Thoughts on XPS 1330 Configuration

Hi Guys,

So this laptop seems really impressive based on the reviews and the design is excellent and the plus side is that it can be configured very nicely at a decent price at dell.com.

I have made 2 configurations, 1 more budget and 1 more all-out and even the all out one isn't that expensive I feel but if it isn't needed for me I would of course prefer to save.

I should point out that I am an avid amateur photographer and the main reason I want this baby is because of Photoshop use, I use it heavily (as well as a couple other photo editing programs) other than that - I don't play games and the thing will basically be used to surf the net and use for office applications but obviously photoshop is quite a beast of a program as far as resources go so, please computer experts, let me know if either config will run comfortably or if the higher end config is more recommended - I should note I will be coming from a Pentium M 1.6Ghz, 512MB Ram, 60GB 4200RPM machine on XP - it is painfully slow with Photoshop. So:

(copy and paste from dell site)

Option 1 at $1275
My Components
Tuxedo Black
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7500 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB, 4MB Cache)
Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium Edition
Standard Display with 2.0 Megapixel Webcam
3GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 667MHz
Size: 250GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
128MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8400M GS
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Built-in Bluetooth capability (2.0 EDR)
56Whr Lithium Ion Battery (6 cell)
High Definition Audio 2.0
Biometric Fingerprint Reader

option 2 at $1750:
My Components
Tuxedo Black
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7500 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB, 4MB Cache)
Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium Edition
Slim and Light LED Display with VGA Webcam
4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
Size: 320GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
128MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8400M GS
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Built-in Bluetooth capability (2.0 EDR)
56Whr Lithium Ion Battery (6 cell)
High Definition Audio 2.0
Biometric Fingerprint Reader

Main differences being
1. 4GB vs 3GB RAM - not sure how much RAM Vista eats up?
2. 320GB vs 250GB HDD - both 5400RPM - RAW image files from the camera are large so I like this and it only costs $75 more.
3. Thin and light LED display vs Standard display, the difference in bult-in cameras is not important for me - VGA is fine but what I really want to know is: is the differnece in viewing pleasure between the 2 screens worth $150?

PS. I don't think I can use coupons with the other offers it seems but these are nice prices as is - Dell says the normal price for option 2 is $2500 and that I save $750. Also - is it worth waiting for DDR3 and the new chips, etc. or will either or one of these configuration be more than enough for my photoshop needs?

Cheers!

 

No thoughts?

Well let me ask this then:

1. How RAM hungry is Vista Home Premium? RAM is probably one of the most important things for Photoshop (along with Processor) so will th 3 vs 4GB difference be significant? Will Vista Home Premium work just fine with 4GB's of RAM or do I need Vista Ultimate (64 bit)?

2. Is the LED screen worth the $150? Not concerned about the webcams on them but about the actual screens. Any thoughts?

3. Will a setup like the ones I mentioned above already handle Photoshop and it's sister apps with ease or is it wise waiting for the next gen of chips (penyrn?) and DDR3 RAM etc?

Cheers and I would appreciate some input!

 

With 32bit Vista you can’t use all 4GB, Most likely somewhere around 3.25GB. This is because of a 32bit address limitation, search this forum for more information about this issue. Therefore 4GB is a waste with a 32bit OS. Besides, you can always upgrade RAM later at a much lower cost , DON’T buy extra RAM from DELL.

Same goes for the HDD as well, get the 250 5400 or better yet, a 160 7200 (same price but better performance).

Add LED screen to first configuration, that’s the best option.. With current pricing, an additional $150 wont hurt you; besides, you are willing to go up to 1750 with some unnecessary upgrades, that means you have the cash. So I say go for it.

 

I see, so the screen is worth it but RAM isn't on 32 Bit, I'll do a search later, I'm about to head out but what happens to the 750MB's of RAM then - is it really actually wasted or does it go toward Vista exclusively or something?

I made another config and I think it is a great deal, I basically kept the LED screen (nice screen is good for me obviously due to the photoshop and working with photographs) and kept the 320GB HDD - I have an external drive too so I just want to get the HDD once and not worry and frankly $75 difference in 250 vs 320 is not that much IMO - sure it may only cost $30-40 in real life if I don't do it through dell but frankly I am willing to pay the difference for convenience, I have read that 7200 vs 5400 doesn't really make that much difference? Not sure how true this is? As for RAM I moved it back ro 3GB's and saved $250 so the config is now the same as the $1750 except for 3GB vs 4GB and the final cost is now $1500 - a nie trade-off I feel especially if the 4GB RAM goes to waste if I don't get Vista Ultimate. If I get the same setup and Vista Ultimate and 4GB RAM the cost is $1900. I'm leaning towards the Home Premium and 3GB option at $1500 - I think it should handle Photoshop fine but I can still consider Ultimate and 4GB if it really will make a signficant difference in Photoshop use which I am not sure of? Any thoughts there?

 

That 750 or 500mb is simply wasted. Nothing can use it. Here is a brief explanation (since you are too lazy to search ).

You can buy a 2GB RAM stick from newegg for $40! (DELL is asking $250 for it) Therefore if you really need 4GB (decide to install a 64bit OS or something) then buy one and install it yourself later. Adding new RAM is very easy and safe. And it will NOT void warranty, so nothing to worry.

Dense 5400RPM disks are said to perform equally to low capacity 7200RPM disks, Therefore you may not notice a big difference between a 350GB 5400 and maybe a 160GB 7200, However, if you are planning to do a lot of photoshop work then you’d benefit more from a 7200 RPM disk (improved scratch disk performance), Again, HDDs are usually cheaper outside, and easy to install (no warranty problems with replacing the HDD either)

 

I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK external drives are very cheap. Even a small 2.5" 160gb drive was £57 (and only needs a USB cable to connect, no bulky power supply). It might be worth getting the faster (and smaller) disk built in, so you have stuff quickly available, but also get the external disk for old work which you no longer are working with, or for backups.

 

If OP really want a cool one for photo editing, why don't you consider a SSD? Save the pic to computer->edit->send to external HDD

 

Thanks for the info! I wasn't too lazy I really did have to go out and was gonna search when I got back but your link is great, so 3.12GB is max - so no point in getting more than 3GB indeed for 32bit. As for HDD now that you mention it that is exactly what I read somewhere else, so since I am getting a pretty dense drive (320GB) 5400RPM should perform well, HDD usage is third most important thing for Photoshop anyways with RAM and processor being the more important, if you have very low RAM then the scratch disks are used from the HDD.

Might opt for 64 bit Vista and get it with the base RAM for the best model which is 3GB and save $250, then I can just add a 2GB RAM from newegg or something and save something like $200 I guess the 3GB combo is 2 + 1GB right?

EDIT: also brand won't matter right? Ie. a 2GB say Samsung paired with 2GB of something else shouldn't matter so long as they are both the same spec I assume?

 

Yeah thought about that but they are still too expensive IMO and I do want more space than a 32GB or 64GB SSD, and the 64's are very very expensive anyways, RAM and processor are the 2 most important aspects for smooth photoshop performance and with 4GB I shouldn't have to rely on the HDD scratch disks much (if at all)

 

Just thought i'd add that i've had three inspiron 1520's and all have had 3.5gb (3580mb) out of the 4gb available, not really a big deal but thought i'd mention it. Also I read somewhere that only previous generation processors (pre Santa Rosa) see less than 3.5gb of RAM.

 

I see, thanks for the info Leo7 - worth considering - if I get 4GB I'm thinking though then it might as well be worth getting 64 bit windows anyways?

Interestingly Dell.com jacked the price up $100 on the config I had.

Do dell computers come with the OS and Drivers on a disc? Just curios.

Anyways so with the price hike I can still get an XPS 1330 at $1750 with
T7500
Slim and light LED display
Windows Ultimate 64-Bit
3GB RAM
320GB 5400RPM HDD.

I can then just remove the 1GB of RAM and pick up a 2 GB one for $50 or so online and for $1800 I can get quite a beast of a system that should really be killer for photoshop work. Sounding good - only hickup is Vista - not that impressed with it so far from what I have seen.

Does it matter having different brands of RAM so long as they are both the same specs?

Cheers for your thoughts guys and I am really liking this 1330 notebook - a beautiful neat little machine, was set on waiting for penyrn and DDR3 but I think I may end up not waiting as even the above setup should handle what I need more than adequately, unless there is going to be signficant performance hike with the new and upcoming products?

 

I don’t think so. 64-bit windows has no real advantage right now (except that RAM problem, which is not a big deal. 3GB vs.4GB I mean). 64bit driver support is still not not very good, and you may also run in to application compatibility issues as well. Therefore stick to32bit for now.

