XPS M1530 optimal components

I'm ordering a 1530 this week and I don't mind spending a few extra hundred dollars to make it as fast as possible, but the best choice for some components is not clear to me.

CPU- no brainer, T-9300. Best option for performance and battery life.

GPU- also easy choice-8600M GT

Screen- By what I've read on this forum, the 1440 X 900 resolution screen seems to be the safest, not having the grainy screen issue as often as the 1050 screen. 900 resolution is enough for me on a 15in screen.

RAM- 3GB or 4GB of RAM? I'm not sure about this. RAM is a lot cheaper from Dell now, and I'm fine with ordering 3-4GB from them. I've read posts from people with the 1530 getting Windows performance scores of 4.9 and 5.0 with 3GB of RAM who have CPU and GPU scores of 5.4. I don't want the RAM to be the bottleneck for the systems but I'm not sure if this is just a function of the RAM speed (667Hz) or the amount of RAM. What do you all think?

HD- From what I've read in this forum a 320GB 5400 rpm HD is a fast as a 200GB 7200 rpm HD. I'm someone for whom 200GB is plenty so my questions are these:
Would the 200GB hard drive be lighter? Does one of these drives use less power?

Wireless cards- Any difference between the Dell Wireless 1505 Wireless-N Mini-card and the Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card?

Thank you all for your thoughts--

 

Screen - I'm a resolution nut. I went for the 1680x1050 personally.
Ram - I picked up 4gb of ram locally for $80. Don't pay dell if its significantly more then that.
HD - 5400rpm should use less power
Wireless - I'd suggest the intel card.

 

the 320gb isn't an option anymore

 

Good point. So the question would be this. Are there significant differences in weight, power use, and performance between the 200GB 7200rpm HD and the 250GB 5400rpm HD?

 

They weigh the same, the 7200 uses more power(less battery life), and it'll be faster because it spins 1800x more times a minute than the 5400.

 

I'm not so sure about this. I think a hard drive with more storage capacity would have more platters and thus weigh more. Also larger drives can seek quicker than small drives but I'm not sure if the difference of only 50 more GB on the 250 5400 speed HD would be enough to outperform the 200GB 7200 HD.

 

Definitely pick up the Intel card, it has the best compatibility with access points that I have experienced.

 

Would replacing the original 667Mhz RAM with 800Mhz RAM afterwards yield any improvement ?

 

Only a negative improvement in your bank account!

The system will downclock the RAM to 667. It will not recognize 800Mhz. You are only paying more for the same performance.

 

i dont you know about your deal, but for the HD and RAm go with the lowest price possible...
you can use the HD for a while and then upgrade it and use it as external
If yo do the math, it'll end up much le$$...

 

Isn't it a 800 Mhz FSB though ? Or is the 667 Mhz locked in the BIOS ?

 

Dude, get the T8300. The 9300 is most certainly not worth the price difference, you won't notice any difference in performance whatsoever.

 

x2 on this

the price difference between the 8300 and 9300 is too much for such a low increase in performance, ( if there is any)

 

I would say the T9300 is overpriced at Dell ATM. That being said it does offer 6MB L2 Cache which is nice if you are willing to pay $300+ for an extra 2MB of cache. If it was an option I'd go for the T8400 but alas... no go.

Definitely call and get them to downgrade your Ram to 1 stick of 1GB or 2x512 MB. Then buy 2-3GB ram at another shop for cheap.

The 200GB 7.2k drive is smokin', I love mine. If you were comparing a 160GB 7.2k and a 250GB 5.4k ... the performance difference would be very minimal and I'd say get the 250 5.4k for more storage. If you want to save a few bucks get a cheap drive now and buy a better one at another shop and sell the one in the unit when you get it. Or just order the spankin 200GB 7.2k and be happy like me.

I love my 1680x1050 but the screen quality is less than stellar, hence I am probably swapping the screen out myself with an LG WSXGA+. Otherwise 1440x900 is pretty standard res for 15.4" (look at a MBP) and you have a better chance of avoiding the screen issue.

 

I would get a anti-glare screen...oh i forgot, you can't. So lame of Dell.

 

What do you need the extra cache for? A 3% performance increase? When would that ever be noticeable?

 

My RED picks will make you happy! Trust me!

 

I'm sure the T9300 is overpriced now, but it's more than performance benefits; doesn't it also use less power, and thus produce less heat?

 

Of course the T9300 would make anyone happy .

In my opinion the T8300 is plenty and I'd rather have the extra money in my pocket. The difference you will see with a T9300 in a M1530 is going to be very minimal.

For the buyer who wants bang / buck - T8300. For the buyer who wants the best and doesn't mind paying for it - T9300. Is the cost of £70-80 (in the UK) over the T8300 worth it? IMO no. The T8300 is going to do everything this laptop wants and some - everything else is going to bottleneck way before this CPU.

 

My System gets a 5.9 on GPU performance. but my overall score is 4.8?? I have 3Gigs of Memory and the 2.4 Core..

How do i improve my memory (RAM) score?? iIt's 4.8 (My lowest score) Thuse the 4.8 overall rating....

 

That's what I am saying.. T9300 is overpriced for what benefits you get. On my T7500 I can rip a song from CD in like 10 seconds (give or take). A whole CD is 1.5 - 2.5 minutes depending. How much faster is a T9300 going to be and what's the price per performance?

 

Just forget about the Windows Experience Score, it doesn't mean anything.