System Design

As a whole, these laptops have a reasonable design. They are not meant to be incredibly small, which is essentially impossible once you add a 17 inch widescreen display. They target a market where people want a large display, very good CPU performance, and potentially a graphics solution that is excellent at gaming as well. Our opinion of the overall design is generally favorable, with some good points as well as a few areas that could have been improved.

The case has an aluminum exterior, which adds durability while also keeping the weight down. If you've ever used a laptop with a plastic shell, you've probably noticed how pressure on the back of the display/lid can transfer to the screen itself. Some people have even broken LCDs when they accidentally dropped something on top of the case while the lid was closed. Obviously, if you drop something really heavy on the laptop, you're still going to break it. However, the aluminum backing to the display is definitely more durable than a plastic shell.

Speaking of the display, many of you are probably wondering how it performs. Unfortunately, laptop LCDs still fall behind their desktop counterparts in terms of performance. If you buy into all of the latest marketing hype (low response times, super high contrast ratios, etc.), the included LCD doesn't seem particularly impressive. It boasts a 25 ms TrTf response time (12 to 16 ms GTG), so if you have very sensitive eyes you will be able to notice motion blur when playing games. Personally, we never found it to present a serious problem, and at least in the case of the XPS M1710 the ability to play just about any current game at high detail settings more than outweighed any concerns we have with pixel response times.

Other aspects of the display could also be improved, however. Color uniformity was at best mediocre; the top and bottom of the display are definitely brighter than the center section, and even the center area shows some hot spots. Backlight leakage was also present, though honestly that is a problem on most notebook LCD panels we have seen recently. Even with all these comments about the display not being perfect, though, it's actually far better than most laptop displays that we have used or tested. Brightness levels are quite good, and Dell states that they've improved brightness levels by 30% over previous models (like the XPS M170). The maximum intensity is actually almost too bright for indoor use, but once you step outside into a natural sunlight setting it is definitely appreciated.

Click to enlarge


Another area to discuss is the input devices - the keyboard and trackpad. Some of us really don't do well with small keyboards, so we were hoping to get much closer to a desktop-sized keyboard given that this has a 17 inch widescreen display. Unfortunately, the keyboard is the exact same as what Dell uses on their 15 inch laptops, and probably 14 inch models as well. You can see from the above image that there's a good 2 inches on each side of the keyboard that could have been used to increase the size as well as add a numeric keypad. It would have required moving the vents up slightly from their current position, and perhaps a few changes in the internals, but it's definitely possible. Did Dell stick with a uniform keyboard design in order to make transitioning from one model to another easier on their users, or did they merely try to cut costs? Perhaps there was a little of both, but cost was almost certainly a factor.

We discussed the integrated audio in the first M1710 article. I erroneously reported that you could configure both the headphone and microphone outputs for use with four speakers. While it is most likely a driver issue more than hardware, it turns out that you can only run headphones or 2.1 speakers along with the microphone. Given the size of the laptop, not to mention Dell touting the HD audio support, it really should have been simple to add a third audio jack so that people could use 5.1 speakers. An optical out connection would also be nice, for those that want to hook up the laptop to a properly equipped home theater system. If digital output were included, you could have a portable movie player that could easily become part of a larger home theater setup as needed. The $25 Audigy HD upgrade is also interesting, as it appears to be a simple software addition. Since you can't really take full advantage of the audio as is, we see no reason for anyone to spend the extra $25.

One final area to comment on is the default software configuration. Having received the M1710 first, it was actually a pleasurable experience. There was some extra software that we didn't really need, but overall there was very little "junk" that you normally see on OEM systems. If you look at the online configurator, there's even an option on the XPS systems that specifically says you don't want any extra software installed. Unfortunately, the Inspiron models do not come with that "luxury". The amount of pre-installed software that most people will never use is more than a little irritating for the typical computer power user that would purchase one of these systems. AOL, EarthLink, and a couple other Internet connection options are provided; the Google Toolbar as well as Google Desktop are also present, along with Wild Tangent (for a few games), and various other software.

