Official Clevo D900K Countdown Thread - Page 2

bad Karma always comes around...

Can I tell Who's name to put on it LOL

a-HA! I knew I read it somewhere....:

http://www.rock-direct.com/notebooks/xtreme64_cons.htm

Now, that doesn't make it true, but it justifies my question.

another good reason not to pre-order models with unreleased specs.

No kidding..........

Rock direct says 1GB
Eurocom says 2GB
Voodoo says 2GB
Luke says 2 slots

I just hope they get they design right enough that when the 2GB so-dimms get here it will run 64bit windows and address all 4GB

Is that definite? Chipset can't get to 4GB? At least the 900T will hold 4GB and run. Maybe I should be asking when the 900T is going to get a refresh with a new chipset.

Good god. The original hasn't even been released yet & you're saying you want the refesh?!?!?!

900T not 900K


The T is the intel version, the K is the AMD dual-core

nForce4 is also restricted to 3.xxGB. I looked into this when I was concidering a desktop and yes it is a chipset limitation. Even if you install 4GB some memory will be used for system resources PCI busses or whatever it was. This is also the case with Intel chipset. I never got a good explination and thought it all sounded really weird... I whish someone could clarify!

I don't know that much about the nForce4 chipset but I can try and explain how it works with the Intel 915 chipsets. Please feel free to clarify or correct if I am mistaken.

The 915 chipset can address 4gb of memory addresses but it reserves 1.2 gb for hardware addresses and such. Note that this is memory *addresses*, which is different from physical memory. That leaves a maximum of 2.8 gb of addresses for *system* memory addresses. So it's not so much that it won't recognize more than 2.8 gb of physical memory it's just that no matter how much is installed the chipset can only assign 2.8gb of addresses to it.

Thus, even if you installed, say, 4x1gb in the 915 mobo (for a total of 4gb) the chipset can only assign 2.8 gb of addresses to it and would only use 2.8 gb.

However, one could install 2 x 1gb + 2 x 512 in a mobo that has 4 slots (such as the Clevo 900T) for a total of 3gb. Of that, the chipset would assign 2.8 gb of addresses to it and thus, would only be able to use 2.8 gb of it. I say 'only' 2.8 gb but, obviously, that is a lot. In fact, if you're a gamer you probably won't be able to use that much memory for any games on the immediate horizon. Perhaps in the future some titles will be able to use more memory but by then you'll all want to upgrade to the newest and latest Clevo anyway.

There are, of course, a few non-gaming applications that make use of that much memory. Some who are using their DTR for those non-gaming apps would benefit from 2.8 gb RAM.

(Again, feel free to correct or clarify.)

Luke has a sticky about this subject in this Sager general forum.

My bad! SO, you'd rather have an Intel system with 4GB instead of an AMD system with 2-3GB?

All right, here is my dilemma where you guys can really help me, since you seem to have a great deal more knowledge than I.

I have a 2 year old Dell Inspiron 8500 which must be replaced (rather soon) due to me recently becoming heavily involved with 3D rendering applications such as 3d Max, Revit, SketchUp and AutoCAD. This is what my livelihood requires, so money is not a deterrent, nor is weight, battery life, etc. No gaming whatsoever, as I have a computer setup at home for my grandchildren to game with.

I began my search about 3 months ago but decided to wait for WindowXP 64. By the time XP 64 was released, word was out regarding the 100GB 7200RPM hard drives. Due to typyically large project files sizes in the range of 25 - 100 MB, this is an important issue. Yesterday I noticed that Hypersonic is now offering the D900T with SATA 100GB 7200RPM hard drives. 2 of my 3 wishlist items are now realized.

In your opinion(s), will the AMD dual core processors be worth the wait for me in ANY way. In the REAL world, will I notice any substantial benefits in speed, running multiple apps, etc.? Questions I have are: heat from the P4 vs. AMD dual core; processing speed and power for 3D rendering (not gaming); probable limitations with available RAM (4GB with the P4 vs 2GB, or perhaps 3GB, with dual core, etc.)

Also, while I have your attention, given the obvious issues with the initial release of WindowsXP 64, what are the downsides to configuring the D900T, or D900K, with a dual boot setup. Perhaps WindowsXP 64 and Windows Media Edition 2005? I don't know if any disadvantages would be minimized with the AMD dual core unit. Also, I would order either of the units with dual hard drives.

I would not like for my company to spend $6 - $7K on a new notebook now because of my impatience if there are genuine performance boosts to be realized with the dual core processors. But there comes a point where a decision must be made. If I wait until September, or October, (Eurocom has revised their dates 3 times that I know of) then why not wait until 1Q 2006 to see what the Intel dual core is like. Right now, I am rendering a small interior scene in Revit on my I8500. Since I began last evening at 9:00 PM, the rendering is 51% complete and it is now 10:40 AM the next morning. I can't hold out too much longer.

Good luck getting the 100 GB 7200 rpm hard drive, Rookwood. I've been waiting 31 days (so far) for it, and still no word.

Yes the majority of my work is memory/CPU intensive and memory can be the most important factor in that. Also a P4 will typically beat an Athlon64 by 10% for the work I am doing. That may change a little bit when the 64bit version of the program is relased, but I don't expect much.

My benchmarks:
Dell Lattitude 800 2.13GHz 2GB 2455 sec
Emachines 6807 1.8 GHz 2GB (3000+) 2115 sec
Desktop P4 HT 3.0 GHz 2GB 1901 sec

For reference 1900 sec is almost 32 minutes.
That run is not that big and requires 1435 MB memory and won't run unless the program can allocate it. The program would run much faster if more memory could be allocated

I looked at the Dell M70 last month with the 100GB 7200RPM hard drive. The 100GB has now been replaced with the 80GB 7200 RPM unit. Suppose there are issues with the 100GB hard drives?

Most likely just really constrained availability, even for Dell. Therefore, they just temporarily quit offering the drive.

Actually, the P4 also, to my knowledge, has chipset-limited RAM. 2.8 GB maximum addressable, unless they've fixed it since the last time I checked.

The Pentium 4 will consume more power and dissipate more heat than the Athlon 64 dual core, judging by information I've seen in reviews. You will notice benefits in multi-threaded appliations like 3dmax, and huge benefits in multi-tasking.

There aren't really any downsides. At worst, you'd need to reboot the computer in the other OS to run some applications.

The Intel dual core Extreme Edition CPU holds a slight performance advantage when massive multi-tasking is being done, because the Windows scheduler doesn't work very well. For typical multi-tasking and usage scenarios, the Athlon 64 X2 will be faster.

Dennis:
How do you like your EX7. I will most probably order the Hypersonic Fusion EX7 workstation unit identical to yours except for the dual 100GB 7200RPM hard drives, dual boot XP 64 with XP Media Center Edition, possibly RAID 0...and dual core processor if I can hold out until then.