===> The Official Studio XPS 1640 Owner's Thread<===

I've read some reports that say the difference isn't that much going to single mode. But I agree... I can't see wasting the technology and crippling the speed.

Go with 4 gigs now and upgrade in a month or two when the prices come down. Ram is something that can be added by yourself easily. Or if you have the money to waste go with 8 gigs and keep it a matched pair.

 

1. Run Command Prompt as an Administrator
2. powercfg /hibernate on
3. Restart PC

Then you should be able to hibernate

 

I turned off hibernation because it consumed a ton of drive space. And, it was way (way) faster for me to boot than to resume from hibernate.

 

This is how I did it, but Hibernate did not shut down the laptop properly on my first attempt, so I ended up disabling it again.

Is hibernate working fine for anyone else?

 

Can I ask a Vista question? Good.

Why is it if you're logged on as an Administrator, you still have to run programs as an administrator? Just doesn't quite make sense to me.

 

You have to disable Vistas UAC

 

Yeeeeah, but they've been way, way ahead for years. And no matter how fast this is, even if it was better than what Nvidia has had out for ages, ATi still won't support it, so it makes no sense to buy it.

Whoa! Now that's weird! Maybe it's because it has to read in a full 4GB? I've never hibernated on my laptop, but on my old desktop it was faster (don't have the option on my laptop, I guess without doing that command).

It's a good thing, and it's how Unix works (including OS X). It protects you from arbitrary code that may get on your system doing random things, since it still has to ask for permission. Basically running as an admin means you don't have to type in credentials.

You can, but you shouldn't. For one thing, some programs won't run like that. For another, you're disabling a major security feature. I don't even think they let you disable the equivalent features in OS X.

 

Wow, I've never heard of this before, and this is really news to me.

So you are saying that if you have 4 GB of ram installed, it is runs in dual-channel mode, but if you have 6 gb, it now turns a channel off, and it only runs in single-channel mode ?

Is this true for any system, including desktops, and other laptops ?

I'm going to have to look into this, because I need to have some sort of info from a website to believe this. I'm not saying I don't believe it, but I have never heard of this.

HP sells a 16" laptops, and the system comes with 6GB of memory.

Look at this system here:
http://h20386.www2.hp.com/CanadaStore/Product.aspx?pdetail=P71381&pid=C36581&

Now, if what you are saying is true, then this system they have put together with 6 GB of ram, is basically totally useless then ? and the ram would actually be SLOWER than if you only had 4 GB installed in the system ?

This is a bit alarming. - If anyone has any info, documentation about this phenomenon I'd love to read this guys ! thank you for any more info on this.

 

Sigh. Sure, it protects you from arbitrary code... but how often does one need UAC to do that? All the annoyances that it causes (having to run everything as administrator, having to press 18 dialogue boxes to open a file, save files etc. etc.) clearly doesn't make it worthwhile to have it activated. Even Microsoft realized that UAC sucks in Vista, and they've changed it quite a lot for Windows 7.

 

My current laptop is running a 32GB SSD with 1.2 GHz U7600; boots up in 20-40 seconds, way faster than resuming from hibernate. I see hibernate as really a stop gap solution to faster boot up times.

 

Right. You'd have half the memory bandwidth. That's true of any mismatched pair of DIMMs. You have to have two identical DIMMs (which is why RAM is often sold in kits).

Yes, aside from current Core i7 desktops that can support tri-channel mode. (Though the upcoming cheaper Core i7 platform will only support dual channel, and the first Core i7 laptops will only be dual channel.) I think the early Athlon 64 was the last single channel system around. I *think* you could still get one in 2004 (but Intel had transitioned a year earlier).

Well, like I said, Anandtech would be a good place, but the problem is dual channel became standard in mainstream systems in 2003, so you might have to do some digging to find articles about it.

Well it's far from totally useless, but yes, it would be slower than if the system had 4GB (or 8, or possibly even 2). I don't see the point in crippling a system like that, particularly when you're actually PAYING to have the system crippled!

Like I said, dig around Anantech's old articles, but this has been the norm since 2003, so finding good articles on it is going to be tough.

