===> The Official Studio XPS 1640 + ATi 4670 GPU Owner's Thread<===

It would cost about $375USD to get a hold of an aftermarket P9700. I would get it unless is going to stop you from getting a more worthy upgrade.

 

Does the upgrade benefit to gaming performance as well as multi-tasking? Extra of 0.27GHz and 3mb cache don't seem to worth that much

 

The 3mb cache holds the secret. That is whu the processor is much faster.

I gues it all depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to do processor-intensive work, then you shoudl do it. If it's games and other stuff then the 8700 will do just fine.

 

Ah, tried to get something using your solution, but still naught, and only 14 miles from my closest transmitter, need to rig a cable to connect to the loft aerial and try it again.

Was told by the Dell rep he'd get back by Thursday re. the upgrade, but not getting any response off him or his supervisor ... [RANT HERE], wait till Monday now.

 

I did use a main aerial too........sorry if I misled you. (no joy with WMP, even with the main aerial)

 

Hi all, I finally concluded benchmarking both systems and create a document for it. Have been quite busy with work lately, so I did not have a whole lot of time to create a truly spiffy document. Anyway, I think it provides all the info needed. If there are any more questions, the don't hesitate to ask!

BenchmarkResults_SXPS16_3670_VS_4670.doc

 

Thank you very much for your efforts! I do have one question - did your system come with the A10 bios or did you install it? I'm wondering if the temp difference has anything to do with that.

N

 

Well here's what i think:

Screen: SXPS 16 is better
GPU: G51 easily, it blows away the 4670.
Build quality: Both are good
Keyboard: G51 is chiklet and it features a number pad, the SXPS is psuedo chicklet. Both are good.
Looks: SXPS gets the edge.
Temperature: G51's 260m runs very hot, it hits 92C during games (max operating threshold is 120 C). It's within safety limits so nothing to really worry about. The G51 has a side vent so none of the heat will bother you. The bottom of the laptop stays cool during gaming and the palm rest is also cool. So for comfort in regards to thermals, the g51 easily wins.
Speakers: SXPS wins easily, the G51 speakers leave a lot to be desired.
Overclocking ability: The SXPS 16 is completely locked so it's the loser here. G51 lets you OC the CPU and GPU. It comes bundled with an Asus program that will OC it for you out of the box (or you can use setfsb to go higher). I just use the Asus powergear on mine and boost the T9600 from 2.8 GHz to 3.0 GHz.

Overall I don't regret my choice to switch at all. The G51 is better suited for my purposes but that doesn't mean it's better or worse than the SXPS 16. Both target different markets.

 

Anybody know where I can go to check to see if I really have the RGBLED? The screen is nice but I just want to make sure it is not the 16' WLED.

 

Go to Device Manager - Monitors - Generic PnP Monitor - Details Tab. The go to Hardware ids and it should say MONITOR\SEC5448

 

GUYS....GUYS...



Notice anything?! Oh, snap. I think I'm going to call Dell tomorrow. Don't think it's photoshopped, but the actual site doesn't say this.

~Ibrahim~

P.S. Cache info, though, is "incorrect". Wikipedia claims the i7-820QM should have 8MB of cache, not 6MB.

 

It does say MONITOR\SEC5448 so I guess I'm good. Thank you!

 

Good work.

Still a few remarks.

1) 1 sample with 3670 versus 1 sample with 4670 does not give conclusive information about an overall temperature trend between de 4670-systems and 3670-system. The same temperature differences are seen between 2 samples of 4670-systems.

2) First run of the 3DMark06 benchmark should always be rejected. After the first run a second run (and if desired: more runs) can be done but without exiting 3DMark06 in between. Only results of the second and following runs can be considered. So good that you did a second run! (as you can see, this really makes a difference)

3) Coretemp results after 3DMark are of no use. When cpu idles, temperatures drop very fast. A matter of seconds can make a big difference. As you can see the 3670-systems clocks are already lower than the 4670-systems clocks.
The temperatures should be logged during stressing of the cores. I assume that this is represented by the "High" value in the screenshot (=max temperature during run) ?

