Slashdot Mirror
Dell's XPS 730x Core I7 Gaming System Reviewed
MojoKid writes "Shortly after Intel released their new Core i7 processors about a month ago, Dell announced a new update to the XPS 730 with Core i7 tech under the hood.
The new Dell XPS 730x is first and foremost a technology update but the chassis has also been buffed up a bit. The Intel Core 2 processor and NVIDIA 790i Ultra SLI chipset powering the original XPS 730 line have been swapped with
the new Core i7 processor and an Intel X58 Express chipset based motherboard. The XPS 730x retains the original 730's ability to
support both Crossfire and SLI multi-GPU graphics. Like all XPS 700 series machines since the XPS 710, the XPS 730x is available with optional factory overclocking and a H2C edition featuring a two-stage liquid cooling system. And yes,
it rips through Crysis quite nicely and puts up rather impressive benchmark numbers."
Yes, but only to use the extra RAM and processing time to "cache" all of the crap you never use, and to help index your hard drive since apparently us users can never seem to remember where we put anything despite the fact we get a UAC prompt if we choose to save anything outside of our home directory.
And lets see how well the SLI/Crossfire graphics cards run games while also being called by the desktop window manager and and explorer to redraw aero effects constantly. And by the way, you're paying an assload of money for all of this too, including another crappy chassis.
</rant>
I think it's funny that we're using Crysis as a benchmark, rather than an object-lesson in "what not to do in game development."
The only reason why Crysis is being chosen here is because it's notoriously difficult to get it running on any system maxed out. The article's graph notes that the test was run without adding in anti-aliasing, and it manages to barely squeak out a playable frame rate (on a 22" widescreen lcd resolution).
Crysis looks good, sure, but so do most games at this point. It can scale down to run OK on lower machines, but again, so do most games at this point.
Benchmarking aside, I think it's beyond ridiculous that anyone would buy a $4,500+ PC for home / game use. What could possibly justify that? I have a year old system (quad core, 8800GT) that can literally play every game on the market at max settings... at 1920x1600! Oh, I guess with the singular exception of Crysis, which I haven't bothered with.
I wouldn't dream of spending that much cash on a game system. Think about it this way: You can buy this PC, -or- a used Audi. Or... a well-equipped gaming PC, a Sony XBR TV, a PS3, 360, AND Wii, and still have money left over for games.
Video Game News, FAQs, etc
Yes, but only to use the extra RAM and processing time to "cache" all of the crap you never use
I'm confused, you'd rather Windows just didn't do anything with the extra memory and processing power? If you really don't want you hard drive indexed, you can turn off indexing. The memory used to cache frequently used programs is reallocated when necissary, don't let the little graph in the task manager fool you into thinking you don't have enough memory just because your memory is actually being used for a change.
And lets see how well the SLI/Crossfire graphics cards run games while also being called by the desktop window manager and and explorer to redraw aero effects constantly.
Aero is automatically disabled when running any full screen game. If you really hate it that badly, disable it.
Vista has a lot of problems. Having features that many people like, which can be disabled by those who don't, isn't one of them. The only valid complaint you make, in my opinion, is obnoxious UAC prompts.
Not that I don't agree with you in principle, but how hard is to have a bunch of organized folders: docs, mp3s, porn, etc.? Same argument: do a little work first, save time later.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
In principle it's not that hard. That being said, desktop searching is incredibly helpful. You organized your mp3s by genre, band, album... Now you don't feel like clicking through a bunch of folders to get to your music. Sure, the bands you listen to often, you might have down with muscle memory. But when you try to look for something you haven't listened to in a while, it gets frustrating to sit around reading through band name after band name. Desktop search and you're done.
Desktop search has its place. Organizing yourself is form of self restraint and discipline that is absolutely vital to getting stuff done. On the other hand, the reason we have all this technology is to make life easier.
It would be stupid if it was correct. However, that is why Vista also has a unique memory priority feature. It is exactly to ensure that a process with lower priority memory requirements (such as the cache, readyboost, disk defrag, defender etc) does *not* page out normal priority memory. What's stupid is how some people are all prepared to make all kind of assumptions about Vista and then use those - often false - assumptions to knock it.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
No speakers (FAIL)
Yeah. You're paying tons of cash for the best hardware out there, and then route the audio trough crappy active PC speakers? That's like those people who buy an expensive car, and then can't afford the fuel for it.
If you have an expensive display, or sound card, don't be cheap on the sound. Everybody I know, who has a decent system, has it connected to his hi-fi system. I have only one output on my system: Real-time encoded AC-3 trough a fiber glass cable... It's better to let your amplifier do the D/A-decoding, instead of the cheap decoders in your sound card.
At least I don't have to tell my fellow Slashdotters, that the keyboard is very important too. :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.