What they were going to do in Windows 7 would have made it worthless. There was an uproar over that, and thankfully the latest I heard they're leaving it full strength.

You should only rarely be seeing UAC prompts, and you should be glad it's working.

Whoa! I guess maybe it being flash makes it run like that? I should time my system, though of course the "boot to Start Menu" thing isn't really accurate as it's not really usable for a bit after that.

I randomly stuck my 2GB SD card in my laptop to use for Readyboost...in a 4GB system I doubt it's doing anything useful, but...well who knows, maybe it's shaving some time off something? :laugh:

 

Hi Wolfpup,

I think you are my newest best friend.

Crap - I had no clue HP would even do something like that, I find that terrible they would even offer a system like that, and it's really not funny.

I'm so glad I asked the question, and that you were there to help !

I'm going to steer clear of that system now !

thanks again !

 

premiere and after effects.

 

I thought that DDR only mattered if the bus speed was faster than the memory speed. Here both the memory and bus are 1067GHz...

 

I'm...slightly confused by what you're asking.

DDR stands for "double data rate", it has nothing to do with dual channel mode, which is what I think you're asking about?

And the memory and FSB speeds have nothing to do with each other, and nothing to do with the dual channel mode either.

 

I've been reading now, that if you are running a 64 bit OS,
that 6 GB of ram will not impede your system at all.

Any comments on this gents ?

 

Well I'd hope you're running a 64 bit OS with any amount of ram 4GB and up. It doesn't change the fact that the RAM will be running in single-channel mode if you have 6GB ram. The OS doesn't change that.

 

Perhaps I got the terminolgy wrong, but if the bus is limited to 1GHz, how would memory in dual channel mode make it faster? This info still has to get from memory to the processor, doesn't it. I would see the difference if the bus was 1GHz and the memory was 500MHz....

I'm certainly not a hardware guru, but I am concerned because I do have 6GB RAM in my machine, and I asked Dell specifically about the performance of 6GB.

 

Here, download this...run it and click on the memory tab. Does it say "Dual" and "Symmetric"?

http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpuz_150.zip

 

Yes, the memory says "Dual" and "Symmetric". It also says that it is running @ 532 MHz, not 1067 as I expected. Another point of concern is that the 4GB module is Samsung, but the 2GB module is Hyundai. I thought it was bad news to mix manufacturers like that???

 

532x2 gets you close to the 1067...you have to double the DRAM Frequency field. If it says "Dual" and "Symmetric", then your 6GB is running in Dual channel mode...interesting. I haven't really kept up on the latest tech in the past couple years, so maybe DDR3 can run in dual channel...or maybe it's the motherboard/chipset that allows it?? As for different manufacturers...as long as it's the same specs on each stick (voltage/timings/etc...), then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Yeeeeah...No. There's no connection between the FSB clock speed and the memory clock speed. On this system they happen to be the same clock speed, but that has nothing to do with anything, it's just coincidence. (And if you want to get technical, the RAM is actually clocked at 533Mhz anyway...which has nothing to do with anything.)

You've only got 1/2 the memory performance/bandwidth if you're stuck in dual channel mode, regardless of anything else. That doesn't usually translate to 1/2 the performance, but it is typically in the 10-20% range anyway. It's significant enough that you don't want to throw away that performance.

It's just going to depend on what you're doing with the system. For many games it won't matter, because your GPU will hold you back, so having more CPU power available probably won't make a big difference. For basic desktop stuff it won't matter, because it's overkill anyway. But for something that really pushes the hardware, you will have worse performance than if you had 4GB in there.

Was there any particular reason you got 6GB? Like I said earlier, I have a ton of programs open most of the time, and I've never seen my memory usage go above 54% of my 4GB. I'd see no advantage right now to upgrading to 8GB, but I would see a performance decrease if I replaced one of my DIMMs so I had 6GB.

Like I've said, I just don't see the point to running in single channel mode-and especially not with 6GB, where you had to pay a bunch more money for it over 4GB, and in return just got worse performance.

 

Yeah, better to stick with the same type (and better still the same manufacterer).

