Which configuration would you prefer?

Hey guys,

I'm interested to know which of the following configurations YOU would prefer for yourselves and why:

1.

Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.16ghz 667MHz,4MB L2 cache
17" WUXGA
2GB 667MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM
160GB SATA HDD, 5400rpm
512MB nVidia GeForce Go 7950 GTX

2.

Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.4GHz,800MHz,4MB L2 cache
17" WUXGA
4GB 667MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM
160GB SATA HDD, 5400rpm
256mb nVidia GeForce 8600M GT​

Prices are identical. You can probably guess which Dell models they are but please just base your answer only on what's listed. Thanks

 

Tough one! OK if a hardcore gamer easy, #1. If a moderate or no gamer #2! #2 better system overall.

 

1. How much will that set you back?

 

For me, it would be free. But if I wanted to buy it, I would have to pay approx 2600USD.

Yeah, it is a toughie That's why I wanted to see what you guys would choose for yourselves.

 

While the #1 is the faster card, the 2nd is more future proof plus you get four GB's of RAM. I would go for the 2nd one.

 

Does anyone know if it would ever be possible to upgrade the card, a couple of years down on the second one?

BTW, you've all probably worked out but:

Option 1 is the XPS 1710
and
option 2 is the Vostro 1700

What's the general consensus on the 256mb nVidia GeForce 8600M GT? From the forums I'm appreciating that it's alright for most of you but pc reviewers I've asked in person say it's weak.

 

Not #1 unless you will be upgrading your memory, 512MB of ram is really inadequate these days.

I would go with #2 - 2GB of memory

 

Number 1 has 2GB RAM
Number 2 has 4GB RAM

 

Woops Im trippin hahahaha my bad.

 

Drugs are bad. LOL.

Anyway, you really don't need 4gb of RAM right now, + it's easier to upgrade on your own and for that matter, a lot cheaper. Personally, I'm a moderate gamer so I'd go with the second option with 2gb of ram (oh wait, I practically did, LOL). If you're that dedicated to gaming, why not just get a regular laptop and save up a bit more for a gaming desktop?

 

If you don't mind me asking but how would you describe, "Moderate Gamer",

Also what other tasks will you be requiring from your 1700?

 

I basically play half life 2 mods, mainly counterstrike source and day of defeat source enthusiastically, but I'm not competitive so I don't need every single advantage. By moderate I mean I like to play all the good games out there, but I don't need every single perk or graphical bells and whistles. My current machine (single core P4 2.4ghz, 1GB RAM, and x850xt) runs all of my games well. I'll also be running bf2142 (got it as part of a g5/bf2142 bundle for my laptop), but I don't know how that will fare on the laptop.

To be honest, the most I demand out of this game would be Crysis, but I don't know how that will run yet since it's not even out.

Otherwise, I'll be running pinnacle studio and photoshop on the computer, but that should be fine with half the specs this machine has.

 

Thanks for all the responses guys.

1700 sounds to be the better system for pretty much most tasks except GAMING, and it shouldn't be too shoddy anyways from the threads I've read.

BTW, guys is the 8600M GT the same performance as the one in Macbook pro?

 

As a gamer, I have to go for option one. The 7950 GTX is a lot better than the 8600m GT. The processor speed and anything over 2GB of RAM is a non-issue at this time. Anyways, RAM is easily upgradeable by yourself.

I'd also go for the 1710 for the smexy lights that glow in the dark.

(and yes, the 8600m GT in the MBP is the same one in the Inspiron usually. some MBP's are sold with only the 128MB card though)

 

The MBPs also have the higher clocked GDDR3 memory, rather than the DDR2 of the Inspiron family.

Not a huge difference in speed but one that some "hardcore gamers" might appreciate.

 

Ah yeah, with option 1 there's still an option to upgrade RAM later on whilst still having a great gaming system.

Would it be correct to assume that there would be few games currently available that the 1710 would not be able to handle?

Although the 1700 here would be considered by some as more "future proof", it doesn't seem like there's much point to it as there won't be that many games that the 8600M GT 256mb will be able to play when there are 'DX10 only' games released.

Having the 1710 would mean most games within the next 1-2 years will be completely playable and just the right time to upgrade to a new system anyway.

Getting the 1700 would mean that the user would have to skimp out of some "pizzaz" whilst trying to play even current games, no?

But this is just from the gaming perspective. I'm thinking that the 1700 would make a better work laptop and in 2-3 years time, it'll probably be better to get a powerful desktop as the 1700 on those specs would still be fairly good, no?

 

yea i definitely love #2...4gb of ram is probably overkill but at the same time its lovely to have incase you really wanna do some intense video stuff. What I like most is the processor...the T7700 is beautiful and will have better battery life. Good poll though!

 

The 1700/1720 is hardly more future proof than the 1710. As far as gaming goes, its the graphics card that'll hold you back, not the processor, or the RAM. Note: if you have a 32-bit OS, your system won't recognize more than 2GB of ram. Even if you have a 64-bit OS and can handle 4GB of RAM, you will never use that much, even while gaming. It simply isn't the bottleneck for gaming performance.

With that said, both of those laptops will meet your needs for games in the next 1-2 years fairly well. They should also be built well enough to handle regular work for quite a long time after that.
If you want to get the best bang for your buck, get the 1700.

 

Yup, that's what I'd like all that RAM for.

Really? The context I used in 'Future Proof' were due to comments about Santa Rosa on the DX10.

I got the impression that it would take a few years to see the benefit of the DX10 and by that time, 256 would be extremely insufficient so nullifying the point in choosing it.

Based on that assumption, the main benefit for me would be the processor, although I would have to check again how much difference in performance there is between the T7700 and the T7400. (RAM, as mentioned often, can be upgraded cheaply later on)

I need to read up more about this 32bit v 64Bbit OS thing. I have read on another user's thread (1700, Vista Business) that his with 4gb, only 3.5GB is recognised.

 

If you're only playing Half Life 2 then get option 2. It will eat CSS and HL2 alive!

it will also be good for future dx10 releases you may enjoy

 

Yea. your system will recognize up to 3GB of ram, and with tweaking (and some minor instability) you can push it up to 3.5GB.

Once again though, even for the intense video operations you've mentioned, you really don't NEED that much RAM. And... although this is a tired point by now, the 1710 could always be upgraded to 4GB later on.

 

Initially I wanted to make my decision based on specification alone.

However, it seems that they're pretty similar inside on performance (by similar, reaching performance levels I expect, unless someone else would care to say one or the other is significantly faster)

I checked up on all reviews and what's tipping the scales is build quality. 1710 seems to be doing pretty well, solid all round device but there's a lot of concerns over the 1700.

I think I'm just going to get both and return the one I don't want.

Thanks again for all the responses.