NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Notebook Reviews › Dell 8600 vs. 9100 (Radeon 9600 vs. 9700)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dell 8600 vs. 9100 (Radeon 9600 vs. 9700)

post #1 of 22
5/5/04 at 9:59pm
Thread Starter 
I'm looking into buying a Inspiron laptop and I'm torn between these 2. I'm curious as to the differences performance wise between the Pentium M 1.6 and the Pentium 4 3.2. I know the Pentium M is supposed to perform beyond its clock speed but wonder what the real world numbers are. I'm willing to sacrifice SOME power for the extra battery life but not so much to where its a substantial difference. Also wondering about the difference between the Radeon 9700 as apposed to the 9600. The 9700 isn't an option on the 8600 but is on the 9100. Thanks for helping me out!
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 22
5/5/04 at 10:39pm
your looking at anywhere between 10-50% performance loss compared to pentium4 3.2ghz HT cpu and vaired on applications
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 22
5/5/04 at 10:42pm
then again you WILL gain 90-110% battery life good trade off dont you think?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 22
5/6/04 at 9:03am
Depends on individual usage. For me, no, however I by no means represent the majority.... I love my 9100 though. Besides, most of the places I'll be using my laptop, will have power adapters so it's not quite as important.

If you want a desktop replacement, which I did, the 9100/xps are hard to beat. If you need the mobility, the 8600 is probably the choice.


The radeon mobility 9700 performs on par with my desktop 9600xt. 27,000+ on aquamark 3, 3400 on 3dmark03. Tigerwoods 2004 runs flawlessly at full detail on 1280x1024.

Just food for thought. Good Luck
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 22
5/6/04 at 11:53am
Also take into consideration the pure size and weight of the i9100 compared to the i8600. It can hardly be classified a laptop anymore IMHO...
stu
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 22
5/7/04 at 12:05pm
2 of my friends have 8600's that won't run Raven Shield, it has in game slow downs, while my 9100 plays it fine. One of them is going to get a 9100. We suspect its some incompatibility with the game engine (I think it uses the UT engine) and the Pentium M processor, as everything else is almost the same..
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 22
5/8/04 at 10:43am
Im kinda torn this way also.

I'll only be a very infrequent gamer, the most cpu intensive thing I do is videoediting.

My current desktop is a 3.0 gig canterwood - sothe 9100 should feel similar.

However is the 8600 really that much slower?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 22
5/8/04 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillio
2 of my friends have 8600's that won't run Raven Shield, it has in game slow downs, while my 9100 plays it fine. One of them is going to get a 9100. We suspect its some incompatibility with the game engine (I think it uses the UT engine) and the Pentium M processor, as everything else is almost the same..

well the 8600 in my sig not only runs raven shield, but ut2004, farcry and the leaked doom 3 alpha, so im assuming they had ****ty specs on their machines.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 22
5/8/04 at 3:17pm
Tapek I would be really interested to hear how your 8600 handles the doom alpha demo... average settings with low resolution, or high-normal settings and resolution?

Be a princess & include a screenshot if you can as well please

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 22
5/8/04 at 3:57pm
actually Tapek, my buddies have the exact same specs as yours, one has hte 9600, the other a GF5200Go

odd that yours plays it fine...have you tried playing it online? Theirs would play fine in single player, but in multiplayer they would get the slowdowns.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 22
5/14/04 at 7:15pm
curiousity bump.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 22
5/14/04 at 11:11pm
Just FYI... a 1.7 Pentium M is roughly equal to a 2.72 Pentium 4... So you won't be losing much. Oh, yeah and the doesn't include what a Dothan proc should rate. So that should be slightly faster.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 22
5/14/04 at 11:20pm
Quote:
Also take into consideration the pure size and weight of the i9100 compared to the i8600. It can hardly be classified a laptop anymore IMHO...
The size difference is really insignificant,

8600 Specs..

Height: 1.52-inch (38.6 mm)

Width: 14.22-inch (361.2 mm)

Depth: 10.87-inch (276.1 mm)

Weight: 6.9 lbs1. (2.96 Kg1) with travel module, battery and Harddrive.

9100 Specs..

Height: 2.0-inch (50.8 mm)

Width: 14.1-inch (359 mm)

Depth: 10.8-inch (274 mm)

Weight: 8.84 lbs1. (4.02 Kg1) with travel module, battery and Harddrive.

These are from the Dell Website, so you see, the 8600 is actually wider and deeper than the 9100.

Granted the 9100 is a mere 12 mm (1/2 inch) taller, but this is basically irrelevant, as the 9100 will fit into virtually any computer bag or laptop case that the 8600 fits into.

And who is really going to complain about carrying an extra kilo (2lbs), This shouldn't be an issue for any reasonable healthy person.

The only valid justification for the 8600 over the 9100 is if you need long battery life, ie longer than 2 hours.

Just my opinion though, but so many people say the 9100 is bigger than the 8600 and it simply is not the case....
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 22
5/14/04 at 11:36pm
Well heres a first! Just looking at the Dell Australia Site, the new 8600 is shipping with the Dothan.