Not all of the software is useless - the McAfee/PC-Cillin Internet Security software suites can certainly be useful - but you definitely get the impression that Dell is helping subsidize system costs by pre-installing all this software. (Probably because they are.) At the very least, users really deserve the ability to select a "clean" configuration when building their computer. Plenty of people would probably even pay $25-$50 extra for that right, but they really shouldn't have to. If you've been around computers for a while, you've probably already heard about the people who buy OEM systems and promptly wipe the hard drive once they arrive in order to get a clean OS installation. If you pay an extra $10, you can get a Windows XP CD with your system, which can be used for exactly that purpose. However, you then need to deal with downloading drivers, installing the operating system, and all of the other various tasks involved in properly configuring a system. On the bright side, it isn't actually necessary to format the hard drive in order to get rid of most of the software - all of the included programs can be uninstalled via the Add/Remove Programs function in the Control Panel.

While we're on the subject, it is important to note that some of our benchmarks required us to uninstall the vast majority of the included software. If you have never run BAPCo benchmarks, just trust us when we say that they really like to be run on a clean OS installation. Getting rid of all of the extras also helps to improve performance by as much as 15%. In other words, if you go out and purchase one of these laptops from Dell, we definitely recommend that you clean out anything that you have no intention of using.

We mentioned spending $10 extra above in order to get a genuine Windows XP/MCE disc with your computer. If you don't get one, you get a restore CD, but all Dell laptops also come with a recovery partition. Boot up the system, press Control + F11 when the blue www.Dell.com logo appears at the top of the screen, and you're presented with a Symantec Ghost restore utility. It only takes about 10 minutes to return the PC to its original shipping state, though of course you lose any data you've stored on the hard drive in the meantime. You will also end up downloading and patching your OS again did you go this route, but that's generally required whenever you reinstall Windows anyway. Some people might dislike giving up 5GB of their hard drive space for the recovery partition, but overall we find it to be a useful option.

User Upgrades Benchmark Test Configurations
Comments Locked

34 Comments

View All Comments

  • RedStar - Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - link

    "NVIDIA's rating of 400 MHz does not mean manufacturers have to run it that fast"

    Nvidia's rating very much means the mobile part is capable of 400Mhz --anything less is an underclock.

    Why on earth would nvidia publish a spec with the expectation that no one would follow it?
    Heck, they could just say we have an 1000Mhz mobile core but too bad everyone will make it go 180Mhz.

    Since people are running the go 7800 at 390+MHz without a power upgrade, i would have to say you are very much mistaken about the power draw.

    But, i would say the primary issue was two fold.

    1)Heat output (thermal profile)
    2)To differentiate the product enough from Dell's similiar but ultra expensive XPS line
    (of the same february time frame)

    I, and others, tend to believe dell was concerned more about #2.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    NVIDIA wants to put the best face on its product. Just because the chip will run at 400 MHz doesn't mean it can do so within the thermal envelope a manufacturer has for a laptop. I've heard people complain about overheating issues with high-end laptops already, so if Dell plays it a bit safe I won't complain too loudly. I'd really like 1000 MHz RAM with a 333 core say over 400 core and 650-700 RAM.

    As for protecting the XPS line, the 7900 GS basically fills in the gap. I personally think the GF Go 7800 is going into E1705 because Dell had a bunch of extras from older XPS models. They're downclocking them to reduce power and heat. At 94W measured peak, I would certainly be concerned about long-term usage of a 90W power brick. Unless the 90W rating is conservative, but then why have a 130W for the XPS line?

    Anyway, look at the battery life of the 7800 Go compared to the 7900 GTX Go, and then increase the GPU performance by 60%. If you can't have the GPU fall back to the same level (1.1 V and 100 MHz core/658 MHz RAM or something), there are good reasons to not ship a faster GPU. I *still* don't recommend the 7800 Go version, as you would be better with either more battery life (X1400) or better gaming (7900 GS). I just tested what I was sent.
  • RedStar - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    I would agree, the introduction of the 7900GS makes this moot to everyone --except those that bought the i9400 when it first came out and had only the go7800 to choose from (with no reviews yet available --except for the one that said the go 7800 was equal to the ati x1400 [we all then found out why --Dell's 260 core!!]).

