Hello,

I'm buying a laptop and need help with some of the specs.

(for reference, I'm looking at the hp dv6700t)

Graphics Card:
...Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100 vs 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS
Would the $84 upgrade help in watching movies or is this just for gaming?

Processor:
...Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T5750 (2.0GHz)
How noticeable would the jump to 2.1, 2.4, or 2.5 GHz be. The jumps are 100, 50, and 125 dollars respectively.

Memory:
...3 GB vs 4 GB
I run memory intensive programs like photoshop and audio recording software. What kind of difference is there between 3 and 4 GB? Would it be worth $100?

Thanks in advance.

Graphics: If you don't game at all get the GMAX3100. You may regret it later though, its drivers are totally junk.
CPU: It is worth paying the $100 extra for the 2.4GHz.
RAM: Definitely get 4GB. With 3GB you'll lose dual channel therefore you'll lose a lot of performance. I doubt OEM computer manufacturers bother to put 2x1GB + 2x512MB sticks in there so you can keep dual channel, they just throw 3x1GB in there so go for 4GB.

And... If you aren't gonna need DX10, RUN XP. The 64-bit version so you can use all your RAM.

Thanks for the advice. Hopefully I can get enough cash to upgrade my purchase. More questions:

-Why do the drivers of the graphics card matter?
-Why upgrade to the 2.4 GHz?
-So with 3 GB configured as you imagine, and assuming the 2 GB memory would be dual channel, the 3 GB wouldn't be perfect inbetween 2 and 4 GB, but more like 2.5 GB?
-DX10 = DirectX10 I assume, and how would I know if I need that?

Does anyone else have some input?

The drivers of the graphics card matter if you're doing audio recording since you're going to need low latency. Intel still sucks at making graphics chips, and a bad video driver can cause DPC latency spikes which will end up as pops and crackles in your recorded audio, since video runs with higher priority than audio does (this is by chipset design and it cannot be changed). Ask around for a bit before you decide upon the graphics chip, but Nvidia has much better drivers hands down.

You said you're going to use Photoshop a lot. Photoshop is very CPU intensive. The faster the CPU, the faster it will process effects and modifications to the image. From 2.0 to 2.4GHz there is a big jump for $100, i don't think it's worth $125 to go to 2.5GHz, and $50 for just a 100MHz increase certainly isn't worth it.

With 3GB in single channel you'll still have 3GB usable memory, however memory bandwidth will take a big hit. Photoshop is a big memory hog, and it responds well to size as well as speed. I use Photoshop on the rig in sig, after getting used to how fast it runs on that i don't think i could accept it in less than 4GB of RAM. And for 6GB i have 2x1GB + 2x2GB in dual channel. On the old lappy i stick to Paint Shop Pro 8 for any gfx work.

If you don't plan to run any recent 3D games you won't need DX10. The 8400 can't do DX10 at a playable framerate anyway...

Thanks so much for the help.

If you're curious, I'm working on a Pentium 4 w/ 512 MB RAM (I used to have a full gig of RAM until one slot went bad).

So many questions, so little time (and money)...

Would it be better to go from a 2.0 to a 2.1 GHz processor or from 3 to 4 GB RAM (each costs $100)?

The website says, "Superior performance for your entertainment applications with smooth multitasking" below the 2.1 GHz processor and nothing below the others. Is this trying to get people to make the jump with the smallest GHz increase per dollar amount or what (this jump is $100 while others are less and offer equal or greater GHz increases)?

Thanks again.

The 8400 isn't exactly a good card for gaming anyways. And as poor as Intel GMA cards are at 3D stuff, they're sufficient for most tasks. I had Intel GMA 950 in the old P4 I sold last week, and not once I wished I had something faster. Intel's drivers are pretty good (no crashes ever), not only on windows, but also for Linux.


The jump to 2.1 (only 100MHz extra and a little more cache) wouldn't make much of a change. The 2.4 is somewhat faster, but I don't think I'd spend the extra $150 for all of 400MHz. The 2.5GHz CPU is quite a nice chip (T9300): 0.5 GHz more, 3x the cache (6MB vs only 2MB on the 2GHz), plus a few other little things, like a faster FSB (with FSB throttling for extra power savings) and SSE 4.1. It's a nice step up, but it's also $225 extra, on a ~$600$ laptop (ouch).

