Dell Studio XPS 1340/1640 now available for purchase on Dell's site !!!

So why do manufacturers keep on providing 1GB memory even for the low end cards? Isn't this knowledge common to them?

 

Ok, I got it but it's new for me to learn about bit and memory.

For me, it's obviously that 9650m GT with 1 GB isn't better or powerful as 9800m GT with 512 MB.

 

Marketing. When a complete computer noob sees a 8400M but with 512MB of vRAM, they will think it's better than a 3650 with 256MB, as they have no knowledge of the numbering system so they refer to the thing they understand: megabytes.

It works. Some stores advertise their laptop's GPU not by make but by Memory. For example: 512MB DEDICATED Memory!!!! This attracts buyers.

 

One flaw in this theory - memory doesn't come for free. Not sure if marketing cost cover the aggregated cost of useless memory on all those cards.

Btw: Nvidias Quadro FX 5600 has 1.5GB memory on board, yet the interface is only 384bit. With a 2999 USD price that I guess it isn't targeted towards complete computer noobs. What the deal with this one then?

 

Very interesting stuff. I've read in a couple places with arguments about this... someone used a good example about "bits" as a parking lot full of cars... and memory as a road or something... I'll try to find it.

 

Yes it will. Extra memory is very cheap when you're making the original card already. Example: Gateway P-7811 FX. They changed it and it became the P-7801u, bearing a pricetag $300 dearer and nothing but a different HDD and an extra 512MB. Gateway knows this extra 512MB does nothing but in the face of the P-7811 FX's main consumers (people who want to game but can't afford Alienwares or Sagers) this 512MB makes the deal even sweeter.

I don't know about the FX, I thought it was a 512bit card Seriously guys, I don't fully everything either, PM some guys like Willy S or post in the Gaming section it if you still don't understand.

 

We're talking about card in the sub 50$ level, not laptops.
The gateway is not a good example - it's doesn't have such a widespread gaming reputation as other brands and it's actually favored by people that do have some computing skills.

Even if it was 512 bit then that still leaves out 512 MB unusable memory.
I know memory bandwidth/interface is important, but never heard of unusable memory levels.

 

The Gateway is extremely popular, due to the fact that it is available at all Best Buys and is dirt cheap.

Ok, to round it up.

This is a very common train of thought – more video memory must mean better performance. This is not true – the video card itself matters much more than the memory it has.
In this case, both cards have the same performance. The 8600M-GT DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH POWER to use more than 256MB of memory. It has a limited 128-bit memory bus. Only cards with a 256-bit bus or greater are going to be able to use more than 256MB of memory. It is not worth spending any extra money on a mid-range card like the 8600M-GT with more memory. There is no performance gain to justify the price.
Why can't it use more memory effectively? Here's a primitive example. An office worker can use a maximum of three computers at a time. If he is given an additional three computers, is he any more productive? No, because he can only use three of them to begin with. The extra three do nothing.

 

Not only that, I have 2 friends at CES and although they are not there for laptops, I asked them to peek at the various venders.

Their comments about the Dell 1640 (the didn't see the 13" for some reason) was that it looked fairly silly. They said the leather looked like a bad handbag and others I guess near them were commenting the same. They couldn't figure out why leather on a laptop, then shiny gloss.

And then I realized Dell's own adds first mention the looks of the laptop, then they start to talk about it's features.

And when I read the CNET article questing why Dell did this vs. focus on better performance components, I have think I know the market share this laptop is focused at

First bullet point from their advertising:

Premium design with genuine leather accents, anodized aluminum, edge-to-edge display

Second bullet point:

16" ultrawide 16:9 aspect ratio with 1080p HD support & optional RGB-LED for brighter and more vivid colors

I think for most people that mostly watch movies, listen to music, and surf the web, these should be powerful enough for those tasks. I guess the fact that they tagged the XPS name onto the laptops isn't fair to the true XPS users I know who don't like this at all, and although I don't own an XPS, I'm not a fan of this either :/

 

It's funny how we all get hyped up over computer interiors and parts that are supposed to at last do all the work that we've been doing on computers since the nineteen-nineties.

