Dell Studio 14z: Thin and Light Done Right
by Jarred Walton on October 20, 2009 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Dell Studio 14z General Windows Performance
Quite a few people have asked for some general performance numbers in terms of Windows boot/shutdown, hibernate/resume, and sleep/wake times. Results vary between runs, but we minimize that effect by booting to a clean desktop, letting Windows stabilize, and repeating the tests multiple times. We report the best-case result for each system. Again, keep in mind that the netbooks have less RAM and run Windows XP, which gives them a big advantage in hibernate/resume tests. The Studio 14z is also equipped with 3GB RAM, which should yield better performance compared to the Gateway systems in hibernate/resume testing.
Despite having a faster CPU, OS boot times remain similar to other systems. It's a little surprising that the Gateway NV58 actually boots several seconds faster than the Studio 14z, but the Studio 14z does place at the top of the pack in shutdown time, and hibernate time is also very good considering memory sizes. The laptop POST time certainly impacts the boot/resume results, and again it would be great if laptop manufacturers would spend more time optimizing for improved POST speeds. One area will where we have no explanation for the poor result is the sleep performance; the Studio 14z consistently took 20 seconds or longer to enter suspend mode, though it does offer the fastest "wake" result of any system tested to date.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link
Newegg has a notebook for $399 right now. Please explain how you justify twice the price. A slightly faster processor, slightly more battery life. Big whoop.JarredWalton - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link
It helps to link to what you're talking about, or at least mention the name. Let's assume you're looking at the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">Acer Aspire AS5517-5671, which currently sells for $400.1) 15.6" vs. 14.0"
2) 6.0 lbs. vs. 4.6 lbs.
3) AMD Athlon 64 TF-20 (1.6GHz) vs. Core 2 Duo P8600 (2.4GHz)
4) DDR2 vs. DDR3
5) 160GB HDD vs. 320GB HDD
6) "Up to" 2.4 hours vs. 4.5 hours (measured)
When you combine all of those areas, plus chassis design, the Studio 14z is clearly superior to this particular $400 laptop in every way. Does that mean it's worth the extra money? You'll have to decide that. Keep in mind that the Gateway NV52 (benchmarked in this article) is going to be at least 30% faster CPU than the $400 Acer (2.1GHz vs. 1.6GHz), and the 14z with P8600 is almost twice as fast.
If all you need is a basic laptop and you want to save money, sure, go for a cheap $400-$500 laptop. Don't expect top performance or battery life, and you won't be disappointed. Unfortunately, don't expect top quality either (but it's possible you'll still get a notebook that doesn't have any issues).
JimmyJimmington - Friday, October 23, 2009 - link
Also a different GPU, no wireless N, no blue tooth, no esata, no 1600x900 resolution screen.My question would be, if all you care about is saving money, why not go with a $150 netbook refurb? It would certainly be lighter and have more battery life. And if you drop it and it breaks you don't have to feel so bad because you can just go out and buy a new one :D
hybrid2d4x4 - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link
Thanks for the excellent review, Jarred. I really like how you included the POST times, calling out Dell on glossy finish+screen and LCD quality and also adding FPS bars at the native res. One minor request for future reviews of laptops that are obviously unable to handle top-end games: throw in a Source-based game (or some other older engine) for comparison to show what the cutoff seems to be for what kind of game it actually CAN play well with med/high settings at the native res.On the POST issue, I wonder if there's something about the GF9400 that makes it POST slowly. My Gigabyte 9400-based mobo takes around 10s as well. I know it's not a vendor-specific issue since a Dell Mini 9 I've had my hands on did it in probably under 5s and booted to XP desktop in exactly 25s (8B SSD, uninstalled factory bloatware). I wonder if the Zotac and Asus 9400 boards also POST slowly...
jasperjones - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
very nice review. the comparison you make to the macbook is well-balanced. and i agree that it is a viable--although more expensive--alternative.macs tend to be a good deal shortly after their model refresh (since apple tends to keep prices fixed until the next refresh). my problem with macs is that i don't like os x. basically, i run linux or windows as my main os on a mac. given the hint in a comment that anand might review the new macbook, one thing i'd really like to see on anandtech would be benches and battery performance under operating systems other than os x (yeah, i know linux is gonna suck battery-wise but win 7 might be an interesting option).
Kishkumen - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
If only it didn't have a glossy screen (or rather had a matte option) I'd be the proud owner of one of these otherwise cool, little laptops....Pirks - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
You were putting MacBooks there always, in the relative battery life graphs, but now you don't? Did you get enough hate mail from wintrolls or what? Death threats maybe? ;)Also, do you intend to do a review of the new $999 MacBook they just released? Mighty sweet machine, could you touch it up and pass your thoughts you know? I'd be VERY interested, thanks!
JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Honestly, I removed the Mac from the graphs more because I know that the testing wasn't entirely Apples to apples. Different browser and web pages mean the Mac may have gotten a boost. Still, when a MacBook can last 3.1 hours with a 45Wh battery on our heaviest load (downloading files, playing a movie, and surfing the web) while a Windows laptop with similar specs can only get 4.5 hours at idle using a 74Wh battery, it's clear that OS X remains better optimized.DominionSeraph - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
I can't wrap my head around the MacBook run times under OS X. I mean, it ain't like there are magically more c and p states available under OS X. And in your OS Mobility roundup you ran Vista in Power Saving mode -- I know that on my desktop that locks my X2 5200+ into its lowest p-state. If that's applicable to the AMD laptops, then the differences can't be explained by Microsoft OS idle processes causing blips to full-throttle.Could you test the MacBook with a MS OS, locked to the lowest SpeedStep setting using RMClock (or the like)? And then try @ max undervolt whilst still locked at idle?
If max undervolt while locked to lowest frequency can't match OS X at stock settings, I think my head will explode.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
I can ask Anand to give it a shot... I think he's working on some MacBook articles already so it's definitely something to investigate. But don't discount the possibility that Windows (especially Vista) is preventing the CPU (and peripherals) from entering minimum C-states for long periods of time. Windows seems to constantly "ping" HDDs and other devices to make sure they're still around or something. LOL