Laptop advice

Hey guys,

I've been thinking about purchasing a new laptop and I've been scouring through the technical specifications. Has anyone used Second Life on the Macbook or Dell XPS 1300?

Just wondering what the performance is like.

Cheers!

Heath

I don't see anything on Dell's website called "XPS 1300". The closest name I see to that is XPS M1330. If that's the one you mean, I would not recommend it. It comes stock with integrated Intel graphics instead of a real graphics card. That's a show-stopper. SL requires you have a real graphics card from either nVidia or ATI (I recommend nVidia), not that embedded garbage.

I see that the m1330 does however have an option for an nVidia GeForce 8400 video card. If you get that machine, make absolutely certain you get it with that card in. The 8400 is the lowest of the low end in the GeForce 8 series, but at least it's the real deal. It is a must-have for that machine, no question.

I can't speak perfectly to how well that computer will run SL, since I've never used one, but if you get the "Best" version of the m1330, the specs don't look too bad. My only major beef with it is that the screen is only 800 pixels tall. I would never recommend that anyone ever use a screen that small, especially if you plan on doing texture work. But if you want a notebook that tiny, there's probably no way around that. I'm not wild about the integrated audio either, but again, for a laptop that small, you probably won't find many other options.

As for the MacBook, I wouldn't recommend that at all (and not just because I don't like Apple). While most of its specs look fairly comparable to the Dell, its fatal flaw is that its ONLY option for graphics is that Intel BS. You might be able to get SL to work on it if you're lucky, but it won't be officially supported, so it could stop working at any time. You need a real graphics card. With Apple, that seems to mean you need a MacBook Pro, not just a MacBook, which means you need to at least double the price.

Since both the machines you listed are in the $1000-15000 range, I'm guessing that's the amount of money you want to spend. I'm a big fan of ASUS notebooks, and they happen to have several in that range that are spec'ed way higher than those two. If you're unfamiliar with ASUS, they specialize in making high end gaming hardware (nVidia based graphics cards, motherboards, etc.) for both desktops and laptops. Since they make the parts that other companies buy, their own systems generally give you a lot more bang for the buck than just about anyone else's. They also happen to make the nicest laptop screens I've ever seen.

If you want to stay small, I'd suggest you check out the W72-B2B. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220221

If you want to go a little bigger, the F3SV-B1 looks like a great machine. For just $1299 (actualy $50 less than the little one), you get a 2.2 GHz Core2, a 256 MB GeForce 8600, and a 1680x1050 screen, among lots of other nice features. That beats the hell out of the most beefed up, and more expensive, configurations of that Dell and the MacBook.

I've got the big brother of these two from ASUS, the G2S-A1. ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220185 ) I love it. It's currently $1799, so a little outside your mentioned price range, but if you can spend the extra $400, it's a fantastic machine. Its only significant drawback is short battery life due to its abundance of power-consuming bells and whistles. I get maybe an hour to an hour and a half from a full charge. As long as you've got a power outlet nearby, it really kicks ass. But if you need to use the battery more often, then I'd (reluctantly) have to recommend a different model.

I hope that's helpful.

I use a laptop all the time for SL. Both at home and across the world. I travel a lot and no, I'm not running from anyone!

It works perfectly and has done for several months, if not a little warm at times.

Dell Latitude D620
Dual-Core Intel T7600 @ 2.33Ghz
2 GB Ram
Nvidia Quadro NVS 110M Graphics Card
XP Pro

The M1330 can be purchased with a Nvidia 8400 as well. There are many choices with Dell. I know 3 people who own this Dell XPS laptop and they rave about it. I've used it and it is excellent. Never buy any stripped down computer at the lowest advertised priced.

I use a MacBook Pro, 2.16 Intel processor with 2 gigs of RAM, which has a Radeon X1600 graphics chipset that has 256 megs of RAM. It was not double the price of a MacBook, but that's because I bought an Apple-refurbished model. I've done that for my last three Macs with few problems.

I can run SL as well as SL runs in either Mac OS or Windows, though I tend to log in to Windows only out of a sense of it being somehow "good for me" (like eating broccoli or doing push-ups). Whatever you get, though, I'd go for a 17" screen.

I always avoid Macs on general principle.

/me giggles.
This is a laptop. They are all integrated graphics. Actually, if you look at the range of chips the SL Windlight viewer requires for full preformance, there are Intel chips on the list. Of the top selling mid ranged GPU's, nVidia and ATI will have more powerful chips than Intel but dollar for dollar they are all about the same. I don't know if Intel has any upper-mid range cards like the other two and if they do I don't have any personal experience with them.

That said, I have a dell D610 (mobile centrino, 1 GB Ram, ATI x300) that runs SL reasonibly well. Also a Dell D620 (2GB RAm, Dual core, Intel graphics) that may partner uses and it runs Windlight without any problems. These are Dell's standard business laptops. If they hold up ok, then I don't see why the XPS series would give you a problem.

No, they aren't. For a laptop, "integrated graphics" means that the graphics chip is integrated on the motherboard, and the graphics engine uses your system RAM, rather than its own dedicated RAM.