Yes, you get an OS disk and a recovery partition, and of cause a driver disk (but you can always download latest drivers from support.dell.com).

NO, any brand will work, as long as you get the correct type (200 pin DDR2 SODIMM 667MHz).

I’m not so sure about Penryn and DDR3 for M1330; whether they’ll release just the processor, or if the current M1330 motherboard support it (because DDR3 is out of the question without a MB upgrade). If DELL decides to wait for Montevina platform then it would take more than 6 months (even intel's unconfirmed release date is somewhere around Q2-2008; then it would take at least a couple of months for DELL to adopt it)

 

Thanks for the further info Phoenix. So I'll forget about DDR3 & Penyrn, etc. what I really need is a laptop that will work smoothly for what I need it to do, nothimg more, nothing less since I don't play games, etc. and I think the M1330 should be fine with the specs I note.

Then due to the $100 price hike from dell it all comes out to
$1600
with T7500
Slim and light LED display
Vista Home Premium
3GB RAM
320GB HDD at 5400RPM

Going from 512MB RAM to 3GB is going to make a huge difference as will the much faster processor 2.2Ghz, 4MB L2 Cache, 800MHZ FSB compared to my 1.6GHZ, 2MB L2 Cache and (400Mhz FSB I think.) + the HDD difference of course at 4200 vs 5400 rpm, and I will also have a dedicated graphics card which could end up being worthwhile too. How much more RAM does Vista consume over XP - is it a lot more?

Thanks for your advice.

 

I heard the figure of 600mb when used without any changes, but I can't remember where that was from.

 

I don’t have an exact figure, But according to MS, recommended system specs for XP lists 128MB of RAM, while 512MB for Vista basic and 1GB for other editions. That gives an idea….

And I also checked memory consumption on my notebook, it comes to around 580MB after unloading all 3rd party applications (Just vista ultimate 32bit, no background apps, virus guards or anything like that )

 

I see thanks for the info guys, so it seems 600MB's right off the bat, thats already more RAM than I have on my current laptop with XP at 512MB!! Well this way with anti-virus, etc. lets say Vista uses up 1GB then I can have 2GB's unused for Photoshop which should be plenty. Hmm, sounding tempting to get this M1330. Any ideas on deals in Canada? Seems a lot pricier and that is where I will be in January, think I will order from US and get it delivered to Canada maybe, I'll have to research the differences in price between the two.

 

Vista uses RAM much more efficiently than XP. Microsoft has moved to a "unused RAM is wasted RAM." So what it does is use RAM as a cache for opening and using applications faster. Of course, if you need extra RAM for whatever you may need it for, RAM will be freed up for your needs.

 

Thanks for the info, makes sense.

Kind of funny - my dad said he would give me his Sony FZ140E as he doensn't like it much (and doesn't like Vista) and that he just wants my Gateway with XP as he doesn't use anything like the extra RAM etc. as he just uses it for home computing. So for the time being I may just use that, (its. got a T7100 - 1.8Ghz, 2GB RAM, 200GB 4200RPM HDD, Vista home premium) not ideal IMO but A LOT better than my current laptop which is perfectly fine for everyday computing but sucks for Photoshop, so I may just use that for a while. Saves me a lot of cash this way! Then when the time comes for me to really upgrade with all the new upcoming technology like USB3, DDR3, Nehalem, etc. I'll be on the look out for the next gen XPS and others and I can give his Vaio back Nice of him!

 

Buy as little RAM as you can from De1l, and buy 2 x 2 GB sticks from Newegg or ClubIT or ZipZoomFly, or whoever happens to have them on sale for around $60 after rebate, and let others debate whether it's worth having 4 GB on a 32-bit system, since you'll be getting 4 GB for less than Dell charges for 3, certainly much less than De1l charges for 4 GB.

The Microsoft KB article, when referring to "typically 3.12 GB" is clearly outdated, or else they were referring to pre-Santa-R0sa systems.

Even a pre-Santa Rosa Dell Precision M90 with a 512 MB graphics card showed 3.25 GB, and M133Os show 3.5 GB, not 3 GB, as others who never tried 4 GB may tell you. I have, however, seen one system that did only show 3 GB exactly. But the M133O will show 3.5 GB in 32-bit Vista (or XP).

I paid $150 more for the LED (before discounts) and I feel it was worthwhile from a weight and longevity point of view (I don't want my screen to get dimmer with age); the LCD does look fine, though.