    The limited possibility of a 7900GS upgrade sounds, at least, hopeful.

    :)
  • Andyvan - Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - link

    I bought my wife an E1705 a couple of months ago. She doesn't game, so I went with the MX1400. I also went with the slower disk, hoping that would yield lower heat/noise, and longer battery life. I'm curious as to whether I chose well.

    -- Andyvan
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - link

    The 7200 RPM HDD kicks power draw up about 2 W when it's active versus sleeping. Really, most laptop parts are already very low power. The X1400 consumes 28W total when idle - most desktops use that much just for the motherboard. The 7200 RPM drives will run slightly warmer than the 5400 RPM models, but they are also about 30% faster in HDD performance. Adding more RAM will often make HDD performance less important, but if you copy files around on the HDD you will definitely notice the difference.
  • Warder45 - Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - link

    What about the noise difference in 5400 vs 7200? I've heard that the 7200 HD's can be a lot louder.
  • Yianaki - Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - link

    Why can't you have a top of the line 7900 GTX and when watching a DVD or the xp desktop doesn't the graphics card go into basically a sleep mode and turn of almost all the memory. HELL why don't they add a crappy additional teeny transistor space to the gpu chip if it is sooo hard to get the power requirements down on the main GPU. That way they can turn off most of the ram and the gpu and just use this additional teeny transistor space to run simple XP desktop functions or while playing DVD's. I mean a simple xp desktop functions can't take up that much die space. I simply don't get it. I mean this is like the nth graphics card from nvidia and yet it still sucks up the power. I have the horrible intel onboard graphics on my laptop and apart from it eating up some of my precious ram I am EXTREMELY happy with it doing regular desktop XP tasks. Sucks ass for gaming of course. I mean how hard is it for nvidia to totally turn off pretty much all of the GPU when just in desktop mode. Is the huge power difference just because of the high performance memory used? There really shouldn't be a penalty for getting top o' the line graphics I believe.
  • mindless1 - Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - link

    From the article,
    "Why would anyone want to get the X1400 in such a laptop? Obviously, because it uses far less power than even the GeForce Go 7800."

    More like, most people are not gamers and of those who are, many will prefer gaming on their desktop. The % of people that will buy a laptop with gaming in mind is miniscule, and that brings up the other puzzling part about so many gaming benchmarks of laptops instead of more useful things like HDD & office productivity. Sure, anything can run office but what about working with giant databases, or wifi range, or most of the parameters that matter to most prospective laptop buyers. Gaming just isn't important at all if it were the same price. Now subtract the price difference and you see why anyone, actually most people do not pay for the gaming GPU inside.
  • Blahman - Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - link

    Hardly... notebook sales have surpassed desktop sales recently.

    Desktops are on the way out if you ask me. Even if you're a gamer. There are notebooks out there already that have SLI, and the Core Duo architecture is the future of all Intel processors, and it STARTED in notebooks.

    Every new notebook generation closes the performance and price gap between desktops and notebooks.

    I recently configured and ordered a nice E1705 with the 7900 GS (which I really wish AnandTech had included in the benchmarks, it's more than twice as fast as the 7800 Go) for $1250 (with a $750 coupon code). Skimp on the RAM and go for a $180 aftermarket 2GB PC2-5300 upgrade.

    Later on down the road you will be able to upgrade to Merom, and possibly the 7900 GTX or G80M. For now Dell is keeping their spare 7900 GTXs for warranty repairs and aren't currently for sale, but like the last generation with the 7800 GTX, it may be available in the future from Dell Spare Parts.

    For tons of more info about these models check out http://www.notebookforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1...">the Dell 17" Notebooks section at notebookforums.com.
  • ElFenix - Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - link

    who buys a 9 pound notebook with somewhat horrific battery life regardless unless they're gaming? an external display hooked up to a 15" or 14" 6 pound notebook would be far more useful to the user you're describing.

    and don't forget that this IS a gaming oriented website.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now