Upcoming Dell XPS 1640 notebook to have Mobility HD 3670

Product link:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...&oc=DYDEFF3&s=dhs&dgc=EM&cid=39422&lid=997564

The M86 XT can be found here:

http://products.amd.com/pt-br/Mobil...7=&f8=&f9=&f10=&f11=&f12=&f13=&f14=&f15=True&

So if this system is to be the replacement to the XPS M1530, they sure aren't doing much with the video card.

 

I don't understand Portuguese.

 

Interesting how they have a configure page, but no link to it

 

Hmm so Dell dropped Nvidia. Who's next?

The 3670 really is the only card that was left, as ATi is severely lacking in mid-range options. It is a strong competitor for the 9600, after all.

The 16" with 16:9 aspect ratio is disappointing. Less resolution choices, and 1366x768 feels so wrong to the gamer in me.

The notebook is pretty sexy though, and the price is quite nice.

And how he heck did you find that?

 

well, thats dell your ya . over priced products and now narrowing the video card.

 

they could have at least waited for the hd4000s.

 

I guess this is the official start of watering down of the XPS series that dell and everybody said,wasn't going to happen.

Of course,all the dell gamers are going to rush out and buy Alienware now ...........dell wishes.

I don't remember reading consumer's actually demanding 16:9 screen's,or is it the industry has decided buyer's will like it more?,personally I couldn't think of anything worse,it's pretty hard to find a webpage that need's scrolling sideway's now or application's for that matter...they're going the wrong way imo.

 

yeah most web pages are optimised for 1024*768 or even 800*600. 16:10 is wide enough.

 

Have any of you actually used a 16:9 screen? It's not a gimmick nor is it the slightest bit uncomfortable to use. It's a lifesaver when I want to have a couple of spreadsheets open to compare or when I want to look at the cheat console numbers along side a windowed Fallout 3. When has wider been worse? It's not like you're losing space, you're gaining space.

So what, more white bars alongside webpages. Don't look at them then. I can't see any negatives for a 16:9 screen. Blu-ray fits natively, theres more screen estate and most games have support for the new resolutions.

I'm sick of people bashing 16:9 when they've either never experienced it or they've just breezed past a Sony FW at their local Best Buy.

But I agree, a 1600 by 900 should have been offered.

 

You may or may not gain space, depending on what screen you used previously. Overall though, it seems like 16:9 would give you less space than 16:10 if you compare the 16xx & 1920 resolutions.

1280x800 < 1366x768 < 1440x900 < 1600x900 < 1680x1050 < 1920x1080 < 1920x1200.

 

So your not losing space vertically?768 or 1080 pixel's would seem so.

 

No, not always gaining..... Wide screens are good if you watch movies or play games, but I’m not so keen on trading vertical resolution for horizontal. I do coding, word processing and lot of reading on my computer, and I don’t use multiple windows open side by side, therefore vertical resolution is more important for me. Guess it depends on how you use your screen.

 

mainstream 16:9 res is 1366*768. and 768 lines vertical is an abomination in 2009.
1920*1080 is good, but it's also much more expensive.

and if anyone wanna say 16:9 is better for films, just keep in mind that almost all dvds are still 2.35:1.

 

LOL. 16:10 gives more screen real estate than 16:9. It's simple, really. Multiply both resolutions. Which gives you the larger number? See?

You get the same horizontal viewing area with a 16:10 display, but with more vertical area.

 

I meant more space in actual real-life measurements, not pixel count.

What's wrong with 16:9 really? 1600 by 900 isn't good enough? 200 extra pixels horizontally and the same vertically.

 

Ratios don't tell you anything about the area. Haven't you learnt anything from maths class?

 

i think he means given the same diagonal, the 'squarer' shape have more area, although more area does not implie more pixels.

 

The area I was referring to, is when you multiply the horizontal pixels with the verticle pixels, not the actual area of the physical screen.

And it's simply pespective on which one gives you more area. If you take the the number of horizontal pixels to be 1600, the 16:10 screen will give you more area. 16:10 vs 16:9 - 1600x1000 vs 1600x900.

On the other hand, if you take the number of verticle pixels to be 900, the 16:9 screen will give you more area. 16:10 vs 16:9 - 1440x900 vs 1600x900.

You simple cannot use ratios to compare which screen is bigger.

 

1366x768 is too low for the 1640 (in my opinion), I would not order premium laptop with such a low res.

Less than 800 pixels of vertical space.... it seems like something from 10 years ago.

 

I have no issue with it being 16:9, it's that the resolution options are a mistake. As someone who doesn't want Blu-Ray or 1080p, but does game and expects a nice LCD, 1600x900 would be the perfect resolution in this notebook. 1366 is just.... so disappointing. It's like Dell is shoehorning customers towards the 1080p screen, then it's like, "Well, you might as well go with the Blu-Ray."

 

like Apple?

 

Well I don't really see what's the ibg deal. The older Dell models didn't have that much GPU selection anyways(was either integrated or 8600M GT if my memory serves me well).

As for the 16:9 ratio, well I guess that's a bold move, but I don't really mind 16:9 screens, but as others have said, the resolution is kind of a turn off.

I do agree that going to an HD3670 isn't THAT much of an upgrade from the 8600M GT. At least if it was an upgrade to the new HD4xxx series ATI then it'd be worthwhile, but I guess it's still something.

 

Yeah I wonder why they don't, it's going to be available very soon.

I don't mind 16:9, as long as the resolution is at least 1600x900. I think 1366x768 just doesn't quite do it for me. 1280x800 was low enough, but losing even more vertical space is no-no for me.

 

a 3670? We have to wait and see we still dont know if there will be other GPU options. Remember the XPS 17 you could get a 8700 or 8800

That 3670 better be DDR3/DDR4 though.

 

it will be ddr3... you can almost be 100% sure

 

Exactly. It's already strange that there's no 9600M in the 1640, the fact that they've delayed the laptop for so long already, so why not wait 'till the HD4xxx comes out?

The only reason I can think of is that Dell might want to rush the laptop out in time for CES, due to all the hype. But then many of us know better. As soon as the specs are out, they're not going to fool anybody.

It's really a peculiar move on Dell's part.

 

the funny thing is HD4000 HAS technically come out MSI already has a notebook with a 4670 and a 4850 coming out this month i believe the one with the 4670 has already come out so something isnt right here.

 

Did anyone notice that in the customization process on Dell's website, you can put a 1920x1080 LED screen in it for $250 more? Wow.

 

Asus and MSI are coming out with 4xxx series notebooks within a week or two, possibly this week for the MSI. The GT725 with HD 4850 is already out for pre-order on Amazon and it's on Zipzoomfly as well.

I too think releasing a 3xxx series card is a huge mistake, the 4xxx series is such a dramatic upgrade in every single sense of the word upgrade, it's ridiculous to put a 3670 in this thing.

If you want to compare benchmarks, it's closest to a desktop HD 3650.

 

This is a bizarre choice by Dell and I'm pretty sure they'll introduce a slightly more expensive variety witha a better graphics card later. The Compal notebook that the XPS1640 looks like it's based on (Dell is not an ODM) will come with a 4670, so I suspect Dell will have that as well.

 

Lol well i knew someone would agree with me. Also yes the 4670 WILL be a dramatic upgrade over 3670 i would wait for anyone who is buying this notebooks but if you dont care about GPU and want it now go for it...

 

yeah the mid-range card is always the one to look at. if the mobility hd4670 is anything like it's desktop brother..wow.

 

Althernai, you mentioned the xps is based on a Compal design? which one would that be?