NVidia's 2011 upper midrange part will underperform ATI's 2010 part, while consuming more power. The Anandtech assessment of Nvidia's documentation seemed very positive about the chips, and their analysis suggests much more technical knowledge than many consumer posters here. ATI's 2011 6XXX part may beat the Nvidia, but the 435 should outperform the 5730.

I don't know that any of us are equipped to really parse the significance of the number of shader cores on a chip, or the bottleneck caused by memory bandwidth. What matters is the FPS the card can output in a modern 3D game. Comparing TDP numbers is meaningless. What matters is how long the battery lasts and how hot the system gets.

If this thing didn't outperform the Studio XPS 16, then Dell would not be ending that model line. Dell has significant resources tied up in production for Studio XPS 16, and if there was still value to squeeze out of that model, they'd be trying to realize it. It's obsolete. The build quality isn't competitive. The hardware isn't competitive. I think they think they've replaced it with something better, and the arguments I've seen to the contrary here seem baseless.

 

The laptop doesn't generate a lot of heat. In fact, the ENVY line has had good cooling systems IMO. The problem is that the laptop is a giant radiator. The all metal construction means that you notice the heat a lot more than you would on an SXPS 16 (even though the SXPS has terrible heat management).

To me, heat is irrelevant. The computer itself doesn't give half a damn how hot it is, but I do. As long as my working area is heat-free, I'm fine with whatever laptop I'm using.

 

I have been waiting for the release of this notebook for over a month. I, however, was wondering about the reason for bashing these affordable notebooks. Are they really that horrible (compared to other HP/ASUS/Acer) notebooks or they just fall short of meeting the (high) expectations of some board members. I have been religiously following poiuytr's posts hoping that he'd proffer some compelling reason for a 50-year non-gamer like myself to not buy XPS.

I hope to get some advice (before the Engadget guys publish their anticipated review of the XPS notebook family.

 

They're not horrible. I think the average person would be quite happy with them. Myself and some others are disappointed that they're a step down from the SXPS, which for me personally means that there is no longer a Dell laptop that would fulfill my needs (I don't like alienware). However, if you're not interested in a powerful GPU, or some of the style niceties that we became accustomed to with the SXPS, then they should do you just fine. They're still more powerful and (best as we can tell at this point) higher quality than the average laptop out there.

 

Thanl you so much, seeker_moc, for the prompt, lucid and comprehensive response to my quieries!

From your response, XPS 15 seems a perfect choice for me. I am very glad thatDell is offering the 720p display (I cannot see any text on 1080p notebook screen) (and even the new design) of the notebook). (As an educator) I even find the new design more fitting for me.

 

You're telling me an i5 outperforms a Core 2 Duo? Mind Blowing!
Your comparison was pointless. Of course a stronger processor matched with a weak graphics card is better than a weaker processor matched with a better graphics card--if you're not doing anything that requires graphic intensive work.

 

Well, kajouma, yeah, the main thing is a lot of people are saying they won't buy the XPS because they have been let down by mostly the specs/config, and less importantly the design. For me it would be the specs, where the majority of the new XPS laptops are predictably lower-performing than the Studio XPS 16, while certainly producing far more heat.

From our point of view, we didn't want a GT 420M (replacing GT335M) laptop. We wanted something as powerful or more powerful. Of course the desire for the 460 card was too much to ask for by some, but I expected at least something on the level or better than 5730/5830/445 for the XPS 15.

But no. All Dell offers atm is i7 and 2GB GT435M (which is no better than a 1GB HD 5730). I cannot order i5 + GT 435M so there is no Optimus. I do not want or need an i7, which for me (in a tropical country) produces too much heat. Even in colder places people complain about warmth, but much less frequently (and I don't see why they do, because if it just Rained Here my temps would drop by up to 5-10C, and if their temps were far lower than my room temp of high 20s then they should have nothing to worry about).

I did not like the way Dell "sales agents" treated me, but then they usually treat their customers like that, before or after the new XPS was launched. And yet I still continue to purchase Dell.

But on the plus side, if you only need something as powerful as GT 420M, which is pretty powerful already even for gaming and the heat could be improved, then this would be good because Dell warranty is good and you do not need to purchase i7 (or you can't, according to my country's Dell).

The only design improvement, as far as I can tell, is the location of the vent (not technically repositioning since it's new) which is to the side, unobstructed. Also, less plastic like SXPS and more metal. But they could have done more with the keyboard and touch panel.

Now, XPS 17 (for gamers and seriously heavy users) has 3GB GT 445M - again only with i7. But this is not GDDR5, so how much VRAM is useful is uncertain. But only a 900p display, which has put many people off.