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...=au&l=en&s=dhs

Enhanced Performance

Processor: Intel® CentrinoTM mobile technology features: Intel® Pentium® M Procesors up to 1.6GHz OR choose the
NEW! Intel® Pentium® M Processor at 735 (Processor Speed 1.7GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 400 MHz FSB)
NEW! Intel® Pentium® M Processor at 745 (Processor Speed 1.8GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 400 MHz FSB)
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 22
5/15/04 at 4:55am
rob2160,

1/2" and 2 lbs doesn't sound like much, but it is quite a bit. two inches is really thick for a laptop. If you use the built-in keyboard, your hands are way above the desk. That's going to take a toll on your wrists. If you use an external keyboard, you are that much forther away from the screen. Use an external screen and you might as well use a desktop, which is cheaper than the 9100.

As for the 2 lbs, it may be fine for a quick trip, but you try carrying a 9 pound laptop all day and compare it to carrying around a 7 pounder. BIG difference. And if you have other stuff in there, like school books, work stuff, etc., that two pounds can make quite a difference.

The 9100/XPS are nice, but when talking about notebook computers, for all intents and purposes, they don't really fit into that category. Too large, too heavy, and pitiful battery life. However, I can see how it would be convenient for the extra desk space. That's the main reason I use laptops is the added space on my desk. But, I figure if I'm going to pay the premium for a notebook, I want to be able to easily take it with me and use it for several hours on battery. Can't do that with a 9100.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 22
5/15/04 at 2:07pm
the dell xps has better a better thermal design and power output than the 8600

so if u were to compare the same video cards on these two platforms, the xps will be able to OC higher and will most likely have a higher default clock/mem

my 9700 centrino system came with 400core/200mem default
tweaked i can go to 475/250... artifacts occur if i go any higher

knowing that, when looking at:

sager 5690, sager 8790, dell xps with 9700 cards...

they can get 500/300 and score 3900-4000 in 3dmark03...
better cooling properties, better thermal design, more power output in those machines

even tho its the same card

cpu speed wont have much of an impact in gaming unless u are playing a game that is cpu intensive like quake3, or neverwinter nights (halflife 2 is suppose to be cpu intensive i hear)

the gpu typicaly does 85% of the work
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 22
5/15/04 at 9:31pm
Shaun3000,

I hear what you are saying, and respect your opinion, but I don't understand how an extra 1/2" is going to take a toll on your wrists, as both the 8600 and the 9100 have keyboards that are flush with the palm rests at the front of the computer, so the wrist angle would be identical when typing with both.

I guess if you are walking around carrying the laptop for hours each day the 2lbs might be critical, but most people I know lug them from home to school/work, friends places etc, which involves only a few minutes walking and the rest of the time in a car/bus or train, where the laptop is sitting in the bag on the ground.

I totally agree with you concerning battery life, the 8600 is the winner hands down, I previously had a inspiron 5000 for the last 3 years and probably used it on batteries no more than 5 times in that period, and then only for a quick email check. (20 mins)

The 8600 is a beautiful laptop, one of the guys at work has one and I have used it frequently, but the clincher for me is the mobility radeon 9700 in the 9100, it significantly out performs the 9600 PT, in the games and flight sims I use the laptop for.

Either way, they are both great laptops, I guess we each buy the one that suits us best.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 22
5/15/04 at 11:06pm
From what I understand, the biggest reason the 9100 outperforms the 8600 is the superior cooling found in the 9100/XPS. Everything I've been told says the mobile 9700 isn't really much better than the 9600.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 22
5/16/04 at 12:38pm
Not sure what you have been told Shaun3000, but I had my friends 8600 for 3 days when he first bought it and I tested several games on it, including 3d mark2003, then I tested the same games with my 9100 when it arrived and in my opinion there was a "huge" improvement in the 9100.

the 3d Mark for the 8600 was 2640, my 9100 gives 3358.

The biggest difference is with flight sim 2004, with all setting on maximum at 1024 x 768 the 8600 topped out at around 30fps and sometimes dropped to 15fps, which is still playable and pretty good... heck, I was impressed at the time, but the 9100 at the same settings gives me over 70 fps and never drops below 35 fps, much much better!
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 22
5/16/04 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2160
The size difference is really insignificant,

8600 Specs..

Height: 1.52-inch (38.6 mm)

Width: 14.22-inch (361.2 mm)

Depth: 10.87-inch (276.1 mm)

Weight: 6.9 lbs1. (2.96 Kg1) with travel module, battery and Harddrive.

9100 Specs..

Height: 2.0-inch (50.8 mm)

Width: 14.1-inch (359 mm)

Depth: 10.8-inch (274 mm)

Weight: 8.84 lbs1. (4.02 Kg1) with travel module, battery and Harddrive.

These are from the Dell Website, so you see, the 8600 is actually wider and deeper than the 9100.

Granted the 9100 is a mere 12 mm (1/2 inch) taller, but this is basically irrelevant, as the 9100 will fit into virtually any computer bag or laptop case that the 8600 fits into.

And who is really going to complain about carrying an extra kilo (2lbs), This shouldn't be an issue for any reasonable healthy person.

The only valid justification for the 8600 over the 9100 is if you need long battery life, ie longer than 2 hours.

Just my opinion though, but so many people say the 9100 is bigger than the 8600 and it simply is not the case....
hahaha woops I pressed edit instead of quote for the original post this is referring to, which is why it says "edited by spiike".

Taking infact that the palm rest and the lcd bezel and lid are actually the same parts as the 8600.... I find it strange how they are reported as different sizes.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dell Notebook Reviews
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Notebook Reviews › Dell 8600 vs. 9100 (Radeon 9600 vs. 9700)