You want a laptop (or a desktop) that does not have "integrated graphics" or "shared video memory".

Maybe instead of giggling, you should actually read. I have no idea where you got the impression that all laptops have integrated graphics. It's simply not true. Once you get above the ~$1000 range business grade junk that's out there, nearly all laptops come with real video cards. To imply otherwise is silly at best, dishonest at worst.



I did not realize the 945 chipset had been added to the minimum requirements. That's a good thing, as it means more people will be able to use SL.

However, it's worth noting that 945 is still not recommended. Just because it will function does not mean it will function well. It's good that it's now officially supported, but there's just no way it could work nearly as well as a real video card could. The core clock speed on even the best of those Intel cards is significantly slower than anything nVidia or ATI is putting out right now. The Intel texture fill rate is a joke, barely even measuring 1/3 the speed of nVidia's slowest current card. Yet Intel describes them as "on par". That's so misleading.

And that's before you even get into the amazing drawbacks of using shared system RAM instead of dedicated video memory. System RAM is INCREDIBLY slow at processing graphical information, compared to actual VRAM.

So, while I stand corrected on the point about Intel graphics now being officially supported, I have to reiterate that there's no way anyone can truthfully say Intel graphics will work nearly as well as nVidia or ATI.



I have no idea where you're getting that. First of all, Intel doesn't even have a "midrange" GPU. They're definitely low end. But I guess you could argue that what constitutes "midrange" and "low end" is maybe a matter of opinion. So, compare the specs. They're most definitely not "all about the same". The differences are huge.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what "ok" means.

Anyway, I'm really disappointed in what Dell labels as "XPS" these days. When they first introduced that line, it clearly stood out from the business grade line as a significant step up. They were never as good as gaming machines from some other companies, or as price-effective as building your own, and they always had their weird little Dell-specific quirks, but they were good machines.

Nowadays, unfortunately, it seems, Dell will slap that XPS label on just about anything they can throw into a stylized chassis, whether or not it actually fits the description of "extreme performance" that XPS is supposed to stand for. So don't let the name fool you. Just because it says XPS on it doesn't mean it's top of the line, not anymore. Any given model could be good or bad. The named line itself is not the separator.



That would be why my very next paragraph said, "I see that the m1330 does however have an option for an nVidia GeForce 8400 video card. If you get that machine, make absolutely certain you get it with that card in. The 8400 is the lowest of the low end in the GeForce 8 series, but at least it's the real deal. It is a must-have for that machine, no question."

Please read a post in full before you decide to quote from it and correct what it says.


Good to hear. As I said, the specs on it don't look too bad (as long as it's the "Best" version, not the so-called "Good" or "Better". So it's not really surprising to hear that it performs decently.

That said, I'd still wager from the specs, and from personal experience with both companies' products, that the two ASUS machines I linked in my previous post probably run circles around the thing.


Definitely.

low end < $100
mid range $100 - 1000
top end $1K+

Yes, Intel chipsets are low end. Pick and chose any you want at the same price range. a $50 vid card is a $50 vid card. Once you get the performance of a liquid ox card in a sun machine, everything else looks pretty much the same. /me sighs. But then I don't have that at home. I have about $500 worth of parts in whatever case I have at the time (2 times) a 1yo Alienware with 2 8600GX and the 2 mentioned laptops.

And by "running OK" I mean 40+ fps. The alienware runs 70fps but it has to wait on the refresh rate of the moniter. If you want bleeding edge, you have to pay for it. But why pay 5000 when a 500 dollar machine will do the job? This is SL herre. You will hit max-pretty long before you hit max-tech. But you can always see max-pretty faster and more times than the eye can see I supose.

Buy the best you can afford, with a bias to the graphics and memory.

simple advice: Plug in the power chord or the cpu will be trhottled to save battery.

Lets be honest, it wasn't that long ago, you could have run, and probably did, SL over dialup.

In some countries 330kbps is considered top broadband download speeds.

A squished monitor is dooable.

1GB or less, of system ram is dooable.

A 'onboard' GC even of the Intel variety, sharing system ram, is dooable.

A laptop/Desktop system with a wireless connection, is dooable.

What is perhaps NOT dooable, is to get the same SL performance and lifespan that a dedicated Desktop with hardwired connection through a solid 1mb+ continous connection, 2gb+ DDR2 system ram, minimum 7 series (not LE) nVidia GC with DDR3 dedicated ram, multiple cooling systems, SATA II HD's array and a high resolution LCD display with a minimum 8msec response time.

Hi guys,

Thanks very much for all your help.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards purchasing a Dell however I've yet to check out all the links (thanks Chosen Few). Something like this looks nice:

XPS M1530 $1699 (Australian dollars, I live in Australia)

Processor
Intel® Centrino® Duo Processor Technology - Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7250 (2.0GHz/ 800 FSB/ 2MB Cache)

Operating system
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium

Memory
2GB 667MHz dual-channel DDR2 SDRAM (free upgrade to 3GB)

Harddrive
250GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive

Monitor
15.4" Widescreen WXGA (1280x800) TFT Display with TrueLife™

Graphic Card
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT