|
KillHour posted:The XPS series is honestly more "Prosumer" than anything else. The only step up in series on the consumer side from Dell is an Alienware. Yeah, XPS is still pretty high-end. I'm not super familiar with HP model numbering, but I think they offer their DreamColor IPS on more than just the ultra high-end. Now we just have to wait for Apple to (maybe) jump on the IPS train when they kick out some Ivy Bridge Macs 
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
XPS starts at $750 and the cheapest one with 1080p screen is $1040 at the moment (with Sandy Bridge i5, decent nvidia card with optimus, the screen is RGBLED backlit, yada yada). Inspiron is the other Dell consumer branding and that's frankly mostly crap. It used to be that it went Inspiron -> Studio -> XPS but they scrapped the Studio level and put most of them into XPS and a few into Inspiron as the better models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 06:31
|
|
|
AnandTech: Intel is stopping production on a number of processors in the Clarkdale, Lynnfield, Gulftown, and Sandy Bridge families. A number of lower-end SB Cores and Pentiums are going bye-bye after being supplanted by SB Celerons and slightly-higher-clocked SKUs in the same family. A few Clarkdale/Lynnfield chips will stick around as embedded options. Everything else gets the End-Of-Life in mid 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Just a note that this announcement means that Intel is warning OEMs that they will stop taking orders for those CPUs one year from now, so they'll be around for quite awhile yet. VR-Zone also has an article about upcoming 35W TDP quad-core mobile Ivy Bridge CPUs. Sandy Bridge quad-cores were only 45W and higher, this should bode well for fitting quad-cores into smaller, less expensive machines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
I just really want a reasonably priced 13.3" IB ultrabook with the HD4000 graphics and 1600x900 resolution (no SSD is ok). Any guesses as to when IB-based ultrabooks should start coming out? Are we just waiting for CES at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
CES is probably too early for IB stuff. You might see a few prototypes, but I doubt you'll see many finished products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Posting from my ThinkPad T420 with a 1600x900 screen. Look at this scrub with his low-res screen. I've been posting from a T520 with the 1080p screen and SSD for about a week  On the downside, it was pretty hard to justify a graphics upgrade for general development work so it only has the Intel graphics... I'm kind of sad now that the order didn't get delayed any further until IB was out. Since it looks like the new processors won't be much faster per clock, are there any estimates about graphics performance yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Look at this scrub with his low-res screen. I've been posting from a T520 with the 1080p screen and SSD for about a week I've had a laptop for years that has a 1920x1200 screen. It's the rest of the hardware that's archaic
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I just really want a reasonably priced 13.3" IB ultrabook with the HD4000 graphics and 1600x900 resolution (no SSD is ok). Any guesses as to when IB-based ultrabooks should start coming out? Are we just waiting for CES at this point? I don't remember where I heard this, but I think I remember hearing late spring/summer 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:I've had a laptop for years that has a 1920x1200 screen. It's the rest of the hardware that's archaic At work we have a top-of-the line XPS with a 15" 1920x1200 screen, and 3.4GHz Pentium 4 CPU that we use as a random machine for running test scripts and such. The omission of "mobile" when describing the Pentium 4 is not an accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
movax posted:At work we have a top-of-the line XPS with a 15" 1920x1200 screen, and 3.4GHz Pentium 4 CPU that we use as a random machine for running test scripts and such. I remember those, they're hilariously gigantic and heavy. "Semi-portable" would be more apt. Were those the first ones to have the LEDs that would cycle different colours? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
priznat posted:
One of our c-levels recently got an alienware (long story), and I made sure to set the leds to pink before handing it over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
Whats a 'c' level?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Whats a 'c' level? C as in CEO CFO COO CIO etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Whats a 'c' level? Executives. Chief XYZ Officer, but can also apply to directors/Presidents/Vice Presidents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
How many memory channels do the latest Intel mobile CPUs have? 2? 3? Plans for 4?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:How many memory channels do the latest Intel mobile CPUs have? 2? 3? Plans for 4? I was just about to post this very question  but for the new line of CPUs in general. Because I thought it was funny to go from triple channel back to dual channel from the regular i7s to the SBs.Also, I have been sitting on my hands waiting for the "New Standards"(TM) since we've been using 1920x1080 rez displays for quite a few years now and I'm waiting for anything higher than DDR3 2000 for memory. Logic being I don't want to get pranked in 2-3 years time and suddenly I have no upgrade capability because my mobo is the old standard and I have an old broke hoopty monitor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Economy Clown Car posted:I was just about to post this very question Economy Clown Car posted:Also, I have been sitting on my hands waiting for the "New Standards"(TM) since we've been using 1920x1080 rez displays for quite a few years now and I'm waiting for anything higher than DDR3 2000 for memory. Logic being I don't want to get pranked in 2-3 years time and suddenly I have no upgrade capability because my mobo is the old standard and I have an old broke hoopty monitor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Disgustipated posted:What. No they didn't. Socket 1156 was dual channel, 1155 is dual channel. 1366 was triple channel, 2011 is quad channel. What? Well hell! I feel really dumb now.  thanks for the correction. I have no idea where I got that crap from but I've believed it since the launch of SB 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
