Opnions please on new XPS Gen 5 & Accessories

Discussion in 'Dell' started by HarryKrause, Jul 23, 2005.

  1. HarryKrause

    HarryKrause Guest

    The latest price cut makes the Gen 5 XPS interesting.

    I'm torn between teh 3.0 Dual Processor and the "regular" 3.2 Dual
    Processor.

    I run a game or two once in a while, but nothing drastic. I am
    interested in the dual processor to enable running Word and a couple of
    other business apps more gracefully than a non-dual processor might.

    I'm thinking a 10,000 rpm hard drive for the main drive, and a 160 gig
    SATA for the second drive. I have a server to which I can offload huge
    amounts of data.

    The 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 seems adequate. I presume it'll work
    decently with the current generation of games.

    I'm trying to decide whether I want Dell's 20" ultrasharp monitor. In
    the past these LCD monitors "ghosted" when playing games...I'm sure that
    is not the right term...maybe a better way to say it is that images
    persisted longer than they do on a glass tube monitor. Is this still the
    casE? This seems a pretty good monitor for the price. Any opinions?

    Any caveats?

    Thanks!
     
    HarryKrause, Jul 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. HarryKrause

    Molly Guest

    I would put in a regular 3.2 processors, a single 250GB HD, and the best
    video card. I wonder when will Dell offer this card for less than $300
    dollars, again. I like the 2001 LCD.
     
    Molly, Jul 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Depending on your expectations, rumors are circulating that the Gen 6
    XPS is due very shortly.

    From unofficial sources, Dell will break with Intel and offer an nVidia
    nForce-based board in the next generation of gaming/high end system.
     
    Edward J. Neth, Jul 24, 2005
    #3
  4. HarryKrause

    HarryKrause Guest


    That's very interesting. I think ASUS has such a board out, but...I
    don't recall that it supports a "D" processor. And my interest is more
    towards high end biz apps, with occasional game use. Still, the big
    discounts on the XPS system is nothing at which to sneeze.
     
    HarryKrause, Jul 24, 2005
    #4
  5. I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price, it'll
    give you faster performance in most apps, both now and in the near future.
    I think it'll be quite a while before software really takes advantage of the
    dual cores in a significant way.

    Go for the 10K drive. I recently got one, and it's noticeably faster than
    the 7.2K.

    I also have the GeForce 6800 256 MB. Good bang for the buck.

    I am partial to CRTs over LCDs. They don't look as cool, but IMO they give
    better overall picture for a cheaper price, and with various different
    resolutions. Oh, and they don't "ghost" like LCDs.
     
    Charles C. Shyu, Jul 24, 2005
    #5
  6. HarryKrause

    Nick Guest

    It really depends on how you use your computer.

    I picked the 3.2GHz dual-core CPU for my XPS 5, and I love the computer's
    ability to do something CPU intensive in the background without bogging down
    everything else I do on the computer. (Major improvement over my Dim8100
    with a P4 2.6GHz CPU, which was really annoying to use if I had something
    major going on in the background while I was trying to do other things.)

    If I played a lot of demanding games that needed every bit of CPU speed they
    could get, then I'd have gone for a single core CPU with a higher clock
    speed. But for what I do, the slightly slower dual-core is better: I don't
    mind giving up a small FPS increase in my gaming in order to keep my
    computer useable even when I'm doing something demanding in the background.
     
    Nick, Jul 24, 2005
    #6
  7. HarryKrause

    HarryKrause Guest

    I've been using a "single-core" P4 1.8 for gaming, so I suppose any sort
    of 3.0+ dual-core Pentium system will be noticeably faster!
     
    HarryKrause, Jul 24, 2005
    #7
  8. I'd go for the faster clock single core system. For the same price, it'll
    You're right -- it does depend, but I was just pointing out that for most
    people, the situation where a dual core system will outperform a faster
    clocked single core system will not come up most of the time. The OP
    mentioned occasional games and wanting to run multiple business apps (ie -
    Word) -- this is NOT CPU intensive enough to make a dual core system more
    responsive. What he'd have to run is a current generation CPU intensive
    game WHILE burning a DVD, for example. How often does that happen?
     
    Charles C. Shyu, Jul 24, 2005
    #8
  9. HarryKrause

    HarryKrause Guest



    Are there ways to determine which software apps will benefit with a dual
    core CPU, or which pairs of apps running simultaneously.
     