So if you do a lot of CPU-bound tasks on your laptop (most people don't, it just sucks the battery dry too fast), and have a fair bit of money to spare for it (and perhaps the extra $ for a spare battery, and the strength to lug it around), why not?


4GB is nicer, but $100 for that? You could get the 3GB model, and buy a 2x2GB kit of DDR2 800MHz CL5 (SODIMM) for $80 and install that in the laptop yourself (remove the two 512MB modules -- it's not 3x1GB!) for $80, boosting you to 6GB total (assuming the laptop supports it), for $20 less! It's a somewhat worthwhile upgrade, but definitely not at that price (1GB extra for $100, when 4GB costs less?) The extra RAM would make Vista fly (superfetch would make good use of it for sure), and it would likely run Windows 7 nicely too.

Photoshop needs a fair amount of RAM, but we're not talking about gigabytes of RAM (unless you do work on multiple-layer 100 megapixel images or something).

Long story short, if I was buying it, I'd leave it as-is, and buy a 2x2GB kit of DDR2 elsewhere for it, like this kit that's only $52 after mail in rebate (check the manual first in their support section, to see what kind of RAM it uses/accept/max size/etc)

Edit: seemingly, after a quick peek at the manual, it only has 2 slots for RAM. So 3GB must be 2GB + 1GB modules. And it only supports 4GB max. So all you'd need to upgrade to 4GB yourself, is one 2GB module to replace the 1GB stick. And since they use PC2-5300, it would be even cheaper (from $35). Still no point in spending $100 for the upgrade... That ~$70 saved would nicely pay for the 120GB to 250GB hard drive upgrade or a better battery and a mini laser mouse.

"So if you do a lot of CPU-bound tasks on your laptop (most people don't, it just sucks the battery dry too fast)"
That would help explain my current battery.

I wish there were a computer just like this that supported more RAM. It's looking like I'll go for the 3GB and upgrade like you said.

About the networking aspect, my options are:
802.11b/g WLAN

Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection

Intel® PRO/Wireless 4965AGN Network Connection

Intel® PRO/Wireless 4965AGN Network Connection and Bluetooth™
Discover even faster speeds with the latest wireless technology

With prices at 15, 40, and 65. I'm not sure what the different options mean exactly, but figure I go with the one that includes bluetooth. I don't use bluetooth right now, but maybe I will in the future as it becomes more common. Good idea?

Thanks for the help.

Batteries also lose a LOT of capacity when they age. If your current laptop is fast enough for your uses, then maybe just getting a new battery or 2 of decent capacity is all you really need.


There are laptops that support it, but they'll cost more.

The built-in wifi is likely acceptable. Not sure what chipset it uses (haven't looked). If you want the basic intel one instead it's only $15 more (not sure if it's any better mind you).
The 4965AGN ($40) is a wireless N adapter (replaces G, but also compatible with it), capable of faster connection speeds (no real benefits when you do things like surf the web, only useful for things like large file transfers), assuming you already have a wireless N access point or router (likely not).

If you already have a wireless N router, and plan on transferring large files over wireless, sure, go for that option. Otherwise, it's an interesting option, but just that. You can upgrade the wireless card anytime you want anyways (like when you get a router that has wireless N) and for cheap, so no real rush.

The $65 option is the exact same, but also gives you bluetooth (only useful if you have any bluetooth devices, or plan on buying some).

It's up to you... Nobody can tell you if the options are going to be of any use to you, much less worth the asking price.

I wouldn't feel the need for a new laptop if it weren't for a few things (in case you're curious)...

My current laptop is hardly portable for two reasons: the battery gives me 20 minutes on a good day and the power input area is loose which means holding up the power cord with two erasers. Also, the first hard drive crapped out which means using a friend's old 40 GB one. One of the two 512 MB RAM sticks no longer registers (due to the port). This means no audio recording.

About networking, I don't need bluetooth now and will just get a usb one if I do. As for the other possibilities, I take it my 2 year old linksys router is not an N router, and that my current wireless card on this 4 year old computer, that does me just fine, is the same or less than the bottom line one that would come on this new computer.

The special edition dv6700t computer costs $150 more and I can't figure out why beside the color difference and the se one includes a fingerprint reader.

Wow. I guess you are really due for a new laptop then!


That's basically it. And the fringerprint reader option is only worth $50 anyways. So it's essentially $100 extra for looks. And you have less choices of OS (no Vista Home Premium x64 option, which is free on the cheaper model)