I think some recent Intel chipsets can run PART of the RAM in dual channel, which might be what's going on (or else it's reported wrong), but your overall performance with 6GB is still going to be worse than with 4 (or possibly even than 2).

 

I got the 6GB because I use the machine for VS development with 2 VMWare images running at time. This lets me give each VM 2GB, with more to spare for the host. I was dying with my old 2GB laptop (running the VMs @ 768MB). When I bought the laptop, Dell was offering 6GB for only $250 more than 4GB. This seemed like a good deal because it forced them to give me 4GB + 2GB modules instead of 2 X 2GB. I priced the 4GB module @ more than $500 on the web, so it seemed like a no-brainer.

What do you make of the CPUz application showing that the memory is DUAL?

 

I already mentioned that in an earlier post-part of your RAM may be in dual channel mode, but not all. That's supported on some newer Intel chipsets I believe, but you'd have better performance with 8GB.

$500 is way too much for 4GB, even direct from Crucial. Should be under $400 (I've seen closer to $300, but Newegg's sold out right now looks like).

It'll come down more though.

 

Is the extra warranty worth it from Dell? They Charge $149 canadian for 2 more years for the studio 16.

Any one know when the 9 cells is available in Canada for the Studio XPS 16?

Thanks.

 

I think it is worth it because I usually upgrade my laptop every two years and it is easier to sell it if you still have a full warranty left on the system.

John

 

Several pages on dual channel, maybe I can help put it to rest.
I've always built my systems with dual channel matching sticks (usually kits).
Here's a decent explanation of what it is and how it works.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/133/1

But this whole double bandwidth is academic not realistic. Does dual channel make a difference? Yes. Especially to those that want every last ounce of performance.

Although in the "real' world it's performance is often miniscule and quite dependent on the applications functions and memory usage, it can be pretty negligible in cases.
I don't know of anyone that has actually tested this specific platform.

I won't just leave you with my words, here is an example of some real world results: (click several pages to see results)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING,1705-11.html

Now to anyone that will be requiring beyond 3GB, large video projects, especially BluRay, then absolutely get the 6GB or 8GB. There is a huge performance effect for video editing when you exceed your system RAM, in those cases dual channel is the least of your concern, you need more memory. For someone who doesn't need 6GB, that's easy, don't buy it.

As to whether dual channel should work with different sizes of RAM, maybe the newer DDR3 memory controllers can do it. CPUz should be pulling it's data from the BIOS registers so it's likely accurate.

Moral of the story:
Without dual channel the worst case scenario will be a few percent performance, but it's often not evident.
If you need beyond 4GB, then dual channel shouldn't even give one concern, get what you need unless you want to see real performance degradation. When people have an option then dual channel is good, but it's not good enough to offset not having enough RAM.

 

Should I cancel my order? My laptop was scheduled to be shipped today. just got an email saying my order has been delayed.

but the current status online says: in production
and when i call it says "in the boxing stage"

I'm confused. been waiting to long for this - ordered it on Feb 20,09

 

What will canceling do for you? Now you will have to order something else and wait for that.
I would call them and ask them, then having a bit more patience may be all you need rather than reordering something else.

 

do you think i should stick with my 6gb then? I am using it for video editing...

 

Maybe get a better deal on the same machine? Any coupons out there?
I ordered the following:
Intel Core 2 Duo T9550(2.66GHz)
4GB, DDR3
Regular screen
320GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
8X DVD+/-RW Slot Load Drive
Intel WiFi Link 5300
Total damage : $1500.60 (Shipped)

Think I got my moneys worth? Might reconfig to get a 128 SSD and HD screen

 

Do you have it already? Then you can open one of your projects and check task manager and see your usage.
It also depends on your application and what format. I'd suggest going to the forum for your editing software and ask around there, as people will know what that package uses.

The difference in performance may be so negligible it's not funny, especially if it is somehow using dual channel for certain virtual address space as CPUz seems to show.

Until someone tests it on this particular platform all we have is speculation, and at the worst case scenario it's very likely you will not palpably notice performance tank.

