UNSOLVED
Closed
Seems the 9200 is a huge step backwards from the 9100
I'm I crazy or has Dell pulled a fast one by calling it's newest laptop a "9200" as if it were an improved version of the "9100."
The Pentium M has a very low clock-speed -- although Intel claims it is much faster that the rated clock-speed indicates.
The Pentium M has only a 400MHz FSB -- half that of the 800MHz on the 9100.
The Pentium M does not have HT -- while the 9100 did.
The 9200 has a 17-inch display, but is missing the 1600x1050 or 1920x??? rez that the 9100 offered. This kills the product editing HDTV or even watching WM9 1080p.
The new 9200 seems just as expensive for less.
Dell's response when I called is that:
1) The Pentium M has 2MB of cache so that makes-up for the lack of HT and a 2X slower FSB. Yet Dell has will not publish benchmarks that prove this claim.
2) Most NLE software have a "required config" where HT and 800FSB are required. We have no way of knowing if Dell's new line of laptops meet these requirements.
3) The new 9200 has longer battery life -- which seems of no value since it's likely to be plugged. It's also lighter, BUT it's possible Dell has used a lighter battery -- so there is no net increase in battery life over the 9100.
3) Buy the XPS laptop. As I remember, the XPS was gaming oriented and so offered needless graphics performance which drove the price-up over the 9100.
The Pentium M has a very low clock-speed -- although Intel claims it is much faster that the rated clock-speed indicates.
The Pentium M has only a 400MHz FSB -- half that of the 800MHz on the 9100.
The Pentium M does not have HT -- while the 9100 did.
The 9200 has a 17-inch display, but is missing the 1600x1050 or 1920x??? rez that the 9100 offered. This kills the product editing HDTV or even watching WM9 1080p.
The new 9200 seems just as expensive for less.
Dell's response when I called is that:
1) The Pentium M has 2MB of cache so that makes-up for the lack of HT and a 2X slower FSB. Yet Dell has will not publish benchmarks that prove this claim.
2) Most NLE software have a "required config" where HT and 800FSB are required. We have no way of knowing if Dell's new line of laptops meet these requirements.
3) The new 9200 has longer battery life -- which seems of no value since it's likely to be plugged. It's also lighter, BUT it's possible Dell has used a lighter battery -- so there is no net increase in battery life over the 9100.
3) Buy the XPS laptop. As I remember, the XPS was gaming oriented and so offered needless graphics performance which drove the price-up over the 9100.
Ron Shillington
2 Posts
983
0
Posted November 9th, 2004 20:00
Unfortunately (for me) it has DVI output and a 17" screen. Don't know any other notebook that offers DVI out.
Anybody know why the LCD "help me" for the 9200 shows 1900x1200 in the matrix? I was also able to get a configuration with that res a few days ago.
- I do NLE using Vegas and as I was replacing my 8200 a couple of weeks ago, I ended up going with the XPS for many of the reasons you just mentioned. I got used to the 1600x1200 of my 8200 and couldn't see going less than that for my applications.However, I'm know for a fact that Dell has gotten a lot of complaints from people who either don't understand how LCDs work or they just like to complain. They will run these higher res screens at 1024x768, or even worse 800x600 because their eyesight can't read the smaller fonts (I use reading glasses) and then complain that the screen isn't sharp. Personally, I'll keep my reading glasses and the sharp screen with lots or room for my apps.As for the DVI out that was mentioned, the XPS has that as well. And since I do a lot of my work on my lap, the 17" wasn't that big of a draw for me. 15.4 is about as large as I want to go for a "laptop".Last comment, what software are you using that has a "required config" of HT and 800FSB??? I don't think even premeir has that requirement. I've been using vegas for years and it even ran on my 900mhz celeron without any problem. Of course, don't expect to render anything in less than a day. :)MIchael
- IMHO, Dell took 2 steps forward but 1 step back with the 9200. Dell is finally learning how to make laptops with decent looks (700m and now 9200). The 9100 was ugly and the XPS was atrocious. Another plus is the 9200 is using centrino which is more than fast enuff for most apps and games, since games are more dependant on graphics card. Speaking of graphics card, that is where Dell messed up, they should have atleast offered mr9800 (or an equivalent card) as an optional upgrade. The 9200 is also needs an eraserhead. How can a laptop that big only have a trackpad?? If Dell does not get their act together, my laptop won't be a Dell but a toshiba or HP.
- " I got used to the 1600x1200 of my 8200 and couldn't see going less than that for my applications."
The problem is -- the XPS now forces you to go 1900x1??? on a 15.4 inch screen.
The 9100 was perfect for video editing which requires not merely a fast CPU, but a huge bandwidth through the system. A 400MB/s FSB seems very likely to limit performance in a way the 800MB/s 9100 FSB didn't. - >The 9200 has a 17-inch display, but is missing the 1600x1050 or 1920x??? rez that the >9100 offered. This kills the product editing HDTV or even watching WM9 1080p.
It DOES have a 1920x1200 screen as an option. And yes, 1680x1050 would be another good option.
As far as CPU speed goes, you can't compare Pentium M vs Pentium 4 performance based on clock speed directly. Do a bit of research and you will be surprised.
I would not buy a Pentium 4 laptop because they are hot, noisy (need strong fan to cool), and have short battery life. Unless you are playing games all the time (not the 9200's target customer), your CPU will be idle more or less 90% of the time, so it would be good to have a CPU like a Pentium M which can throttle back to low speed just like a car at a red light: you don't want it to rev at 7000 rpm (then again may be you do because it sounds cool...hope not). - I would take the latest Pentium M over a Pentium 4 anyday on my next laptop. Even though the difference in clock speed is substantial the actual performance gap between the Pentium M (2.0 GHz) and the Pentium 4 (3.4 GHz) is very small. In some areas I suspect the Pentium M might even perform better (office appliations). The Pentium M was designed from the ground up to a highly optimized laptop CPU - runs cooler, more battery life, etc.
- My reseach shows the CPU speed is OK -- but I'm concerned that the data path to/from RAM will be much slower. I've not found any data on this.
It looks like the path is 100MHz "quad pumped" to 400MHz. That seems 50% slower than DDR 400MHz that runs at 800MHz.
That would seem to slow data to/from graphics and disk. - Looks like the slower FSB isn't in the data path. In fact, the DDR 333MHz RAM provides 666MHz per path. 2X for two chips offers a whopping 1066GB/s path to from RAM!
Moreover:
The big cache may well compansate for the slower FSB. Although, when ever data aren't in cache, they will be obtained 2X slower because the 400MHz is 2X slower than 800MHz.
It may be that with this much cache -- HT isn't a good idea because the CPU rarely waits for data, thereby providing little time for a second thread to run.
Now if Dell had only explained all this!
NemesisDB
2 Intern
•
7944 Posts
983
0
Posted November 9th, 2004 19:00