XPS 1330, 2 ghz processor or graphics card?

Hi, what would you rather have, 1.5 ghz processor and 8400 graphics card or 2 ghz processor and integrated graphics? The only graphics intensive thing I might do is some light video editing, no games. Thanks in advance!

 

In that case, I would recommend you go for the processor.

 

that's a big difference in processor.... for $100 more get the 2ghz with 8400... and reduce on something else if you can...

if you have to choose 2ghz is the way to go...

 

Thanks for both your quick replies. I am out on a limb with the money I am spending as it is so I really have to choose between the two, sadly. If I could, I would get both! I guess what I am asking is what is the difference between 1.5 and 2 ghz? I am assuming it is speed and if so, what real time difference might it make? Thanks, Yasmine

 

The 1.5ghz will be fine for most things you need today.. but you will probably need an upgrade sooner....

Compare the CNET benchmarks for the Fujitsu with 1.5ghz core 2 duo
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/fujitsu-lifebook-a6110-core/4505-3121_7-32716497.html

and the M1330 with the 2ghz processor:
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/dell-xps-m1330/4505-3121_7-32465545.html?tag=prod.txt.1

its not perfect but should give some idea of the scale of the differences.

 

If you are just going to do video editing, the 8400 GS is not going to make a difference. The integrated video card is going to be more than sufficient. If you are not planning on playing any demanding 3D games or use heavy 3D applications, I recommend you NOT to get the 8400GS card, if it costs significantly more. It consumes more power and it is not going to be faster than i.e. the X3100 integrated card, for your purposes.

For video editing and compression a fast CPU can make quite a difference though.

 

I dunno about that - the requirements for Pinnacle Studio 11, which is what I use for video editing, state that you need a video card with 128 MB of RAM to do Standard Definition, and 256 MB for High Definition. They also mention 2.4 gHz processor for AVCHD (high definition) editing, but I do fine with a 2 gHz.

While the processor's jump is significant, I can't imagine being able to do video editing on the integrated graphics for at least the following reason.

One, Vista, itself, takes 2 GB just to get running comfortably. The integrated controller's going to "share" with the system and take, say 256 MB of system RAM. It will also require constant trips on the system bus to access the system RAM rather than having its own memory with dedicated "pipes" on-board the graphics card. That will slow you down and make a world of a difference in something intensive like video editing.

By the way, if anything can be upgraded later, it is the processor. The video card is tied to the motherboard/chipset, so if you order it with integrated, that's how it will stay. On the other hand, I think I've heard talk of people upgrading their processors, though I could be mistaken.

 

Few things to note:

Check your video editing programs requirements, if it utilizes the video card heavily, you may be better off with the 8400GS.
If you were a gamer, then 1.5ghz vs. 2.0ghz wouldn't have matter with 8400GS. Most don't realize that 8400GS gets bottlenecked WAY before the processor does. a 2.2Ghz will perform nearly the same as 1.6ghz with 8400gs simple because of 8400's bottleneck.

In your case, any HD editing may require dedicated GPU/RAM.

 

thats what i did
went for the 8400 instead of the 2ghz no regrets

 

Thanks, all, for the helpful comments! Interesting discussion, people seem about as on the fence with this as I am, lol! I am going back to the rep to see if I can't get a deal on the card, even a bit would help, and maybe have both. Thanks for everyone's time and expertise, Yasmine

 

how much cheaper is the 1.8 processor, is it only 30 less or something if i remember right?

 

In Canada right now there is no processor between the 1.5 and 2 so it's between those two. I will try to see what deal I can work out tomorrow . I will keep everyone posted, Yasmine

 

Hi, just to let everyone know, it was a tough choice, with my almost going for both for a bit, but I have decided to go with the video card over the processor. I wish they had a 1.8 option or such because that would have been the solution (price point I could have lived with). In the end, I just could not justify spending $100 more on this system (already way over budget) and figured that the card would give me more umph, so to speak, as I had heard that it was going to be faster for just bringing up new screens (refreshing was the word the tech used) than integrated. Thanks, everyone!

 

good choice I did the same and I do not regret going with the 1.5
there are many other things you can do to make your 1330 faster in the future
such as a SSD drive when the price goes down

 

Not sure if this was mentioned, but it is infinitely easier to upgrade the processor down the line compared to upgrading the video card. Had you gone with the integrated graphics, the only upgrade option would have been to buy a new motherboard through dell. Core 2 Duo processors are for sale through retailers such as newegg for fairly cheap, and the price will only go down, and it is quite easy, especially given the design of the m1330, to swap in a faster processor when you're ready.

Good choice.

 

Hi, yes, that was mentioned . I agree, I am planning, when I have saved up the money, to get a new processor. For future reference, does anyone knoe of a good Canadian retailer (newegg does not ship to Canada, grrr)? Thanks for encouragement, Yasmine