GPU-temp monitoring and comparison would also be very interesting (maybe even more interesting than CPU-temps).

I will try to test the differences between the standard 8.6 drivers from dell and 9.8 drivers for the GPU.

 

The new machine (with 4670 GPU) was delivered with the A10 bios. I did not upgrade it myself. I too was wondering if the temps had anything to do with that. There's no way I can find that out, as the A10 is not yet available so I cannot upgrade the 3670 machine to the A10 bios.

 

@1. I agree. Only 1 sample does not say anything about the thousands of systems that are out htere, but it's all that I have... And the results of the system totally depends on how Dell applied the thermal paste. Both machines are totally stoch though. I did not (yet) open up the machines to replace the thermal paste. Will do that (maybe next weekend) and see if that further improves the 4670 GPU system. Will keep you posted.

@2. Indeed, that's why I ran it several times. As a matter of fact, I ran it more often than displayed in the document, but for efficiency purposes I used only the first few runs. All later runs had about the same results, so I discarded those.

@3. My goal was to show the max temp, indeed. This show how hot the CPU got while running 3dmark. Unfortunately, the GPU temp is not displayed in the 4670 system. If you (or anyone) know of a way to get it to display, the please PM me or post here. I'll try and find the time to bench and add that to the document as well. That's also why I ran the stresstest (prime95, see chapter 8). On both systems the temp just kept going up. On the 4670GPU system it went up a bit slow than on the 3670 system, but both were on the way of killing themselves...

My conclusion is that I'm quite happy with the 4670. Not only performance-wise, but also temperature-wise. I think this system is going to last longer than the 3670. hope that comes true...

 

And the text isn't lined up correctly. I say it's 'shopped.

 

I hope it's shopped... Otherwise I'll be returning this system too!

Anyway, I just put both systems through their paces again with Furmark. Disco-Stu gave me a tip on how to monitor GPU temps on the 4670 system, so here goes:


I just ran Furmark for 5 minutes straight @ 1920 x 1080 (MSAA disabled) with Everest for monitoring the temps. Results:

4670GPU system had two temp sensors (MemIO and DispIO), which indicated 69 / 70 degrees celcius. The 3670 system had only one temp sensor, which displayed 73 degrees celcius. A difference of about 4 degrees (in the advantage of the 4670 GPU). The scores were as follows:
3670 system: 960 points
4670 system: 1248 points

Not too bad!

 

It isn't Photoshopped. I have a discount and EPP site through Target. When I was first looking at the SXPS (8/25-ish) the core i7 came up just like that on the EPP site. I called and asked why it wasn't configurable and was told that it was "maintenance" that caused the error. I checked the next day and it was fixed.

The mobile i7 is supposed to be dropping soon, so they have all the descriptions ready to go.

 

Is the mobile i7 going to worth the extra cost? I doubt I would be able to return my computer to Dell. Whatever I have plenty of power for my needs with the P8700.

 

This has been said before, but I will say it again. Before you consider a processor upgrade, or yet another laptop swap to get into a different processor, think about getting a SSD drive. I just purchased a 256GB Crucial CT256M225 drive for my XPS 1640. Boot times are down, and new windows pop open in a blink. I'm not a gamer, or even a performance junkie, but I have built a lot of PCs over the years, and this is probably the best upgrade I've ever did. The performance increase is that noticeable.

Fortunately I bought my SSD right before the prices spiked up, but they will come back to earth soon.

 

At the same time, you can do an SSD upgrade at any time. Waiting is actually better for SSDs because they will only get faster and cheaper in a short amount of time. I mean, I'm not trying to say buying an SSD is bad, but I think your logic would make sense in moving from a P8700 to a T9900: there, a SSD is much more beneficial. However, I feel this change merits a bit more. I mean, truly, you don't need the power right now for most programs, but a processor upgrade of this ordeal (a new platform, really) is a worthy wait. But, lol, the same can be said for USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s.

In short: the SSD performance cycle is pretty quick; new processors only come around every few years.

~Ibrahim~

 

I agree. I just purchased a T9900, and I'm strongly thinking of returning it and waiting.

It's set to release on 23rd of September, 2009, according to documents seen by X-bit labs.

Check this out: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...d_Core_Mobile_Platform_in_Late_September.html

 

I disagree with that statement.

Depending on what your doing, you won't notice that proc difference. Everyday stuff will be the same.

With an SSD, you'll feel the difference in everything you do on your system.

That, and I also just got a Vertex 60GB for $137 after rebates etc. So price isn't too bad anymore

 

Right, but you still got "only" a 60 gig drive... Barely enough to run the OS on with some programs...

 

True, a SSD is amazing! That's why I'm getting an X25-M 80GB G2 SSD.

Now, about the CPU's. I think a month or two wait for them isn't to bad. Of course, I'm not sure how long the wait will be, but sources are pointing towards, early October.

 

That is my point. I've done plenty of processor swaps to the same MB/System, along with memory upgrades, and the difference in everyday use isn't near as noticeable as when I swapped in this SSD for my 7200 RPM Seagate 7200.4. The only exception is a big GPU jump to the same system, but that only became apparent when gaming.

As far size, I keep all the big files (music, pictures, video) on a desktop running RAID 1. For my laptop, even a 160GB would have easily been large enough to tote around all of my documents, video, pictures, and enough m4a files to keep me entertained while away from home. Take out the multimedia files, and I could get by with a 60-80GB drive (and I did with my previous Sony Vaio VGN-TZ)

Processor speed over time has really slowed down over the twice the performance at the same cost every two years. The technology has hit a wall, so instead of speed, you add processors. But very few OS and even fewer applications are capable of fully exploiting multiple processors. It is going to take the software a while to catch up with the hardware. It has always been that way.

SSDs, as well as hard drives, or storage in general continues to plummet in price. Twice the capacity for the same price over a years time, give or take. Sure, an SSD is going to cost you more, but if you are waiting for SSD pricing to come down to the point where they are comparable to today's magnetic HDs, you are going to be waiting at least another 2 years.

 

Well, if you start reasoning like that, then why buy a system at all? You know that in two months time something faster or better is available at half the price you purchased it for...

For now my magnetic will have to do. I'm planning to throw in an SSD when the 512Gb drives with good performance figures (read and write around 200 Mb per sec) are available for around 500 euros.

 

I never said an SSD would be a bad upgrade. Every computer, I would say, used by a consumer will be hugely improved from it. But, if you have money to spend now, I would rather go for a new mobile platform (WHICH WON'T CHANGE until at least a year, minimum) than an SSD (which will improve in performance AND decrease in price in the next few months).

To me: if you have extra bucks, go for the new mobile platform. It's not because it's faster (because few consumers would readily tell the difference), but because it's not going to change any time soon, thus you're "ahead" of the curve. It also opens you for further processor upgrades down the line, if ever need be. I'd rather have a new platform laptop (and then an SSD a few months down the line) than a "old" platform laptop with an SSD now.

Yeah, you won't notice a difference now or maybe even a year down the line. But, you leave yourself open to future upgrades on the Calpella platform. The SSD can be upgraded at any time, no new laptop needed.

~Ibrahim~

 

NM, found out answer.

 

Maybe the i7 Quad in the SXPS 1640 isn't worth it:

 

Found a cable to plug it into the loft aerial, and it's picking up channels now .

 

Don't forget that the i7 procs also have an integrated memory controller, so that compensates the power hunger a bit. IMHO it's an option to go with the i7 instead of the Core 2 duo chips. One benefit is that you'll have more to upgrade later on, so your laptop will last longer. If now you get the basic i7 processor, you'll be able to upgrade to a faster proc in time. I for example do not have that option, as the T9900 is the fastest (and I think will be the last) processor available in teh Core 2 Duo platform.

