[NEWS] Studio XPS 15 and XPS 17 !!

Try putting it in power saver when just checking email... it does wonders for heat and I can have it on my lap for hours doing whatever. It works.

 

Actually, based on the notebookcheck benchmarks, the 620/640 is only faster than the 720 in the single-threaded version of the cinebench R10 test, and the SuperPI tests (also single-threaded only), so my point is still quite valid. Although the 6xx may be slightly faster in single threaded tests, the 7xx are WAY faster in multithreaded ones... Plus, as multithreaded programs become standard (they nearly are already), the quads will leave the dual cores in the dust.

Besides, clock frequency isn't the most important thing. The 720 supports 1333 RAM, the 640 only 1066, so the quads have more memory bandwidth. The quads also have an on-die memory controller and larger L3 cache, for lower latency. Clock for clock, the quads are faster than the duals.

 

even if your assumptions are true (but I doubt it) and i7-740qm with 1.73 GHz clock speed is slightly faster than i5-580m with 2.66 GHz clock speed, the first one still costs $378 while the second one costs only $266. I do not think this difference in price is slight.

 

They nearly are already? Surely this cannot be valid. How many users use multithreaded applications frequently enough to justify use or purchase or an incredibly hot quad i7?

 

Don't worry about the Intel Bulk Price, these don't really translate into what Dell actually charges.

For a very long time Dell was selling the "low-end" quad (i7 720QM) XPS 1645 for ~$50 Cheaper than the low-end dual (i5 520M) XPS 1647, with otherwise identical specs. To upgrade to the fastest dual core (i7 620M) was like an additional $150, even though the Bulk Price of the quad was higher than the dual. So in total, it would have been $200 to "downgrade" from the quad to the dual (I know, it depends on usage, but my point is in Intel's mind this is a downgrade, and Dell is charging you $200 to do so). By the way, this was from the main Dell store.

 

Totally. Sucks.

They charge i5-460M only slightly lower than i7-740QM, without 6GB and 5730, but charge more for i5-520M.

I would like to upgrade to i5-580M. But even if it's actual cost is lower Dell is going to charge way higher than the lower quad for it.

Here: i5-540M + 4GB + 500GB + 5730 + OS CD + 3 Years Warranty (Not Complete Cover) = USD 1515

You guys in America have it great.

 

While you do have a point about multithreaded applications being no where near mainstream yet, the logic of not buying a quad over a dual because of the lack of them is flawed. High end duals are still faster then low end quads for most daily uses right now but the actual execution time difference is very minimal. In addition to this, multithreaded applications WILL become the rule not the exception.
Single and dual core processors are dieing. We have nearly reached our limit of the performance that we can squeeze out of single cores and currently the only real option will be to put more cores on processors. The reason we have not seen more multi-threaded applications is that they require a completely different programming approach. Many computer scientists have been reluctant to learn the new approaches required for multi-threading. As long as applications still make money without being multi-threaded, then business exes will not require them to be written this way.
This will change as Intel and AMD release processors with more cores. Software companies will be forced to write multi-threaded applications to stay competitive.
While it may take some time for this to hit the consumer level; I personally would rather buy a laptop thats performance will only improve over time, not degrade.

http://www.hardwaresphere.com/2010/03/31/intel-releases-8-core-xeon-processors/

 

OK, I can understand your enthusiasm for quad-cores, but what you can say about this -
mobile quad-cores are 45 nm Clarksfields (tock) and mobile dual-cores are 32 nm Arrandales (tick)
- doesn't it matter that current dual-cores have more advanced microarchitecture than current quad-cores?
or, what matters is only tock and tick doesn't matter at all?
Intel Tick-Tock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Well maybe they have the cores build on 32nm process, but the build-in GPU and memory controller are still on 45nm. Plus they have half of the shared L3 cache and slower memory controllers. Bear in mind that multicore CPUs do help a lot when multitasking even if the apps you're working with are not multithreaded. Also those quads do have Turbo mode as well and they can reach nearly the same frequencies as the duals. I'd myself chose an 720QM over any dualcore on the market.

 

From what I understand the only real advantage of the smaller architecture is that it allows a higher clock rate/speed. The clock speeds are already incorporated into the debate of i series dual vs. quad, so in this case, size really doesn't matter. I believe the smaller size has no effect in overall temperature or power usage.

