Exclusive: APC reviews the Dell XPS Studio 13

http://apcmag.com/australian-exclusive-dells-xps-m1340.htm

all in all, APC seems to think it's a competent 13" notebook in general. however being an XPS i think people expect more from it. without a good GPU, beyond a slight difference in size and superficial cosmetic differences, what's the point if thats achievable in something slightly larger and cheaper within the Dell family or even better in the same size, out of it? never mind the initial bugs that seem to be cropping out from it.

eta: it's also funny that APC picked up on the deceptive naming of the 9500M GE. whether it's Dell's, nVidia's or a collusion of the two, most likely the latter, it was a cheap transparent gimmick. the 9500M GE in an XPS 13 is no where near the level of an actual 9500M GS card.

 

Such a lame statement, afaik only the LG P300/310 laptops get higher than this in the 13.3" category of laptops.

 

i'll admit the geforce 9500M GE occupies the higher end of the lower class cards typically found in 13" laptops. but the fact that LG was able to shoehorn a 9600M GT into a 13" chassis in the form of its p310 is equally dam*ing.

Dell could have done so much better, but didn't. and there's very little out there that will differentiate between a 9500M GE, 9300M GS or X4500. it becomes an exercise in splitting hairs. instead it feels like Dell and nVidia were trying to take advantage of the public's ignorance through nomenclature.

 

I think the difference between 3400 and 2000 3d marks is quite significant. Admittedly not all games will see fantastic gains, but we can all expect better performance than a 9300m, and certainly much better than Intel's X4500.

 

seeing as it's a dedicated 9200m GS plus an integrated 9400m, something in between?

it doesn't even begin to approach a 9500M G in terms of specs and performance. calling it a '9500' was pretty disingenuous

eta: you completely edited out what i replied to. as to your new content the difference between 2000 and 3400 might specifically sound large, but in context where upper end cards typically reach 8-9K+ (max 14k) in the same 3dmark 06 scale, the difference between 2000 and 3400 means very little

 

It performs better than a 9400m though (clearly) so surely naming it with lower numbers would make it harder to understand, no?

And according to http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9500M-G.9451.0.html

The 9500m G packs 16 shaders, whereas this packs 16+8.

I know hybrid SLi doesn't equate perfect gains, but I still don't see why they're receiving so much crit. over the naming.

 

Thanks for sharing.

I can't wait, though ~ to get some further *indepth reviews*

Even with reviews....per usual everyone will have their own opinion and feelings on the 1340!


Cin

 

sure it performs better than a 9400M, but so does an 8400M GT. i think the difference lies more in the mem bandwidth between the two and differentiates why one is considered a tier 3 card and the other a tier 2. calling it a '9500' clearly lends it cachet it doesn't really have.

 

What would you name it then?

 

9450M

there are a lot of numbers between 9400 and 9500, as well as an infinite number of suffix combos

 

I think 94xx would give the impression of an integrated chipset, as the 9400 is.. Personally nVidia could've sorted this by naming the 9300m GS into a 9200m GT (considering the difference between 9200 and 9300 gs is 100MHz shader clock) then the 9400m could be called 9300m and we could call this 9400m and everyone would be happy.

We'll have to live with it I guess.. I've just been doing some reading and this is almost like the 8400M GT and 8600M GS, both had exactly the same number of shaders, memory width etc. The only difference between them was clock speed, makes you wonder why they called it 8600m GS when clearly it had nothing on the 8600m GT.

Oh wells, we can all pay tribute to nVidia's naming department ^.^

 

"XPS" as a standalone model line is being phased out.. the XPS moniker is now a modifier for all model lines signifying it as the top tier of that particular line; the Alienware line is for gamers.. so, the reviewer is ignorant about this aspect.

 

that wouldn't be terribly far off. as you said, the 9400M is actually integrated in the XPS 13, 94xx wouldnt be too much of a stretch. you're right and that does make more sense than the haphazard way it is now. the fact that it's left so open to interpretation, it almost appears purposely deceptive/vague for marketing purposes. that's what i don't like about this current nomenclature

 

Dell hasn't actually come out and officially said that, have they? i wouldn't be so quick to condemn reviewers or the average consumer as ignorant

 

Check out their YouTube Vblog (vlog).. its in one of their latest videos.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2HNnHqynns&feature=channel_page

AFAIK The current line of 'XPS' notebooks are actually called Inspiron XPS.

So they have;

Mini

Inspiron
Inspiron XPS
Studio
Studio XPS

Adamo

So really, 'XPS' on it's own never really meant anything.

 

link plz

you're going to have to be more specific as youtube videos/vlogs carry about as much official weight as facebook and myspace pages do for us philistines that don't make minute Dell news an everyday part of our lives

eta: ty pillowshot

 

I have XPS M1210 and i see no "Inspiron" on the laptop itself and manual.

 

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mobile/display/dell-inspiron-xps.html

That it?

 

Maybe a mistake on the reviewer's part?

No "Inspiron" branding in sight:

http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/12591.jpg

Official website:

http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsnb_m1210?c=us&cs=22&l=en&s=dfh

 

Weird, your outlet is very different from ours (uk)

 

Apparently, "XPS" started out as a line of gaming PCs, and became a 'modifier' of Inspiron when the first XPS laptop came out... as Inspiron XPS. After two Inspiron XPS laptops, the "Inspiron" name was dropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_XPS

So there's Dell's inconsistency. And now, XPS is a modifier again.

 

Ah well, there we go.

 

The 9500m GE (what the M1340 has) scores at least close to 9500m GS (the actual card) in 3DMark. Maybe a couple of hundred less, yeah. Remember they're running at 1280x800, not 1024x768 though (they don't explicitly say so, but I ran it and got roughly the same - 3550).

"While it will play some games in lower settings" is just being over critical. I can play Half-Life 2 with everything on high. Left 4 Dead with everything on high, with antialising off. It sounds like they couldn't run it so well - maybe the fact that I was using Windows 7 helped. But yeah, you won't be able to play GTA IV or Crysis particularly well, but they sound like they expected a gaming powerhouse in a 13" laptop. I don't think the naming is that misleading. Plus, you can turn one off and save power.

And the sound? Really? On a 13" laptop? Did they expect it to be a complete home audio solution?

This laptop does have a bunch of problems, as shown by all the threads cropping up. But graphics and sound? Not really.

 

^ This sums up everything I think about this review

 

come on you have to admit, as much as APC might be overcritical you're being just as overly optimistic about the GPU performance. HL2 runs on high with an X4500 too. it really doesn't speak much to the 9500M GE's capabilities when set your standards so low. i would love to see some real gaming benchmarks

as for the sound, i think you're reaching here too. nobody claimed it was going to be a 'complete home audio solution' however sound quality can at least be judged by laptop standards as seen with the Studio 15 which is universally considered terrible and subpar even by the most diehard of Dell fanboidom