Studio 17 amazing but only 256 ram on video card

Hi guys,

I'm looking at the Studio XPS 16 right now, because the Studio 17 doesn't have the option of coming with a 512 meg video card ( very disappointing )

If you look at the base system for the Studio 17, it's an amazing machine with the 2.4 ghz chip, for around $1,000. Crazy stuff. This is a beautiful laptop, but with only 256 megs of fram on the video card it just isn't good enough.

With that said, what other options are there for laptops with a 2.4 ghz chip, and a 512 meg card out there right now ?

Dell has some nice deals going on right now ( for the Studio 17 anyway )

 

I assume you are planning on gaming. What resolution do you plan to use? A 256mb card can fare pretty well unless you insist on gaming in 1920x1200. Then it may be wise to step the video memory up.

 

VRAM is overrated. it's the bandwidth that counts. 128 bits is mainstream, gaming GPUs always have 256 bits.

 

I will be using it for graphics, photoshop and video mostly actually.

I already have another laptop with 512 meg video memory, so I would not want less than that.

what I do not understand is that in some of Dell's more expensive laptops for graphics, the FSB is only 800 mhz, which is disappointing when you see the Studio 17 and others have a 1033 mhz FSB speed.

 

I'm pretty sure that Dell intentionally gave the Studio 15 and 17 limited graphics performance so they wouldn't steal any XPS sales. The Studio 15 only has a 256mb ATI Radeon Mobility HD 3450 graphics card, which is far less powerful than even the 256mb ATI 3650 in the Studio 17.

The other limiting factor in both Studio models is that they use the GDDR2 versions of the ATI cards. The Studio 17 has a 3DMark06 score of appx. 3300. The 512mb version of GDDR2 ATI 3650 scores just over 3850 (over 550 points higher) and the 256mb GDDR3 version scores about 3870. Either way, a 550-570+ higher score is substantial.

The new Studio XPS 16 has the 512mb GDDR3 ATI Radeon Mobility HD 3670. It has a much better 3DMark06 score of 4855.

 

FSB, are you talking about CPUs?

 

FSB = Front Side Bus. It is in the motherboard, it's how large of a pipeline you have of power running through your city. ( your motherboard )

Think of it at water flow, - you can have a huge fireman's hose, with a million gallons of water in a truck, and it will give you a lot of flow in seconds.

Now take that same truck, but put on a garden hose. The water flow is very small, it is *slow* so.. even though you have this truck with a LARGE amounts of water, - the garden hose (our "FSB" ) is restricting you from using the water at a good rate, you basically have a bottle neck .... this is what FSB does / works. The faster the FSB on the motherboard, the quicker you can distribute water to different areas of your motherboard, think of it as distributing water to all the homes that live on your motherboard.

So a laptop with a 1033 FSB will blow away a laptop with a 667 FSB, because the flow of "water" or computer "info" is that much faster, so there is less chance of a bottleneck happening. It's a very important part of any computer.

AllFiredUp - so you suggest I go with the Studio XPS 16 then for graphics, and video editing ?

and thank you for the important info on the video card.

 

Interesting definition of FSB

 

Thanks Steve,

I've modified that post, and clarified it a bit more, but hopefully I explained it correctly, this is how I understand it, and think it's a good easy way to understand it, when you are not a techie ( which I am not )


QUOTE=SteveJonesy;4569658]Interesting definition of FSB [/QUOTE]

 

I understand FSB, but I usually think about it in terms of the processor. The FSB connects the CPU to the northbridge (memory controller).

The Intel P-series processors (P7350-P9600) and the T9400-T9800, X9100 and all of the Quad-Core Mobile processors have an 1066MHz FSB. The lesser T4xxx (Pentium Dual-Core) and T6xxx (Core 2 Duo) have an 800MHz FSB.

 

Hi allfired up

I'm no expert that's for sure.

I guess I am all hung up over those speeds though - I have to admit.

For example, right now I'm on an old laptop with a 533 mhz FSB, it's a dual core, and runs quite a bit of stuff, I'm actually still happy with it, but when it comes to video editing, it is on the slow side.

I figured I'd buy a new one, and go with something a lot faster, and many of them out there are 667, and 800, and for me, the 667 is today, obsolete, but 800 speed is "ok" however 1033 fsb would be nice... so I'm going with the Studio 16 - seems the way to go. Just have to get the courage up, and bite the bullet

 

FSB doesn't really make much difference. Comparing 2 models of Core2 with same clock speed but different FSB yields no performance benefits in real world applications. The only place you will see a difference is in benchmarking software.

 

LOL, with a statement like that, I hope you have some real world documentation to back that up

I don't think the makers would agree with you, if you are correct, then why do FSB numbers continue to get higher and higher over the years.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but you are not correct here. FSB really
does make a diffrence in real word applications, especially video rendering.