 

Yeah, this what I thought matters as well current dual-core 32's were more advanced than the 45 nm mobile quad-cores.

 

actually, I don't care for Intel's current integrated GPU at all.

the same about dual cores - they also have Turbos.
and with Turbo i7-740qm can reach only 2.93 GHz while i7-640m reaches 3.46 GHz - it's not 'nearly the same' for me.

 

You guys make good points!

So when will we see 32nm Quad-Cores notebooks?

 

after mobile Sandy Bridge will be released.
and it will be very soon - Q1 2011 -

Sandy Bridge is expected to be released in Q1 2011.
The mobile Sandy Bridge version is expected to be released at the same time as the microarchitecture.
Sandy Bridge (microarchitecture) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Thanks, sounds good! I leaning more and more toward waiting for Sandy Bridge before I make a notebook purchase these months go by fast.

 

then what do you say to a pentium4 3.0 Ghz being a lot slower than my old core 2 duo P8700 2.5Ghz? clearly this indicates that frequency does not always matter. in fact, the comparison of frequency can no longer be fair if the processors have different number of cores and in this case dual i7s and quad i7s. Essentially, quad i7s and dual i7s have nearly the same speed (for now). Heck, even the core 2 duo P series speed is very darn close to the i7s. This happens because today's applications are mostly not designed to utilize these dual i7s thus making them look like they have the same speed as dual i7s(yes, quad i7 as well). To keep it short, quad i7s are faster than dual i7 but speed restriction (as designed in today apps) make these two seem like they have the same speeds

 

Well i feel curently higher frequncy dual core do have some edge over the low end quads but thats not gonna last long enough.

This debate of dualcore vs quad core is not gonna last too long as sandy bridge will put this debate to bed. Also by 2012-13 dual cores would be history.

Well can you guys please stop fighting on the dual core vs quad core debate as we are diverting away from the topic.

 

This is quintessential to the topic I believe.

Because we are discussing the options made available to us buyers in the new XPS 14 15 17.

Ideally it should be all the new processors, from i5 to i7, but only some countries provide such options. Heck, some countries' Studio XPS are still limited to T series Core 2 Duos and HD 3670.

I also think there's far too much hype about Sandy Bridge. Can anyone confirm they will be released in Q1 2011 (the mobile version!)?
Just like there was a lot of hype about i5/i7 being heaps better than the fastest of the previous C2Ds, this is likely an over-exaggeration.

If they are coming out as soon as Q1 2011, the mobile Sandy Bridge, then it is worth the wait, seeing as the XPS 15 on offer is set to have a base config of only GT 425M, and we don't know about the heat design, only a short while back I was using GT 240M. The Nvidia 3xx series has just blown by. Not to mention typically less hot ATI/AMD GPUs will be coming out soon, and because they were updated only earlier this year.

Those obsessed with processor size wait for the 22nm quad and hexa and octa cores.

 

agree.
we are talking about this only because Dell's new laptops will be released BEFORE Sandy Bridge is released.

 

I think it's pretty much a sure thing and noted on websites that Mobile Sandy Bridge processors will be released in January correct? At CES they will be official / Jan the 9th?


Unless the question is will DELL have SB in there notebooks in Q1? I would hope that would the case. The question still remains how soon in Q1? I would think the vendors would have the SB processors in there Possession by Jan 9 if not earlier. My cousin seems to think HP will be one of the first to put SB in there notebooks he say's they will have notebooks with SB at least by first week of FEB if not at end of January.

 

Why doubt it? The cache size, memory controller, and memory bandwidth are all part of the processor specs, not like I can lie about it. The cache size is important for speed, and the 1333 RAM does make a difference in bandwidth compared to 1066. Also, how would you explain this:

The 640 max turbo boot freq is 3.46GHz, the 720 is 2.79 GHz. That's a 24% higher frequency. However, in single threaded benchmarks, take Cinebench for example, the 640 only scores 18% higher. In SuperPI (single threaded) it only scores 9% higher.

Multithreaded, the 720 only runs at 1.6GHz, and the 640 runs a 2.8GHz, which 75% faster. However, in the same Cinebench, but now multithreaded, the 720 scores 12% higher.

Just because a GPU or CPU is higher on the list at notebookcheck, doesn't mean it's faster. You just can't rank things that aren't directly comparable in an accurate manner.

Now think of a situation when windows services are running, a antivirus is running, an e-mail or IM client is running, a internet browser is running, and you're working on yet another program. Those extra cores really come in handy.

Yes, the 32μm process means less heat and power consumption, but besides that there were no changes in the architecture.

 

I am sorry to continue off topic(Sort of) but frequency often times means jack squat. Its only one of the factors in execution time and performance. Frequency is how many clock cycles you are executing per second. How ever many cores you have, each run at the cpu frequency.
In an extremely rough example, say you had a dual core running at 2.5ghz and a quad core running at 2ghz. You try to run a program on these processors that takes say 15ghz worth of cycles to complete. If its coded correctly for multi-threading then the quad core can handle 8ghz worth of cycles in 1 second, where the dual can only do 5ghz worth. If its a program that is only coded for single thread processing, then yes the dual core will be .5ghz faster. Like i said this is a rough example and it does not exactly work like this, but you get the idea.

 

Ummmmm guys....

Dell Studio 14 (1458) Laptop Details | Dell

Dell Studio 15 (1558) Laptop Details | Dell

 

Those are just the regular Studios (with integrated graphics at that), not the XPS that we are talking about in this thread.

 

On the topic of the dual versus quad I'm gonna have to say that for right now the i7 duals are faster than the quads because many programs are not written to use 4-8 threads but in the future the quads will we much faster. So if you are going to upgrade in a year or two then get a dual because for right now it is gonna be faster but if you want your lappy to last 5+ years then I'd go for a quad as it would be more future proof. Thats how I perceive these CPUs,

 

I wonder if this will still be the case with Sandy Bridge.

 

The market seems to agree with you on principle. Did you know that the Core 2 Duo E8400 desktop chip is STILL going for $170, which was essentially its retail price at release over two years ago? When was the last time you heard of a computer component HOLDING its value for that long?

The reason why is simple -- as you said, the higher-clocked dual cores will outperform the quad cores because not everybody is taking advantage of all the cores. The market knows this. Gamers are eating up the E8400s because they're so much cheaper than investing in either the Core i5 or i7 architecture where memory and motherboards are significantly costlier. So demand for the chip keeps its price steady.

 

But has anyone asked the basic question? Why on Earth would Dell release a totally new motherboard with new chipset + processor only 3 months after this refresh? I hope they don't try to milk this refresh past Jan 2011 and actually release SB as soon as its available; its ridiculous to not offer switchable graphics a year after arrandale. Something tells me we will not see SB in these for much longer, look how long Dell kept using the 4000 series graphic cards, it was 6 months after 5000 launch on some models

 

I'm wondering the same thing. Releasing it with the current processors for only 3 months before a refresh seems like a waste and also p***es off a lot of loyal Dell customers. They're going to be angry when a few weeks after the 21 day return policy ends, Dell announces better hardware specs.

 

Basically, if Dell truly intends to get Sandy Bridge as soon as possible, then it will surely have it available at the time the mobile ones are released - which everybody is claiming to be January 2011, although I recall the mobile ones were scheduled to be released only slightly later, about Q2 or 3 - i5-460/560/580 and the lower voltage i3-i7s, people?

But Intel and Dell both will not release competition for their most recent products 3 months later. Typically every 3 months something new comes out but it is to replace that which came out 6 months or more ago. To assume they would roll out and sell Mobile Sandy Bridge as soon as this coming January would be like saying Ivy Bridge is coming out in Q2/3 of 2011.

Yes, the i7 has been out since Q3/4 last year, but the dual cores have not. The quad Sandy Bridges will be released (mobile version) probably earlier, then followed by duals.

 

According to the Sandy Bridge wiki:

January 9th Release http://www.nordichardware.com/news/...tart-selling-sandy-bridge-on-january-9th.html

Core i7-2620M (2.7GHz 2 cores) or Core i7-2820QM (2.3GHz 4 cores)?

Intel Roadmap

 

Let's discuss GPUs for a sec.