    HarryKrause, Jul 24, 2005
    #9
  10. HarryKrause

    S.Lewis Guest


    Not sure there is. The OS controls the threads and I'd think that there are
    very few mainstream TLP applications out there to maximize dual-core right
    now.

    One could start with benchmarking using something like SiSoft Sandra to get
    some idea of the increased performance I suppose.


    Stew
     
    S.Lewis, Jul 25, 2005
    #10
  11. HarryKrause

    Jeff Guest

    all curent lcd's are built with a very fast response time so there is no
    "ghosting". they are 100% nicer than a bulky energy hog and radiation
    throwing off crt. get a dual core processor and be up on technology for
    about 4 or 5 years.


    -jeff
     
    Jeff, Jul 31, 2005
    #11
  12. HarryKrause

    Tom Scales Guest

    I'd change the word "all" to "many" as there are still cheap LCD panels out
    there. Good ones should be fine.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jul 31, 2005
    #12
  13. HarryKrause

    HarryKrause Guest


    After as much "investigation" as I had time for, I decided to go with a
    faster "single-core processor" to install on a motherboard that can
    handle dual core processors. I'm still shopping for the right monitor
    for the new rig. At the moment, I have a perfectly decent Mitsubishi
    Diamond Pro 900i glass monitor whose only downside seems to be the
    amount of desktop real estate it uses up.

    I'm in the market for a good 20" or 19" LCD and have to get my butt to
    MicroCenter or somesuch place where I can look at a large number of
    monitors to see which is the most appealing.
     
    HarryKrause, Jul 31, 2005
    #13
  14. HarryKrause

    Tom Scales Guest

    Samsung 213T
     
    Tom Scales, Jul 31, 2005
    #14
  15. HarryKrause

    HarryKrause Guest


    Yes, that's a nice one, as is one of the 19" SONYs a friend has.
     
    HarryKrause, Jul 31, 2005
    #15
  16. HarryKrause

    Joan Hansen Guest

    0
    I just purchased the Gen 5 XPS 3.2 single processor. I do play games
    like UT2004 and Halo both on the PC and the Net on my Dimension 8300 3.0
    desktop with no problems. I hope the 256 MB PCI express GeForce 6800 is
    as good as the ATI. I purchased the 5 XPS because of the great $741
    discount.

    2-l/2 years ago I purchased the Dell Ultrasharp 20" 1600/1200 2000 LCD.
    It is gorgeous, no ghosting and connected to DVI on ATI 128 9800 Pro
    Video card. I have never been sorry. I also like the fact that I can
    change the resolution to 800/600 on this monitor and I can read better
    at this resolution and the games are just as nice and clear as they are
    on 1600/1200. Right now on the 8300, I have the following open windows
    explorer, double solitaire game, wordperfect, microsoft excel and MS
    powerpoint. I can go back and forth to any of them with no problems.

    I do a lot of video editing with my Sony DV camcorder and my digital
    camera, then making DVD's. Even with a duel processor, I don't believe
    I would ever multitask while burning a DVD. I really just want the
    faster speed for my Roxio 7.

    Don't hesitate to consider the Dell 2001 Ultrasharp and it is supposed
    to be better the 2000.

    Joan
     
    Joan Hansen, Jul 31, 2005
    #16
  17. HarryKrause

    Leythos Guest

    And the problem with almost every LCD on the market is that the image
    looks quite crappy unless you run them at their highest resolution. Not
    only that, but unless you get a DVI input, the old VGA connector style
    looks ever worse.
     
    Leythos, Jul 31, 2005
    #17
  18. HarryKrause

    Tom Scales Guest

    There are a couple exceptions to your rule.

    1) Even divisors look pretty good. So, 800x600 on a 1600x1200 panel is very
    good. Joan can attest to that.
    2) VGA on a Samsung LCD is virtually indistinguishable from DVI. Don't know
    what Samsung does right, but it is impressive.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jul 31, 2005
    #18
  19. HarryKrause

    Joan Hansen Guest

    I don't think so. I see no difference in videos at any resolution. I
    just loaded UT2004 with the 800/600 resolution and then used the
    1600/1200 resolution with both the game and the monitor. They are both
    the same and are gorgeous.
     
    Joan Hansen, Jul 31, 2005
    #19
  20. HarryKrause

    Pen Guest

    Your example is the one example that proves the rule.
    By using a 1 to 2 drop down you in fact are running at
    native resolution.
     
    Pen, Jul 31, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.