So, there could be a 100 things Dell could have improved on, and they could have maybe fixed just a couple if they had thought about it.

But for yourself, you don't play games, GT 420M is already powerful enough to do that, so it's good for you (even the price makes sense, as the SXPS 16 was quite expensive). But then again, remember that SXPS 16 has better specs than most of the new XPS laptops.

Don't Buy XPS!

 

GKomega, I understand completely, because here they don't even have i5-560M for us as an option, and no XPS 17 entirely (no Studio 17 either).

Scandal, What was the reason for even using the GT400 cards? Because they are relatively very powerful? I highly doubt it. I think it's because they were new and Dell and Nvidia struck a small deal.

5730 may not be a miracle but it was good because it gave more for less heat - which is more than one can say for comparable Nvidia cards. 5830 would have been a good choice, others would've been too old.

Now, GT 335M was pretty good for gaming, it wasn't a poor GPU - temp management would depend on the laptop itself. But GT 420M is not the level of HD 5730, neither is GT 335M - the only one close to it is GT 435M which many of us do not want because we are forced to get i7, which is ridiculous. Plus we don't want the heat of the i7 quad anyway.

Throttling would not be because of HD 5730, just ask the users who had throttling. Throttling would be attributed to the vent being blocked, not enough power supply for the i7 quad in particular, and the SXPS 16 system.

The new Envys have better cooling systems and ventilation than before according to review, but buy its looks you can easily be skeptical.

 

Hi there, i´m just new in this forumn, came here researching about the new XPS line, as i just ordered one last Friday.

Of course i just got shocked about all this negative overviews on a product tha hasn´t even came into market; just a lot of people compalinng about the "paper specs".

Of course thist also brought some doubts to me about the accuracy on what i´ve just bought.

By the way, i live in Argenitna, we don´t get a lot of cool lap´s here very often.

Im´next to become an Industrial Designer in December this year, as i´m finishing my degree project, so i was wondering to replace my old n' good HP DV4 1413la (Athlon 64 x2 QL65, 2gb RAM, ATI3200 onboard, an believe me, with such "horrible" specs (you may say), she still rocks)

I mainly use my laptop for SolidWorks, photoshop and corel, so far now, i´ve only had limitations by managing complex SolidOWrks assemblies (it takes about 10 minutos to open a full assembly of a sailing boat); so i decided to move on into some better stuff.

The BEST option i found was the Asus n61jq (17 720qm, 5730, 7200rpm hd, 4gb ram), at u$s1675; and i was gonna blindly buy it... until las thursday dell came up with this new XPS line... (the Envy wicht a lot of users claim here, well, you can find it in my country at u$s2500.. i just can´t afford it)

Te config. i chose was: i7 740qm, GT435, 4gb ram, standard display; everything for u$s1725.

One more thing: the Asus was sold by some "private importer", i mean, it only had de Asus 2 year International Warranty, so, if there was any problem, it´ll must be shipped to USA for fixing, and only during the first year, shipping costs wil be absorbed by the seller (so if something came wrong during the second year of warranty, i would have to afford the sipping costs to USA, of course i couldnt do that).

By the other hand, Dell´s warranty runs in my country, 1 year of standard warrany + accidental damage too, everything fixed within the next 5 days.

Considering this, i don´t really think this new XPS line is some piece of crappy s**t as you most say aout there.

I dont´undersand your complains about the hardware, i mean, for people who actually work a lot on their lap´s, an i7 740qm must be awesome, i mean, i can´t imagine how fast i´m going to renderize with those 4+4 cores running; and over single-to-two-core applications (such as solidworks modelling calculations), the boost up to 2.96 (over the 2.8 on the 720qm) is very welcome.

Otherwise, i don´t see a real weakness on the 435m, if the 335m could handle some games up to mid-high settings well, what is the complain over a whole new line of graphic cards ina non-gaming laptop? Besides, if the 435m is aimed to equal a 5730, i don´t see any reason to complain.

And that last point takes me to the aesthetics issue. Some guy said there that things like this happens when you dont hire an Industrial Designer and let the engineers do all the stuff; and another guy saiys that he misses the led lights over de case... c´mon guys, to the one who misses the lights, go buy an Alienware, that´s what they´re ment for.

To the one who talks 'bout industrial designers... What part of this machine do you thikn was done by an engineer? I mean, it seems they're trying to put some aesthetical innovation out ther, all that "junky back" thing no one seems to like, i find it quite risky from their side, and sometimes we know that´s what design´s about, a paradigmatic break over, of course it always depends on consumers to like it or not, but i find it quite accurate.