 

True. I think I will return mine and wait until the end of October. I'm pretty sure they'll be added by then. I'm thinking resale value too.

 

This is exactly why I bit on the P9600(which was base price +$200). The T9900 is already a lot more money(+575 on base price), and the i7 has to be even more.

Couple that with a lot of programs that aren't optimized for quad core architecture and you have a real reason to just buy now and wait for later in the core i*'s life cycle.

The config I went with is more than enough muscle for me right now, I'm thinking maybe next gen i7's will be the next purchase I make.

@QuadAllegory:
If resale's a big factor, then definitely wait. You'll make up the initial cost on the back end. But you do have to account for the loss you'll take on the "early adopter tax"

 

I tried Dell. Guy didn't think you could fit an i7 in a laptop. So, no news and I can't change the order either: only cancel.

Well, I would've liked an i7, but I guess I'll "make do" with the T9600. What's the return policy for Dell, by chance?

~Ibrahim~

 

What do you guys think about the current 25% off sale? Do you think once it ends and he i7's are out, the price will jump a lot? I got a fully speced system for $2,350.

 

i7 won't make much of a difference in a 1640 since they are hard locked and can't be overclocked. Gaming benchmarks show no benefit at all to the i7's, in fact they are slower than current quads. They may help in certain applications (I haven't checked) but I doubt it's a significant difference. These CPU's will do well for unlocked systems like Clevo and Asus though because the i7's overclock like mad.

 

Yeah, but the 1640 doesn't even come with a Quadcore currently. So, it's improvement over the T9900 would be decent in quadcore application (future) most likely right? CPU's don't seem to matter much for gaming currently. But, they do for other things.

I mean, I could send mine back cause I think these i7's will be added in October. It would at least add resale value with the latest platform.

 

I hope the i7 mobile's run cool because the 1640's cooling isn't up to task for a quad core chip. iaTa tried and failed with it because it instantly throttled on him. They would need to do a fairly major overhaul of the cooling design. I haven't checked non-gaming results so I'm not sure how much benefit there would be in that area. I was tempted to wait on an i7 Asus but then I saw current CPU's maxing out the 260m and figured it was pointless.

 

Well I would think that if they're not offering C2Q's right now, that if they offer i7Q's they will make sure to upgrade the cooling or something. Otherwise, if it were going to mess things up and throttle, why would they sell it like that?

 

The XPS 1330 overheated like hell, killing mobos and they let it out the door. This wouldn't be much different, esp. with a new proc.

 

Hmm... That sucks. Maybe I should stick with my T9900 then.

 

If you need more CPU horsepower in multithreaded applications then wait on the i7 version of the laptop. If not, then the T9900 is more than enough.

 

Well, I don't really have to have it. But, movie encoding time with ConvertXtoDVD (which is x64 Quadcore optimized) would be faster I suppose. Also, the newer platform with upgrade potential and resale value.

 

Sometimes a man's got to be happy with what he has...

There's an economic crisis too, you know?

 

It's an endless wait for the next great thing...

 

My point exactly!

 

4670's not supported!

 

just FYI: my 3dmark06 results
(basic 1280x1024 config, Win 7 Pro)

3DMark Score 6646 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 2491
SM 3.0 Score 3061
CPU Score 2142

 

How often did you run the benchmark? Were your 3dMark settings at default?

The conclusion could be that in these tests with Windows 7 the GPU performs a little bit better than on Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (as your scores are slightly higher). Another conslusion could be that the T9900 scores around 650 points more than the P8700, in this specific case.

Once again, these are your results with your own installation. I ran the default Dell install of Windows Vista Ultimate 64Bit, which makes it uniform and a bit more reliable. Comparing the results between Windows 7 and Vista are only -sort of- reliable if I were to upgrade to Windows 7 on both machines and run the tests again.

I'm not planning on upgrading for now. I already have several VMs running Window 7 and that's enough for now. I''ll upgrade as soon as the final comes out, but I'm afraid I won't have the 3670 GPU system anymore by then.