I don't know about you, but I've been doing this on my 1.6 Ghz Centrino 80 GB HDD ATI X700 Acer for the last three and a half years. And when I visit my mother-in-law, I'll do it on her $499 Inspiron.

Sounds like religion to me.

No offense!

 

Dell should have waited for the 4670s, but then again, the company can just add the GPU as a premium upgrade over the 3670 at a later date, for even more $$$.

All according to plan?

 

Hilarious explanation (and of course totally bogus).

A card that comes with 512MB GDDR2/3 Ram will always be able to use it, no matter if the memory access path is 64bit, 128bit or 256bit wide.

What of course is the problem here, is that a card with a 128bit memory bus is performance constrained by the speed that this memory can be read (because the bus is narrow). Therefor adding more ram will usually not increase performance on those cards, because when the card's speed sucks it doesn't really matter how much ram you got.

 

Agreed, it is a moot point. With 1920x1080 your tied to the HD spec and ratio. Ok 16:10 was as well, but I suspect there is a financial benefit in going wide 16:9 in production.

It is a shame because i'm sitting in front of a 4:3 15" screen and it's taller than my 18.4" sony. And being 768 high, only 250 pixels off the latest all singing & dancing screen, despite being several years old.

Agreed, there needs to be a larger res, or a different format... but the way things are going, I won't hold my breath.

 

It's very true...

apart from the speed and ease, there hasn't been a lot of fundamental change in capability.

 

I agree with Lack, the Dell setup guide for the Studio XPS 1340 states that it is capable of handling 4GB of memory max (page 51). Here is a link to the manual:

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/sxl13/en/sg/sg_en.zip

As for the optional graphics, the rep I spoke to insisted that it was a 9500m. When I told him that there is no such thing as a 9500m and that it had to be a G or GS (as well as the fact that Apple put a "9400m" in their MBPs when it was in fact a 9400m G) he said it is a G. When I pushed him further he asked his tech advisor and was told that it is a 9500m GS with GDDR3 memory.

In the setup guide it states that the discrete graphics controller is a 9500m (9400m G + 9200m GS) on page 52, which is even more confusing. Does anyone want to corroborate this?

Finally, this rep said there would be no bluray for "a few months if ever", but it felt to me that he was just trying to get me to buy on the spot.

The service manual may be useful to those itching to get a look inside the 1340:

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/sxl13/en/sm/sm_en.zip

The same info for the Studio XPS 1640 is here:

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/sxl16/en/index.htm

 

I was so close on ordering the Studio 17 last month and then I waited ....now I'm having second thoughts on the 16" XPS...

My main gripes are the res which has been bought up in this thread as well...

1368 is too low for a 16" screen
1900 is too high for a 16" screen.

I'm totally surprised that Dell chose to go with 1368 on the 16" instead of 1440 which is little higher. And no choice of a middle res either.

The $200 GC does sound good cos I can always EBay that for around $150 so actual cost of laptop would come out to $1300ish.

I'm still deciding whether to go with the 16" (1368 version) or the HDX16...........

 

Personally I want as low a resolution as possible. That 1368 sounds just fine to me. I mean geez, it's the same as my TV, and that's 32".

Compared to that HP, I'd say the screen's better, but the GPU is a bit worse, both in performance and of course drivers.

 

I just ordered one!!!

Spec's


XPS 1640, Intel Core 2 Duo P9600 (2.8GHz/1066Mhz FSB/6M L2 Cache)
8GB, DDR3, 1067 MHz 2 Dimm forXPS 1640
16.0 inch Wide Screen 16:9 1080p FullHD RGBLED LCD W/2.0 MP, XPS 1640
ATI Mobility RADEON M86XT - 512MB
320GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Ultimate 64-bit Edition English

Very powerful!!

