Dell XPS 410: Core 2 Duo for the Masses
by Jarred Walton on September 18, 2006 12:20 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Gaming Resolution Scaling
As this is a system review, we will look at the gaming performance that can be achieved using the XPS 410 at lower resolutions and/or detail settings. We tested the five most commonly used resolutions for modern LCD displays at "high" and "medium" settings. We have provided a chart below of the test settings used for "medium quality" and "high quality" in each game. Here are the results from all three tested systems. All of the results are with sound enabled where possible, as this is how most people play games and it reflects testing the performance of the entire package rather than individual components.
The ABS Ultimate X9 continues to be the fasted tested system that we have reviewed, especially at higher detail settings. The ABS Ultimate X9 was not tested without antialiasing (except in Oblivion and SS2 due to the use of HDR), as performance is more than acceptable so there's no need to drop detail levels. The Sabre Extreme on the other hand can definitely benefit by running at slightly reduced detail settings, especially at higher resolutions. The chief difference between the Sabre Extreme and the XPS 410 is the graphics card, and the fact that the 7900 GTX is faster than the 7900 GT is not at all surprising. If you're wondering how the XPS 410 with a 7900 GS would perform, the reduction in the number of pipelines will reduce performance slightly relative to the 7900 GT in the PC Club Sabre Extreme, but for the most part the two cards would perform very similarly.
Even the fastest system is running into GPU limitations, so the performance benchmarks here essentially amount to comparing different GPUs. At present, the vast majority of games depend more on graphics performance than CPU performance, so with the exception of flight simulators and certain strategy games, GPU performance really does equate to gaming performance. If you need help deciding whether or not you should upgrade the graphics card in a prebuilt system, you can always refer to our video card reviews. Perhaps future games will be able to place more of a burden on the CPU, but that doesn't appear too likely, as games like Unreal Tournament 2007 and the recently released Prey appear to be more GPU limited than current titles.
The choice of graphics card is going to depend in a large part on your choice of display. If you plan on getting a standard 19 inch display -- widescreen or not -- a 7900 GT or 7900 GS will be plenty powerful for the majority of games. With larger displays, running at the native LCD resolution will require more graphics power, and you can see the advantage that the Dell XPS 410 holds over the Sabre Extreme due to the faster GPU. Disabling some of the graphical complexity can help improve frame rates on lower end GPUs, but eventually we will reach the point where faster hardware is going to be required.
DirectX 10 and Windows Vista are both due out in early 2007, and we expect them to usher in a new era of GPU performance. Until then, the GeForce 7900 GS strikes a good balance between price and performance (it would score slightly lower than the 7900 GT), while the GTX continues to be a very fast single GPU solution. However, we are certainly hesitant to recommend spending $500 or more on a DirectX 9 graphics card that will become outdated in just a few more months. If you demand more gaming performance now, consider that a GX2 can be had for almost the same amount of money as Dell charges for the 7900 GTX.
As this is a system review, we will look at the gaming performance that can be achieved using the XPS 410 at lower resolutions and/or detail settings. We tested the five most commonly used resolutions for modern LCD displays at "high" and "medium" settings. We have provided a chart below of the test settings used for "medium quality" and "high quality" in each game. Here are the results from all three tested systems. All of the results are with sound enabled where possible, as this is how most people play games and it reflects testing the performance of the entire package rather than individual components.
| Game Settings | ||
| Medium Quality | High Quality | |
| Battlefield 2 | All settings at high with 0xAA | All settings at high with 4xAA |
| Far Cry | All settings at Very High with 0xAA/8xAF Water at Ultra High |
All settings at Very High with 4xAA/8xAF Water at Ultra High |
| HL2: Episode 1 | All settings on high HDR and color correction enabled 0xAA/8xAF |
All settings on high HDR and color correction enabled 4xAA/8xAF |
| Oblivion | Ultra High Defaults (Max) except: Grass: 0% Interior/Exterior Shadows: 25% Self Shadows: Off Shadows on Grass: Off Tree Canopy Shadows: Off Shadow Filtering: Off Specular Distance: 50% HDR: On (AA: Off) |
Ultra High Defaults (Max) except: Grass: 50% Interior/Exterior Shadows: 50% Self Shadows: Off Shadows on Grass: Off HDR: On (AA: Off) |
| Quake 4 | High defaults with 0xAA SMP enabled |
High defaults with 4xAA SMP enabled |
| Serious Sam 2 | High Detail Defaults High Texture Size HDR Enabled (AA Off) |
Maximum Detail Defaults HDR Enabled (AA Off) |
The ABS Ultimate X9 continues to be the fasted tested system that we have reviewed, especially at higher detail settings. The ABS Ultimate X9 was not tested without antialiasing (except in Oblivion and SS2 due to the use of HDR), as performance is more than acceptable so there's no need to drop detail levels. The Sabre Extreme on the other hand can definitely benefit by running at slightly reduced detail settings, especially at higher resolutions. The chief difference between the Sabre Extreme and the XPS 410 is the graphics card, and the fact that the 7900 GTX is faster than the 7900 GT is not at all surprising. If you're wondering how the XPS 410 with a 7900 GS would perform, the reduction in the number of pipelines will reduce performance slightly relative to the 7900 GT in the PC Club Sabre Extreme, but for the most part the two cards would perform very similarly.