Do you think GT 435M will be an option for the new XPS 14/15?
Will the GT 435M outperform HD 5730? Some people claim GT 425M's specs will beat HD 5730 in the future. Or will they offer GT 445M with GDDR5, superior to the 5830 they have for Alienware? Or do I have to end up getting a monstrous XPS 17 for a humongous cost.

On Notebookcheck the 400 series GPUs are ranked by predictions, they haven't any scores on the 435 or 445.

 

The new HP Envy laptops seem to have the following graphics cards. What nVidia GPUs would Dell need to use to have similar performance in each size?

HP Envy 17: 1GB ATI 5850 GDDR5
HP Envy 15: 1GB ATI 5830
HP Envy 14: 1GB ATI 5650

 

btw, next week ATI is going to release its high performance HD 6xxx series of GPUs for desktops.
any info when mobile HD 6xxx GPUs will be released?
ATI released mobile HD 5xxx pretty soon (in 1-2 months) after desktop HD 5xxx.

 

if sandy bridge involves new hardware and is smaller and more efficient, wouldn't it be surprising if the casing of a release in a few weeks also is the proper size and casing for a sandy bridge laptop?

sorry if that isn't a good Q but seemed to raise my eyebrow..

 

Actually Anandtech said SB mobile is most likely coming out at same time. If you recall Dell was actually very quick to offer Arrandale chips (you could order in Jan 2010), its the GPU's that took forever. Either way, if SB wont actually ship until Q2/Q3 in these Dells no point telling anyone to 'wait' and make them think its coming in 3 months.

Still a bit curious why Dell went back to nvidia for these, the 6000 series should rock.

 

SB isnt actually 'smaller', the die size is 32mn same as current i5's.

 

Well, I hope SB will be available in Jan 2011 in these notebooks. I personally am not to concerned with the GPU's, but waiting till Q2/Q3 for SB in these that would be a big disappointment.

 

Look at the Intel roadmap I posted. Everything I've seen says both mobile and desktop processors will be available in very early January.

I guess things could change, but Intel usually sticks with what they have said.

 

Thanks, yes I saw that but the question is will DELL put SB in these new upcoming notebooks in very early January? I would settle for mid Jan-early FEB though, but Q2/Q3 that's too long.

It would be nice if DELL (actually all the vendors) would have a roadmap of when they will put NEW processors in there notebooks. Of course that would cause some put to hold off buying and they probably would not want that especially with the Holiday season this close.

 

Gotcha...yeah, I guess that's the ultimate question.

 

LOL, when will Dell reveal their plans?

No info about XPS and it's going to be sold this goddamn week.

 

Do you know if they will start selling them on 21st in UK as well?

 

If they don't, it'll be stupid for Dell cause HP and others will most certainly be doing it as soon as they're avail.

 

I don't think so. If they don't, that will be because of a marketing strategy/choice.

It 'll cost money to be among the first to get a new cpu/gpu whatever in your machine, because you'll be charged top price. The consumer will have to pay for this (prices will be higher).

If you introduce these new parts in your products say 3 months later, you probably pay a lot less, so you can sell your end product (a lot) cheaper.

 

So you give up three months worth of business to your competitors? I don't think so.

 

I agree, why lose three months to your competitors?

Also, what is Dell's history with bringing out new processors in notebooks?these? Did they wait 3 months before they put the the core i processors this year? what about 2009 processors and so on? Did they wait for those? I guess things can change but their previous history should give us a clue.

I just know there is going to be some vendor who is going to have SB processors in at least one of their notebook lines as soon as they are available if not HP someone else. I am not saying they will put SB in all their notebooks as soon as they are released, I mean maybe just their high-end line notebooks but some vendor wants to get the jump right out of the gate before their competitors.

 

That doesn't really make much sense. Initial release laptops are more expensive to you, the end consumer, because the retailers/notebook manufacturers mark-up their prices, not Intel. It's not like Intel directly charges their partners extra for the chips at launch. Tray chip prices that Intel charges their channel partners are constant.

Dell would lose out on the time frame they can charge their highest profit margins if they wait too long after initial launch.

 

Exactly. Why let HP and others take all the business from eager buyers? Dell would be absolutely stupid to not launch with Sandy Bridge until three months after competitors.

 

after 30 pages of discussion regarding this new XPS 14,15,17 my question still remains: What are the specs? LOL