 

hey if somebody has a XPS M1530 and is ordering this one,please do me a favor and compare the two(especially in terms of weight and heat) side by side,my friends are asking me about the two

 

Why do say 1900 is too hign for a 16 inch screen?

 

I had the original 17" XPS (gen1) with the 19XX screen and found that too high (I did increase the windows DPI that still found I had to squint my eyes more often than not). Maybe it's just a personal thing.

I much prefer 14XX or 16XX res for laptops.

 

Second that:yes:

 

Dude, seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about. STFU now before you start spreading more BS.


=|

 

There's certainly SOME truth to saying lower end cards don't really benefit from more RAM, but obviously these things do still benefit from more than 256MB.

I've seen this weird thing lately where people actually think these cards can't access more than 256MB for some reason.

 

I have the XPS Gen 2 which also is 17" screen and i don't have a problem with squinting or usability using the 1920x1200 @ 96dpi setting. In fact I became more productive with the extra screen real estate. So I agree that maybe it is a personal thing. It will be somewhat of a challenge for me to use any resolutions lower than 1920x1200.

I started to travel more the last year or so and now in the market for something smaller and lighter. So I have been mentally preparing myself for using a lower res setting for the sake of portability. However I think it makes sense that for a laptop smaller than a 17" or 16", the objects will be viewed as ridiculously small on a 1920x1200 res'd screen.

 

Have you used a 16:9 screen with WXGA? It's not bad. I'm using it now and I have no complaints.

 

Uhh... sorry kid, but he's right.

He gave a great example as well. A 128bit video card cannot utilize more than 256MB of vRAM.

 

Why would you think that? Of course it can use more than 256MB. The amount of RAM it can use has no connection with the width of it's memory interface.

 

Jesus christ. It's like a moron convention in this place.


=|

 

Why Cant We Be friends ? Why cant we be friends? Sound familiar?

 

Good job posting some arguments OTHER than "yes it can, moron."

Nice.

From the front page of the Mobile GPU Thread by Chaz:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=302231#IZ

"This is a very common train of thought – more video memory must mean better performance. This is not true – the video card itself matters much more than the memory it has.
In this case, both cards have the same performance. The 8600M-GT DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH POWER to use more than 256MB of memory. It has a limited 128-bit memory bus. Only cards with a 256-bit bus or greater are going to be able to use more than 256MB of memory. It is not worth spending any extra money on a mid-range card like the 8600M-GT with more memory. There is no performance gain to justify the price.
Why can't it use more memory effectively? Here's a primitive example. An office worker can use a maximum of three computers at a time. If he is given an additional three computers, is he any more productive? No, because he can only use three of them to begin with. The extra three do nothing."

 

I have very little patience for stupidity.

It's easy to make a mistake about whether or not a card can access memory. Fine, we all do it.

However, it's just plain stupid to use ridiculous examples about workers using computers, completely misinterpreting said example, and then calling it a "great example." It's even more stupid to make all those mistakes while prefacing your comment with an insult like "sorry, kid...."



=|

 

Dude...please stop.

That example is ridiculous.

I hope you understand there's a difference between being UNABLE to use extra computers and NOT BENEFITTING from using extra computers. The worker can very easily use all the computers...he can get up and sit in front of another PC. Will he be more productive? No. But can he use all computers? Yes.

Please use analogies correctly. The extra memory can most definitely be utilized. Whether or not more memory increases performance is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE.


=|

 

No, I haven't, to be honest. A while ago, I bought the 17" Gateway FX from BB with the 14XX res and I found that perfect but the screen and build quality was terrible so I ended up returning it.

With the $200 Dell GC promotion thrown in this right now, I'm seriously considering the XPS 16" with the 13XX res.

Thanks

 

Is that still valid? The gift card doesn't show up on the summary anymore.

 

All right, now we've beat everything concerning "OFFBEAT" that was before in this thread.

Insults always help.

