DailyTech - Dell Rolls Out Budget 15" AMD-based Notebooks

Submit News

Gadgets Dell Rolls Out Budget 15" AMD-based Notebooks
Brandon Hill (Blog) - November 1, 2006 1:10 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

41 comment(s) - last by Zoomer.. on Nov 2 at 7:19 PM

Inspiron 1501

Dell rolls out its AMD-based notebooks, but they don't quite dip below the projected sub-$500 price point

Dell has pulled the wraps off its budget 15.4" notebooks using AMD processors. While the new offerings aren't dipping below the $500 price point previously predicted, the notebooks can be had from $549.

The new Inspiron 1501 is available with a number of processors including the Mobile Sempron 3500+, Turion 64 MK-36, Turion 64 X2 TL-50 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56. Up to 2GB of DDR2 memory is supported via the ATI Radeon Xpress 1150 IGP (256MB HyperMemory). HD audio support is included as is support for SATA hard drive up to 80GB in size. Optical drive choices include a 24x CD-RW/DVD combo drive and a multi-format DVD burner. As for the notebook itself, it weighs 6.19 pounds and measures 14" x 1.44" x 10.45".

The base $549 system will get you a Sempron 3500+ processor, 512MB of memory, 60GB hard drive, CD-RW/DVD combo drive, Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g adapter, Windows XP Home and a 1-year warranty. $859 will get you a Turion 64 MK-36, 1GB of memory, 80GB hard drive, 8x DVD burner, Windows XP Home and a 2-year warranty.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How good is this integrated video?

By Wolfpup on 11/1/2006 3:15:58 PM , Rating: 1

What does this integrated video compare too? I'm just kind of curious as to whether this can play games.

Never thought we'd see the day Dell actually sells AMD CPUs.

RE: How good is this integrated video?

By stmok on 11/1/2006 4:19:24 PM , Rating: 2

The IGP used in this Dell is based on the Radeon X300-core and is on the level with GF6100 IGP at 800x600 or higher.

You can get about 13fps on DOOM III at Medium quality settings, in 800x600. And about 30fps in FarCry. (Same quality and resolution.)

So no, its obviously not a gaming solution. The priority with this solution is low cost and battery life, at the cost of performance.

Parent

RE: How good is this integrated video?

By Cunthor01 on 11/1/2006 5:16:05 PM , Rating: 2

This would still be miles faster then my GeForce 3, or my curent setup at home. I think this laptop will be wicked, and it should sell well.

Parent

RE: How good is this integrated video?

By stmok on 11/2/2006 6:46:29 AM , Rating: 2

I guess it depends on perspective, what kind of system you're coming from, and what you're using now.

If you don't have requirements that are graphically intensive (like modern day games at high resolutions with all the quality settings up to max), then current IGPs would do most people fine. Hell, an Intel IGP will do the job.

Parent

RE: How good is this integrated video?

By Zoomer on 11/2/2006 7:19:59 PM , Rating: 2

Nope, doom 3 doesn't run on intel IGPs. This is light years ahead of any intel graphics "core".

Parent

Budget Portable Laptop

By deeznuts on 11/1/2006 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 4

How about dell making their portable 12" lappies with amd to make it cheaper. I can't imagine lugging anything heavier now (I have before). I have desktops for my more extensive work, a nice light lappie on the cheap would be nice.

RE: Budget Portable Laptop

By Janooo on 11/1/2006 1:57:30 PM , Rating: 2

I second that.

Parent

Not the best value around

By PlattTechnologies on 11/1/2006 3:01:12 PM , Rating: 2

Maybe it is just me, but this new model is not the great value that hype suggests. Having an entry level sempron is about the equivalent of the celeron m. I purchased a celeron m notebook, with glossy widescreen, 512 ram, 80gb HD, AND DVD Burner. All for $579. and unlike the sempron, the celeron will let me upgrade to Merom. I would pass on this model.

