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."
Maybe it will actually run Vista!
BTX is a far superior mobo layout for air cooled cases. The only reason it didn't end up usurping ATX is because manufacturers didn't want to spend the money to support the new form factor.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
this isn't the world, it's slashdot.
signed, a fat basement dweller who can't wait for 2009, year of the linux desktop.
Oh that's next year!? YES! I'm going to hit up thinkgeek and buy myself every linux shirt I can find. In your face MS admins!
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
While I don't really disagree with your assessment, I find it interesting to note that many people have blamed the fall of the Amiga as a platform on it being too heavily marketed as a games platform rather than being for "work stuff".
Ironic that now it seems that one of the major obstacles preventing a particular platform's wide level acceptance is the presence of games.
Truthfully given how limited my scope of gaming is these days Linux could PROBABLY serve all my needs if there were a good WoW (and Ventrilo) client for it. For the time being though my Mac is thankfully able to handle both those tasks.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Hmm, this really doesn't make much sense. If you're going to spend that much money, the thing should have four graphics cards and its own nuclear powerplant. The one they reviewed, priced at 5099 dollars, only has one graphics card, so it gets whooped by a $1500 computer at Crysis.
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
Your Vista criticism is sound except for the indexing part. I have over a terabyte of stuff on my home machine and despite my best efforts I often cannot find things. OS X Spotlight has literally become my Finder replacement. These days I rarely ever even navigate through the windows. Of course I have had to learn to be a lot more careful when I label documents, but the time savings more than makes up for the occasional indexing. To me at least, real comprehensive search is the killer app of the modern desktop.
From what I can remember, it was also management issues at the top.
Not to mention that the Amiga was tightly bound to the custom chips they did in-house (Paula/Agnus, etc). Commodore didn't spend (or didn't have?) enough resources on R&D to keep up with the PC, and was also too slow in changing the platform so that it could use PC components instead.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
There were a lot of reasons. Probably the number one overall was the same reason Mac market share dropped: the large prevalence of cheap PC clones from different vendors. The average user didn't see a real difference between Windows and another OS.
As far as the technical side, you are correct in that the custom chips ultimately held the Amiga back. The updated AGA chipset machines (more or less comparable to VGA at the time) were pricey for the power they offered. For example the A1200 was released with a 68020 at a time when 486s were becoming common on PCs.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
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.