 

Ok, so... at any point in time, the worker can use up to 3 computers, doesn't matter which 3, but at least 3 will NOT be in use.

Say a card has 512MB of memory. Sure, the card can utilize either the first 256MB or the second 256MB, but BOTH parts cannot be used at once.

There will always be 256MB of memory NOT in use on a 128bit card with 512MB of memory.

I understand the analogy perfect, as does Chaz I'm sure; as he is the one who wrote the page.

 

Hey guys, stop the stupid discussion about screen resolution, video memory, etc. Focus on 1340 and 1640.
By the way, Adamo has just been released as well...

 

I do not agree with your interpretation of the analogy because it implies a technical restriction that prevents the card from using the memory. However, I don't see the benefit in arguing further. I concede the point.


=|

 

and here it is http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/09/live-from-dells-adamo-press-event/

 

That's incorrect. All 512MB (or 1GB, or whatever) can be accessed at once. The memory interface width has nothing to do with that.

 

Might aswell leave it alone, it's just cluttering up this thread..
If he wants to think it cant use it, then let him..

 

You didn't really argue. You called me stupid and a moron, and basically said I was wrong without presenting any form of information to support your claim.

If you were to present some sort of evidence, great. But, don't just tell me I'm wrong without meriting the claim.

Good day sir.

If this is true, why has the FRONT page of the Mobile GPU thread remained unchanged?

 

I wish... Looks like they were just showing it off. Won't be out until later this year me thinks.
Since I've decided against the SXPS 13 for various reasons, I'm ready to start looking for the next big thing. I wish somebody would start an Adamo thread already. I miss all the specualtion and hype.

 

I have no idea. I don't know what thread that is, or why it says any particular thing, but that's completely false (someone should correct it). There's no connection whatsoever between memory interface width and the amount of RAM that can be used. You could put 300TB of RAM on an 8-bit connection if you wanted to.

I've heard this repeated before, and my suspicion is it was made up by someone who sort of half understood the situation.

It's true that with any GPU, randomly slapping tons of RAM on it doesn't make it perform any better past a point. In particular, lower end GPUs often can't really make use of as much RAM as a higher end GPU, simply because they can't use as high of resolutions, as much AA, as many textures, etc.

I don't know with these Geforce 8600 class GPUs exactly where the point of diminishing returns is. I'm sure they don't need 512MB as much as like an 8800 class GPU does, but they CAN access all of it, and it would provide at least some benefit (particularly as games expect more and more video RAM).

 

I am about to order a XPS 1640. Today i have a XPS M170 with a Geforce Go 7800 GTX. I've had it for oer 3 years and it still performs very good.

I checked the new card för the xps 1640 (ATI 3670) at notebookcheck, and i'm very surprised that my current card (7800 GTX) are faster !?!

How is this possible? Can someone explain that to me? Should i wait to buy the xps 1640 till they offer better card in it?

(sorry for my bad English)

 

Wolfpup: Is there any information to back this up?

 

Like what? It's going to be hard to find something "proving" that a GPU can use all the RAM is has, since that would be as weird as posting as ATi or Nvidia confirming that their GPUs will work on blue add in boards. Both companies list RAM their various GPUs can address though.

If someone wants to make the claim that for some reason a GPU CAN'T access all the RAM it has, they're going to have to provide some sort of proof, or at least some reasoning.

The whole idea is pretty funny to me. I'd love to find out why they think it can only access half (or a quarter) of it's RAM

Because the 7800GTX was a high end card when it launched, and the 3670 (ie Geforce 8600 class) was about the same at best when it launched years ago...and it's still about the same.

The equivalent to what you bought now would be a Geforce 9800GTX, not an 8600 class part.

 

How does the 3670 stack up against the 9600 in the HP HDX16....gaming-wise?

 

O, GOD. Somebody please ban those guys talking about the benefits of more/less video memory and higher/lower screen resolutions !!! Seriously, enough!