Looking at te profile, damn, its very, very polished, the curve lines breaking at the half of the side are very interesting, it gives a stonrg idea of continuityand the "forward" display, when the machine is closed, it gives some layering idea, wich i certainly like; not to say the all set looks VERY professional with the anodized aluminiom finish.

And by the way, the "butt"... i just like it, i think it´s innovative, i mean, you can only find this on dells (adamo, vostro, XPS), it´s like some car brands head grill, a common designator over a whole line of products, i don´t see how bad it can be to habe this XPS related to the inspiron, or the vostro, it may be XPS, but stills being Dell (like, say, the 1, 3,5 series from BMW, they still the same brand, but different models aimed for different markets), maybe its thikness, well, i really HOPE that it´s thickness will provide some better ventilation (as i went for de i7 model), besides, i find the port´s ubication as a very interesting excersise to "move things back", you know, ther ehere they don´t bother you while working.

Maybe things change a little as you lift the display, it seems it´s like very near to the keyboard, and the hinghes, well they really call your attention, because they are so exposed, but maybe it could have been some kinda "design intention", tho "show" the components ant their roughness, maybe they found better results on thes kinda hinges than in the ones we found in the SXPS. One bad aspect i think its the unproportioned display bezel, yes maybe you guys are right about this, the excesively round edges on de display beze look awesome as the laptop´s close, but as you open it, well, it may take a long while to get used to them. The media keys also are a little bit useless, maybe at least some touch sensitive volume control would had been better, but i don´t see how that can be a real problem, like to ask "WHY DELL, WHY"...

Oh, and speaking about the display, what is all that big concern about "no full hd", or some people saying they just can´t live whit 763p... i mean, would this really come to be such a bad thing?...

By last, some other guy said there that JBL sucks because he had an Ideapad an it sucked... c´mon boy how can you compare them if you haven´t listened yet to the XPS? Besides, this one has got a subwoofer, and if they say 20watt on the 15' and 20 on the 15', i really believe them, that´s not a difficult thing to measrue, fi somene measures it after buying, and it doesn't boost up to that power, it can easeily be considered a fraude, an i don't think Dell to want that, after all the issues it had whit other series of laptosp (as you say here). And by software, it uses that waves algorythm, that seems to be promissing.

Talking about mistakes, somewhere i read that they've improved the power switch up to 150watt so it can handle the i7+gt power consumption, so it seems they´re learning something from their mistakes; lest hope this also comes into the ventilation issue, maybe here they can apply somthing learnt form the alienware series.

So, by the last, i still think that, at least in my country, for the price it arrives here, it stills the best choice (other coptiones besides the asus were a Toshiba 665 i7720qm gt330m; or a Vaio F series 720qm gt330m), so i´m just gonna wait for the machine to arrive, and of course, then i´ll share what happened.

Of course, i may be very, very wrong, and by the end of this year, i could have spent thos u$s1700 for nothing, but sometimes we must take some risks, dont ou think so?

PS: SORRY for the ridiculous extension on this coment, and for any mistake on spelling, it´s been really a long time since the last time i´ve written this amount of text in english.

 

for anyone interested in the construction of these xps's the
service manuals are online on the U.S. site.. looks like the base
is aluminum.

 

I don't understand the basis for your argument that Nvidia runs hotter. The heat generated by a GPU is related to the cooling solution, but the suggestion that Nvidia GPUs consume more power than ATI cards is one that I cannot find support for. If ATI cards were generating more throughput with less power consumption, then they'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops.

ATI definitely beat Nvidia on performance for cost in the last generation. But the new 435 appears to be made with the express purpose of beating out the 5730, and replacing it in that tier of 15 inch laptops. The 445 is the answer to the 5850, and if you are an intense gamer, the XPS 17 will likely edge the Envy 17.

The reason that Dell went with NVidia is almost certainly because of Nvidia's switchable graphics. With that technology, these laptops can boast a very long battery life. Nvidia also made its next-gen mobile chips available now; ATI's 6xxx won't be available for months. Dell would have been stuck with the same GPU that it had in the Studio XPS 16. The market for these premium laptops cares more about battery life and portability than gaming performance, and high-end graphics cards require large heatsinks and eat batteries.

The Envy 15 was marketed at gamers. It had a 5830 in a 15-inch chassis and it lasted 80 minutes on a battery charge. Dell will probably continue serving that market with Alienware, which is due for a refresh. There's also Clevo.

With the 435 GPU, though, the XPS 15 will outperform the SXPS 16. SXPS 15 systems with Blu Ray and lots of RAM are cheaper than comparable SXPS 16 systems were. And the option to match the high-end gpu with an i5 processor will eventually be available when Intel refreshes its chip offerings if not sooner.

 

Obviously the XPS 17 is bigger, but with a proper backoack that should not be a problem, I think. For running VMs the option to add more RAM is very nice. That is one of the reasons I went with the 17. There is also space available for a second HDD/SDD, which can be nice if you run a lot of VMs.

Oh, and the i5-460 ( see here) doesn't support all the VT options the i5-520/40/60 does ( see here). The i7 also supports all options.

I liked your long post with a founded opinion. Thanks for the positive and constructive contribution.

I am, do you have a link?

 

link for the xps 15

Documentation

link for the xps 17

 

for the xps 17

Documentation

 

edit: too quick with my link...

Thanks for pointing out there're here!

 

Sorry but I thought that both i5 and i7 processors in the new Dell XPS 15 and 17 have Optimus as they use the HM57 chipset. Previously in the Dell Studio XPS 16, i7 processors did not have Optimus as they were used in combination with the PM55 chipset which does not support switchable graphics.

 

Well, as you can see here the 740 doesn't have an integrated graphics chip.

 

Oh, silly me. Thanks for the link.

 

May be little off topic.

But lets convey the thanx to the OP fr0x, who started this thread. Initially some were saying its a fake news, but he had his source correct. So thank to you Mr fr0x and keep posting about inside news from Dell

 

Thanks smartcard!

 

Out of curiosity, why are you replacing an M17x with an XPS 17? Not that the XPS 17 is bad...

 

Huh...weird that you access the hard drive and RAM through the top on the XPS 15, although I guess it's not too bad they way they've done it?

The XPS 17 you do it through the bottom, which I prefer (AFAIK at least).

 

I can understand that question. I am having sooo many problems with my particular M17x, and Dell doesn't want to replace it again, so I asked for a refund.

I decided to go with a simpler machine as it turns out I don't need the hign-end graphics in the M17x, and I will do (most) photo-editing on my external screen, which is even better than the RGBLED of the M17x.

I bought the M17x as a full workstation, and while the machine in general is capable of that, my two 'copies' were riddled with issues. Returning it and getting an XPS 17 gives me plenty of power for working on the road, while also saving some money which will be invested in my desktop.

 

Sorry, now I've got the inevitable question, what kind of problems was it having? (I'm still in the middle of picking a system so I'm paranoid about all this! :-D )

 

I have seen both the S-XPS 16 and the M17x apart more times than I would like, and from browsing through the XPS 17 service manual, I think they have made some improvements in the way the machine is assembled. It seems easier to take apart.

Although the heatsink / fan might seem a little small, but I'd have to see it in real life to make a proper comment.

I think the XPS 17 will be a fine machine, and it will definately suit my needs.

 

Mostly ATI cards overheating to as much as 110 degrees Celsius, power issues, and assembly issues after tech support. The machine itself is great. I didn't really want to get rid of it, but my 2nd M17x literally fell apart because they had to open it so many times.

I couldn't get the same configuration without spending more money, so I didn't re-order the M17x (got a really good deal on my original M17x).

I would still recommend the M17x, if you're willing to spend that much money. It is solid and generally works well. After having used it for a few months, I do think it is too expensive for what you get though. The XPS gives you more value for money, in my opinion. I think the XPS 17 is the best of the three, at least for my usage pattern it is.

 

Thanks for the comments/info!

 

That's great. If only they offered XPS 17 in my country...

 

can someone please explain how they could not obviously offer the 17" with 1920x1080 res? could it be a mistake on the site?

 

i just tried to build a xps 15 on the website and in order to get the nvidia 435m you have to pair it with an i7. kind of a bummer since you have to pay extra for both.
same with the 17 inch and the 445m.

 

Actually in my country you are charged relatively less for a quad i7 than i5 or i7 duo. Like it's very expensive at basic config, but only a little bit more for i7. But I don't want i7 anyway. I'd rather pay for warranty.

Sucks that there's no dual core + GT435M on XPS 15.

 

I'm still shocked that people what dual cores in 2010 :-O

 

well my 1645 is a quad and i only get like 2 -2.5 hours of battery life for class. I do not mind losing the quad for another hour or battery life.

 

5 reasons
1.Super fast(higher base clock rate)
2.Super efficient(32nm)
3.Integrated graphics(optimus)
4.Battery life(quads are power hogs)
5.Only a few people actually need a quad core.For gaming higher clocked i5 is besT!
Do you want more reasons
ROFL

 

It's not like the Core i3/i5 dual-cores are slow, especially considering they have Hyperthreading. 2 cores, 4 threads, not bad at all. Especially the Core i7 dual-cores (i7 620M / i7 640M) which for some reason Dell refuses to offer in consumer machines.

 

Some people have had i7-620M in SXPS 16. Too bad the rest of us can't have that.

 

Agreed to the above reasons. I could've had a quad core, but I choose not too, especially for notebooks. If I was building a desktop, then yes, I would definitely go quad core, but for notebooks, I prefer dual cores for the aforementioned reasons, plus lower heat output.

 

I expect the GT 445M to be faster than the Mobility 5830. If true, that's a very impressive chip.

 

Actually the fact Intel leaves their quads at 45nm is yet another reason I hate their graphics push. The quads needed 32nm more than lowly dual core chips do. Even still, they're remarkably efficient considering.

The dual core chips don't even have on-die memory controllers anymore.

Unrelated...where are Dell's spare PSUs for the XPS line?

 

Are gamers still going to prefer the dual-core version of Sandy Bridge processors?

The i7 2620M is 35W and has the highest base frequency of 2.7GHz. When the time comes I think I'll be deciding between the i7 2820QM and i7 2620M.

 

Yes unless the price diff b/w dual and quad is really less(anyways the chances are slim).SB quad cpu's wont have any disadvantages that exist now.But if money isn't concern,then yes gamers will prefer sb quads anytime!
32nm,igp,low tdp,higher bace clock,hopefully better battery life,4cores=kickass mobile cpu!

 

I don't get what all of the complaints are about this line of notebooks. And i've seen some really wrong information posted as well.

Someone mentioned that these aren't wide screen notebooks, 15.6 inch screens, that's wide screen.

Some mentioned that the resolution wasn't high enough, 1920x1080 is 1080p

Someone else mentioned no USB 3.0 ports. That's only on the 14 inch.

Several of you have mentioned that the design is crappy. This notebook has side venting, and yeah it's thicker and a little heavier than most, but Dell notebooks have a history of overheating issues. Let's hope that has been fixed.

Also someone mentioned that the Envy's are better. The Envy's run hot and their battery life completely blows.

Dell is losing ground in the PC market place and they have been for years. Alienware is their top-end gaming machine platform, (and those machines are quite fugly IMO), HP's Envy line are THEIR top end gaming machine platform. (used to be Voodoo, was bout up by HP).

You guys are comparing gaming machine platform's to multimedia workhorse platforms.


The real question is whether or not Dell can build a reliable machine with reliable hardware, because quite frankly I'm tired of working on Dell's (Toshiba's too for that matter) that my clients bring to me wanting fixed.

And here's hoping they aren't using ALPS touchpads in these new devices.


And NONE of these machine's are rugged. If you want rugged get a Panasonic Toughbook.

 

Dang, that's a nice bump...basically 1.6GHz goes to 2.2Ghz for the base clock speed, and it should be at least 10% faster at the same clock speed.

I'll probably hate if I buy a notebook now, but oh well, I really do need it (and anyway the GPUs probably can't be bumped over what's available now).

 

As a late 30 something gamer (Xbox 360, not notebooks) There's nothing wrong with Dell's new XPS notebooks yet. We will have to wait for solid reviews for build quality and cooling, but people here are just mostly upset about the styling and the fact that Dell is going to push their alienware line for portable gaming rigs instead of the XPS line.

Personally, if the laptop stays cool to the touch, and gets 2/3 of the rated battery life from the 9 cell, I'll be quite happy with it.

My biggest complaint is that it doesn't have an island style keyboard. But we'll see once I get my hands on it and try it out, if I don't like it or it has build quality issues or runs too hot, it's going back.

 

Both my notebooks are Core 2 Duo's. I was planning on replacing the Core 2 Duo on the HDX18t (I call it Monster) with a quad core, but battery life is already pretty horrible and for a lot of what I do, such as transcoding, video editing, etc. The Video card works in conjunction with the CPU to pump out my work quite fast.

In other words, having a quad core would actually hurt me more in terms of heat and battery life. And 2 core Processors actually help in both of those departments.

The real bottleneck with notebooks are the hard drives and RAM these days. I'm always waiting for my friend's game to load while Monster is sitting ready to go because he only has 4 gigs of ram, and I have 8.

 

have we not been told the 17" does NOT have 1920x1080?

http://compreviews.about.com/od/PC-Gaming/fr/Dell-XPS-17.htm

 

45W TDP is "low" for a notebook?