 

I disagree. And there's lots of things OSX won't let you do that you can do in Windows, which is a major reason why I use Windows. There aren't any programs that requre UAC.

 

I had previously put in an order; but, cancelled after they delayed for some unknown reason. Anyways, i placed another order yesterday and ended up paying 100$ less with the same specs and the following upgrades:

p8400 --> p8600
128 ssd --> 256 ssd

... with the improvements in production, by the time it delivers, it should be about a 1 month difference.

 

but you got a p8600, my config was a T9550(2.66GHz)
for the 128 ssd they wanted $200 more i said no way get the 320gig HDD

 

Oh yea, im just saying sometimes it works out better to reorder; esp. if youve had a long production period and a then a delay. If i had kept my previous order, i would just have received it last week.

 

Those benchmarks are GPU bound. Like I mentioned before, if your GPU is the limiting factor (and assuming you have a real GPU) then memory bandwidth on the CPU doesn't much matter. That's NOT the case for video editing though.

No, worse case is a more than 20% slowdown. I don't know how it's going to effect video editing on these things, but educated guess it would show a fairly large difference.

Yeah, but that's rarely the case for 4GB systems (and if you're using a $1000 program, and really need <4GB, you should be getting a quad core CPU and 8GB anyway).

I wish I knew how much those programs really use. The actual encoding process wouldn't need all that much RAM. That Premier claims it requires 2GB, so...who knows.

Then too, the more CPUs you have the more memory bandwidth you need (if they're actually being pushed).

I like Windows better too, but regardless UAC is a good thing, and there are programs I've run across that won't run as admin (which is weird, but I've been helping some people with some oddities).

Regardless, UAC is a good thing, and it doesn't get triggered much anyway. You're putting yourself at risk turning it off.

 

how did that work? is it because the price dropped? or another rep offered you a better deal?

 

...stupid purolator was supposed to deliver tomorrow...they called again and delayed it a day

 

If you think it's worth it is.
the 128GB SSD and 256GB SSD are very different, the second one is a beast. get the 256 if getting one at all.

 

Don't cancel if you still want it. It is in boxing! They have to send out the email if it might be late... even one day past what they told you. I received the same email while in boxing and it was delivered 2 days past the estimated delivery date.

 

It is true for every system. Do you remember when computers would only accept matched pairs? They changed that but with a price of losing some speed. It isn't half by any means, more like 10%. But if you are doing something that is memory intensive it will be 10 to 20%. If your program needs the ram then you will see a benefit... like video editing. If you are gaming then you'll see better fps from dual channel.

Here's an explanation of how it works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-channel_architecture

 

I can't help people that are done learning but...
PCMark05
Sandra
3D Studio Max
Winrar
Lame
Divx
Xvid
H.264
Sysmark 2007

Those are application based tests, including video editing, if you looked.
You can keep talking theoretical if you like. No doubt you can find one application out there that gets a penalty, but none of those do not even the synthetic ones like Sandra show much.

 

Only if you don't know what you're doing, IMO.

 

Agreed. I've never liked UAC.

 

In my particular case, they were back ordered on "some part" (most likely the p8400), production hadnt even started, and they wouldnt give me a firm shipping date.

So, i just canceled out right (the original Jan 26 order) and placed a new order yesterday.

 

I don't know what the deal is with those tests, but those aren't what you normally see in tests at all. It's more typically 10-20% if it's primarily CPU or memory bound.

If anything I think it's the reverse. If you know what you're doing, you'll know not to just randomly approve UAC messages. You'll know if it was supposed to happen or not.

They don't trigger that often, and you shouldn't be running as admin, so they're a really handy way to escalate privileges for things that actually need it.

 

I'm a system administrator with many years in the business. I know exactly what I'm doing and I don't need Windows to question it all the time. And yes, it does trigger often, and Microsoft has admitted their failure with UAC in Vista (and it would surprise me a lot if they don't keep it the way it currently is in Windows 7). It's only annoying and unnecessary. The only people that would get saved by UAC are computer illiterates that really just don't know what programs they're running.

 

What the big deal with UAC? I turned it off within the first 30 mins of first boot up and havent seen a message since.