Intel Core Duo L2400 (1.66 GHz) Processor
100 GB 7200 RPM HD
etc., etc., etc.
In what kinds of circumstances would notebook users even need
2GB's of memory? Just curious.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 23:45
1gb is fine unless you're trying to max performance on games or running intensive applications like Photoshop or doing 3D modelling. I believe 1gb of ram is the recommended requirement for Vista anyway (although that is by no means official since M$ hasn't released official system reqs), but you'd need a good dedicated GPU too if you want to run Vista Aero.
Name:
Ghost2006-06-16 23:50
Hope that helped ;)
Name:
NL2006-06-17 0:05
Thanks much!
Well, 512 is standard,
1 GB is 90 dollars
1.5 is 180 dollars
2 GB is 270 dollars ...
On the M1210 (I'm looking in Medium/Large Business),
2GB is 225 bucks. Why not get that? It looks tempting
when you're not spending your own money :X
Additional question -- Why do seemingly miniscule
differences in processor speed cost so much?
The hop from 1.83 to 2 GHz in the M1210 costs 150 moar bux :/
Name:
Ghost2006-06-17 1:39
I'm looking at getting that model myself, but upgrading yourself with 3rd party ram is cheaper. I plan on getting 1GB now and upgrading to 2 later. (I'm spending my own money so I'm pinching pennies where I can :P)
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 6:32
>In what kinds of circumstances would notebook users even need
When you're running OSX. Seriously.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 15:25
Extra RAM never hurt anyone, chances are there will be some application or game in the near future that can make use of it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 15:51
more memory is always better in my opinion. I think 2GB sounds good for any system no matter what its being used for. thats just my opinion though. you never know when you'll need it. but I have no doubt that having it is better than not having it. especially if you do anything that involves lots of data processing, of which there are many applications
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 16:11
Thanks a lot, gents.
Now, what about my processor question?
Why the huge leap in price when going between GHz?
1.66 - 1.83 - 2.00 - 2.16?
T2300 - T2400 - T2500 - T2600?
Are the differences that observable?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 16:54
>>6
True story.
You need at least 1GB to run OS X without wanting to kill things.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 16:55
Are you a hardcore gamer? I don't understand the big leap from 2.0 to 2.16 GHz unless it's really that much harder to make the faster chips. You'll shave minutes off of most video encoding work though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 17:14
VROOM VROOOOM
Name:
Ghost2006-06-18 0:55
Personally, I plan on speccing my XPS m1210 with a 1.83GHz since it's the most cost effective (read: best-deal). I intend to research whether or not it will be possible to upgrade the CPU at a later date on that machine though.
Also, more RAM never hurts, but getting a lot of RAM right away is more expensive than if you upgraded to more lateer when you need it in my opinion.
There was also a story I heard about someone who upgraded their RAM in order to get better performance out of BF2. He started with 512 and upgraded to 1GB and the performance gain was huge. Then he cut off an arm and a leg to upgrade to 2GB of RAM and the performance gain he saw was minimal. It just wasn't worth it financially.
Just something to think about.
Name:
Ghost2006-06-18 0:58
Oh, and I actually had a question which sort of relates to this...
Anyone know what kind of performance gain to expect between a 5400RPM hard drive and a 7200RPM hard drive? The 5400rpm will run cooler, but is a 7200rpm hd worth the couple extra hundred bucks (in terms of performance gained per dollar say)?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 10:21
>>14 http//www.xlr8/...
The guy benchmarked hitachi travelstart 60gb both the 7200rpm and 5400rpm. From the benchies he gained a bit perfomance around 20% boost overall
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 10:23
>>9
the performance between each processor is only 3-5% which is not really noticable, unless of course you're talking about 1.66 to 2.0 then you will notice a huge performance boost
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 14:49
Okay, MOAR questions for you considerate fellows:
What are the factors that use up battery life more quickly in a notebook?
I heard faster processors (2.00-2.16) as opposed to (1.66-1.83),
Graphics card?
(950 Intel Graphics Media Accelerator v. 256 MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7400)
What about Memory size, HD size, and the RPM of an HD?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 14:54
>>17
And, a follow up question -- do these factors also contribute to the weight?
Name:
Ghost2006-06-19 1:22
The thing that would add the most to the weight is the 9-cell battery (assuming you're still talking about the m1210). Any changes in weight caused by those other components would be barely noticeable. Faster processors do consume battery life a little more but again, it's not too too significant. They do generate slightly more heat though, as would a higher RPM HD. If the laptop components becomes hotter, cooling fans are more likely to kick in and these would drain the battery even more. Still, it all depends upon what you're doing (normal usage like web surfing or typing is less intensive than running 3D games or photo/video editting).
I believe the NVIDIA GPU drains a bit more juice than the integrated option, but there are power saving features which activate depending on what you're doing. In any case, anything is better than an integrated GPU and if you get it, go for the better GPU imo.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-19 4:06
>>17
Actually current intel mobile solution and chipset set in the centrino platform consumes less power as compared to what your discreete GPU takes (geeforce 7 series and ATi Xseries) and your biggest power drain would be the LCD.
for gfx card TAKE THE GeForce, it might uses the system ram to expand it's memory but if you want to play current gen games at med setting it's a better option compared to the GMA950. Or other OEM sells dual gfx solution, where you can turn off the other card and activate the gma 950 integrated if you want to get more juice out of your notebook.