Economy Clown Car posted:I was just about to post this very question Memory bandwidth has never been a problem ever since the dual channel chipsets debuted, especially so with todays CPUs with plenty of caches and prefetchers which very purpose is to make the CPU minimize on-demand RAM access as much as possible. In particular, LGA1366 triple-channel was overkill to the max and it still runs as fast in dual-channel mode. Whatever DDR3 2000+ things you see now is basically a marketing ploy to sell people overpriced RAM that does close to nothing over dirt cheap $15 DDR3 1333 sticks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
Economy Clown Car posted:we've been using 1920x1080 rez displays for quite a few years now The "we" there is still a very small minority. Only ~7% of computers have 1920x1080 displays, and even fewer have something higher than that. The closest thing to a "new standard" is 1366x768, which is rapidly becoming the most common resolution (>40% of Windows 7 systems are 1366x768). Edit: and why do people worry so much about mobo future proofing? Not once in the past decade have I ever felt I could get decent value from upgrading a CPU or motherboard without also upgrading the other. Zhentar fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Dec 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:The "we" there is still a very small minority. Only ~7% of computers have 1920x1080 displays, and even fewer have something higher than that. The closest thing to a "new standard" is 1366x768, which is rapidly becoming the most common resolution (>40% of Windows 7 systems are 1366x768). FWIW, 1920x1XXX is extremely popular in the tech business world and maybe academia as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:The "we" there is still a very small minority. Only ~7% of computers have 1920x1080 displays, and even fewer have something higher than that. The closest thing to a "new standard" is 1366x768, which is rapidly becoming the most common resolution (>40% of Windows 7 systems are 1366x768). That and even in the non neckbeard circles most people who do anything above facebook and email just plug their computer into their HD TV (1920x1080 on a technicality) though, that's ancedotal more than anything on my part. Also it's not so much a defined worry as me being incredibly cheap. (I can upgrade it for 400 bucks VS 600 bucks)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Economy Clown Car posted:That and even in the non neckbeard circles most people who do anything above facebook and email just plug their computer into their HD TV (1920x1080 on a technicality) though, that's ancedotal more than anything on my part. I have never met anyone that plugged their computer into their HDTV. That's gotta be a niche market, because its such a grand waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
Kontradaz posted:I have never met anyone that plugged their computer into their HDTV. That's gotta be a niche market, because its such a grand waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
What a confusing thread title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's how my mom uses Netflix and watches long videos. It's also a pretty popular way to watch slideshows, like from vacations. Though these are all people with laptops who can just run an HDMI cable to their LCD TV, I don't know of anyone who would use an HDTV as a monitor for a desktop. Best Buy will tell people to buy a desktop and hook it up to just a 1080p TV though, and I've known lots of college-age kids who get a TV as dual purpose monitor and TV for their dorm room.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 14:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Best Buy will tell people to buy a desktop and hook it up to just a 1080p TV though, and I've known lots of college-age kids who get a TV as dual purpose monitor and TV for their dorm room. I've been asked to setup things like this and I just try to stress that if they plan on using it for any kind of 'work' work it will most likely give them a headache even if the brightness is adjusted correctly for close up viewing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's how my mom uses Netflix and watches long videos. It's also a pretty popular way to watch slideshows, like from vacations. Though these are all people with laptops who can just run an HDMI cable to their LCD TV, I don't know of anyone who would use an HDTV as a monitor for a desktop. I've tried it a few times to play games, but never as an actual replacement for my monitor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:I've been asked to setup things like this and I just try to stress that if they plan on using it for any kind of 'work' work it will most likely give them a headache even if the brightness is adjusted correctly for close up viewing. Yeah, those are same people that complains about flickering 17" CRTs set at 60Hz @ 640x480 in good old days. Most HDTVs are loving terrible for actual desktop use; I don't even understand how anyone is going to find enormous V-shaped subpixels bearable for at viewing anything less than 3 feet away. Bonus points for if the image is distorted for whatever reasons. It's kind of amazing how much poo poo people can tolerate with computers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
grumperfish posted:I want to claim that I was hit with an unlucky 2600K (4.6ghz at 1.38V, and 4.7ghz at >1.4+), but, I mean.. it runs at 4.6ghz, which is just ridiculously-fast. I accidentally went to the first page of the Hardware short questions thread earlier (and got really confused before I checked the date I think that the 2600k at 4.6ghz @ 1.38v with HT on is pretty much the average. I run the same settings and have to massively increase the vcore to get anything faster that is stable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 02:57
|
|
), but looking around at what we were all using in 2006 vs. what's available now at consumer pricing is just mind-boggling.