Even the fastest system is running into GPU limitations, so the performance benchmarks here essentially amount to comparing different GPUs. At present, the vast majority of games depend more on graphics performance than CPU performance, so with the exception of flight simulators and certain strategy games, GPU performance really does equate to gaming performance. If you need help deciding whether or not you should upgrade the graphics card in a prebuilt system, you can always refer to our video card reviews. Perhaps future games will be able to place more of a burden on the CPU, but that doesn't appear too likely, as games like Unreal Tournament 2007 and the recently released Prey appear to be more GPU limited than current titles.
The choice of graphics card is going to depend in a large part on your choice of display. If you plan on getting a standard 19 inch display -- widescreen or not -- a 7900 GT or 7900 GS will be plenty powerful for the majority of games. With larger displays, running at the native LCD resolution will require more graphics power, and you can see the advantage that the Dell XPS 410 holds over the Sabre Extreme due to the faster GPU. Disabling some of the graphical complexity can help improve frame rates on lower end GPUs, but eventually we will reach the point where faster hardware is going to be required.
DirectX 10 and Windows Vista are both due out in early 2007, and we expect them to usher in a new era of GPU performance. Until then, the GeForce 7900 GS strikes a good balance between price and performance (it would score slightly lower than the 7900 GT), while the GTX continues to be a very fast single GPU solution. However, we are certainly hesitant to recommend spending $500 or more on a DirectX 9 graphics card that will become outdated in just a few more months. If you demand more gaming performance now, consider that a GX2 can be had for almost the same amount of money as Dell charges for the 7900 GTX.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
OptimisTech - Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - link
Anyone know how this differs from the Dimension 9200 in the Small Business division? It seems like the 9200 can be a little cheaper, but they seem identical.JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - link
The XPS 410 and the Dimension 9200 are the same basic system. The XPS simply comes with higher default components as well as some extra options in a few areas, while the 9200 has some lower end options that help to cut costs (i.e., by default it only ships with one DVD-ROM/CD-RW combo drive and an 80 GB hard drive, and DDR2-667 memory isn't listed as an upgrade). Also note that you do not get a higher level of technical support with the Dell dimension 9200 I think (though that might be wrong, as the 9200 is a business setup).Kougar - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
Definitely looking forward to it! 15" viewable is just not cutting it for me anymore...
If I may ask, what other monitors might be in the article featuring the 2407WFP review or others? I have seen a review of the relatively hard to find 24" BenQ FP241W, which outscored the 2407WFP, but as I know nothing of the site I'd very much like to see one of Anandtech's solid reviews comparing it to the Dell model. Just another suggestion, anyway... ;)
JarredWalton - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
Honestly, a large part of LCD purchase decisions is going to come down to price, especially on 23/24" models. While a display may be twice as accurate, for everything but professional use that probably won't matter much. I've got both the old and new Dell 24" models (I bought the 2405FPW last year), a 23" Philips, as well as a few smaller, less-expensive displays in the 19-22" range. If the price is equal or close, get the better quality display of course, but there is very little to complain about with Dell's 24" LCDs in my experience.Kougar - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
Thank you for your reply!I didn't want to make a huge post, but a few things I probably should of pointed out that confuse the issue is that The BenQ is supposed to be cheaper, although at the moment it's about a little more in US dollars. In pounds it's a good deal cheaper though according to their review, which is partly why they scored it so well. But it's still pretty rare/new, so I figure prices will still be setlling on it.
According to Trusted Reviews it's £549.99 without VAT, much below the Dell which they say is £702.00 without VAT. And also according to them better quality, enough for a perfect score across the board. Naturally TrustedReviews didn't score the 2407WFP half as well, so I'm trying to figure out which is indeed better for gaming purposes in response timings and such. ;)
What you've said pretty much sums up what I've read about the Dell 2407WFP, which is mostly why I find their ratings of that BenQ and it's purported price to be so hard to believe!
JarredWalton - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
I do have one BenQ LCD, but it's only a 19" model. I feel BenQ is a little cheaper on build quality, and I did have a 20" model for a bit that started emiting a high-pitched squeal at times. I haven't done the specific tests on the 19" model yet, but most 23/24" LCDs are very similar, as there aren't that many panel manufacturers. I'd be surprised if the BenQ is substantially better, but if you can find it for less money it's certainly worth considering. I'm trying to get a 24" Acer for review as well, as it's priced about $100 lower than the Dell 2407WFP.Kougar - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
Yipe, those things can squeal? I would not feel comfortable sitting infront of any monitor that squealed!Thank you again, I do aprpeciate your opinion and experiences with both company's line of displays.
And good luck getting that Acer, I'll add that one to my list! I'm planning on getting some kind of 22-24" widescreen display during the prime time sales season, but it really helps to have a good idea of what's out there already. Thanks again!
JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - link
It's usually a transistor or capacitor or something that causes the noise. A lot of motherboards do it as well in my experience, but the pitch and volume of the noise from this particular LCD was louder than most others that I've encountered.Sunrise089 - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
Top of page 5 reads "One final at them to talk about is the included TV tuner""At them" should = "item"
I couldn't figure out how you would have mistyped that, but then I remembered that speech-recognition software review you did. Looks like that still isn't a perfected system :)
JarredWalton - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
I do have to be very thorough about proofreading my articles, but after being up all night finishing up this review I missed that one. When I go through and do the final read before posting an article, I often encounter several spots for a look at the words and think, "what on earth did I say to get Dragon NaturallySpeaking to write that!?"Anyway, thanks for the correction. Hopefully that's the last one. :-)