|
It is looking like we'll see ivy bridge motherboards with thunderbolt ports very soon. I do hope intel doesn't arbitrarily lock out thunderbolt support to motherboards running IB CPUs and Panther Point. I'd really like a Panther Point motherboard and keep my 2600k.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
incoherent posted:It is looking like we'll see ivy bridge motherboards with thunderbolt ports very soon. I do hope intel doesn't arbitrarily lock out thunderbolt support to motherboards running IB CPUs and Panther Point. I'd really like a Panther Point motherboard and keep my 2600k. I am really pissed about the lack of Thunderbolt devices right now. Apple has been shipping machines with it since like April, and the only things we have available are expensive storage solutions, one video interface, and the Apple Cinema Display. I am dying for the dock that Belkin demoed over the summer that has more USB ports, Firewire 400/800, and a Gigabit Ethernet connection. I'd even settle for just a TB to gigabit adapter for my MBA because the wireless only is killing me. I hope that whatever issues are causing a lot of delays in these products clears up before TB goes to a wider audience because it is not off to a good start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I am really pissed about the lack of Thunderbolt devices right now. Apple has been shipping machines with it since like April, and the only things we have available are expensive storage solutions, one video interface, and the Apple Cinema Display. I am dying for the dock that Belkin demoed over the summer that has more USB ports, Firewire 400/800, and a Gigabit Ethernet connection. I'd even settle for just a TB to gigabit adapter for my MBA because the wireless only is killing me. I've highlighted why the problem is happening. Only Apple has any Thunderbolt-capable computers at all, unless you count Sony's one laptop that has a port not shaped like the standard Thunderbolt, which also does USB 3.0, and that carries Thunderbolt signal to a special dock. Asus, Acer, Sony, and Gigabyte might have actual Thunderbolt support starting this spring. HP outright claimed they weren't going to do Thunderbolt for the next few years earlier this year. Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, et al have all neither released any plans to do Thunderbolt at any time, nor have they said they explicitly won't like HP. So there's exactly one manufacturer with actual Thunderbolt plugs available on their computers, and it's Apple, and it looks like it will be that way until this spring when Thunderbolt will have been out a year. When you also consider the fact that there's not much incentive for peripheral makers to support Thunderbolt when using USB instead works on all Macs in use, let alone all PCs in use - it's no surprise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I've highlighted why the problem is happening. Only Apple has any Thunderbolt-capable computers at all, unless you count Sony's one laptop that has a port not shaped like the standard Thunderbolt, which also does USB 3.0, and that carries Thunderbolt signal to a special dock. Right. Firewire 800 essentially the same situation as most PC's do not support it natively, but there are a lot of devices that use it as Mac products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
incoherent posted:It is looking like we'll see ivy bridge motherboards with thunderbolt ports very soon. I do hope intel doesn't arbitrarily lock out thunderbolt support to motherboards running IB CPUs and Panther Point. I'd really like a Panther Point motherboard and keep my 2600k. I don't think they will, it should appear as another PCI device to the system, so unless they force some driver/BIOS locking, that shouldn't occur. I assume though, that the display capabilities of Thunderbolt would only be leveraged by the integrated GPU, which means it wouldn't work with current 6-series mobos, but newer mobos that run FDI to the TB controller should allow Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge to drive displays over it. e: ^^ Firewire 800 also has the performance benefit (and security hole) of allowing the external device to utilize DMA, lowering CPU overhead. ExpressCard shares this same benefit on its PCIe interface as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
I couldn't find a better place for this question so I guess I'll ask here. I'm upgrading my computer, because my C2D is showing its age. I know this seems like a pretty basic question but I've been out of the loop about this kind of thing for like the past decade (the last time I knew a lot about computer hardware was when the Ti 4600 or whatever it was was the best GPU on the market). If I don't give the tiniest poo poo about overclocking, there's no reason to get a i5 2500k over a 2500, right? That's the conclusion I got to but I just want to make double sure I'm right before I put down $500+ on new hardware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
If you plan to use the integrated graphics, the 2500K comes with the HD 3000 version, which is more powerful for the rare occasions you might use it for something that requires power. It also supports a few corporate-minded instruction sets that the 2500K does not for market segmentation reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
Well, I'm also buying a GTX 560 Ti, so I guess the answer to that is no. The 2500 is $20 cheaper, and $20 is $20, so hey. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
WardeL posted:I couldn't find a better place for this question so I guess I'll ask here. There is little reason why you shouldn't overclock Sandy Bridge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 02:02
|
|