RE: Not the best value around

By mlittl3 on 11/1/2006 4:09:10 PM , Rating: 1

The Sempron and Turion X2 use the same processor socket called S1. If the processor is not soldered onto the motherboard, you can upgrade the Sempron to a Turion. You get dual-core, more L2 cache and faster processor speeds. The situation is the exactly the same as the Intel mobile processor upgrade paths.

Parent

RE: Not the best value around

By mlittl3 on 11/1/2006 4:11:43 PM , Rating: 1

Some of the older Semprons used Socket 754. If that is the case then you can only upgrade to single core mobile Athlon XPs and Turions that use Socket 754. I seriously doubt Dell is using the older socket though.

Parent

???

By RMSistight on 11/1/06, Rating: 0

Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/1/06, Rating: -1

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Aikouka on 11/1/2006 1:40:42 PM , Rating: 1

I just want to clarify that not all HP laptops are 4:3. My HP laptop is a 16:10 widescreen :). It was different at first, but now that I use 16:10 widescreens on my desktop too, it's pretty normal.

I do find this article a bit interesting when compared with the one listed below about Dell supposedly causing AMD shortages. Practically in tandem!

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/1/06, Rating: -1

RE: Gimme 4:3

By thegrimreaper3 on 11/1/2006 3:30:18 PM , Rating: 2

the way your post is worder it would seem that you are implying it...

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By vanka on 11/1/2006 2:10:34 PM , Rating: 2

What's wrong with widescreens? I'm shopping around for a new notebook and will only buy a widescreen, I love the extra screen real estate when doing office tasks or watching a movie on the road.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/1/06, Rating: 0

RE: Gimme 4:3

By TomZ on 11/1/2006 2:50:23 PM , Rating: 2

What extra screen space? The problem with 16:10 is that you lose space at around the same price point. For example for LCD monitors in the $300-500 price range, instead of 1600x1200 = 1.92MP you only get 1680x1050 which is 1.76MP. I see that a lot with LCD monitors and with laptops - you're not getting more width, instead, you're getting less height to get the right ratio. It makes no sense to me - it is just a cost-cutting measure, I think.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Heatlesssun on 11/1/2006 3:05:33 PM , Rating: 1

Huh?

With laptops, the standard resolution you got with a lower end model was XGA 1024 x 768 at the beginning of last year in a 14.1" screen. Now you've getting 1440 x 900 and even better in the same size screens this year.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/1/06, Rating: -1

RE: Gimme 4:3

By TomZ on 11/1/2006 3:42:00 PM , Rating: 3

Right, so you're getting only 1.3MP with widescreen instead of 1.5MP for 4:3, at about the same price point in this example.

As I said, I think consumers are getting duped into accepting cheaper displays because of the "watching DVD on laptop" use case. I'd rather have bands on the top and bottom when watching a DVD and be able to use the pixels for other work, than to not have the pixels available at all.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By bob661 on 11/2/2006 12:45:55 AM , Rating: 3

I agree with TomZ 100%. I personally do not like these new widescreen monitors. I'll stick to the 4:3's.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By CrazyBernie on 11/1/2006 4:05:10 PM , Rating: 2

I've seen several of your posts/reponses, and honestly, what's with the attitude? Did you even read his response? He said "lower end models"... what part of that Asus is low end? Why don't you actualy read what people have to say before you post your reponses...

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/1/2006 4:08:01 PM , Rating: 3

You're right, I missed that part. OK, I'm the one to do my homework - to learn to read the posts carefully and think before replying.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By policy11 on 11/1/2006 4:34:05 PM , Rating: 4

Takes a big man to admit he made a mistake. :)

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Lazarus Dark on 11/1/2006 3:14:31 PM , Rating: 2

but for some, they don't need that extra hieght or unreadably small dpi. I usually find wider real estate is more useful.

also I prefer not to have bars on my widescreen vids, which in case you didn't know is what a large percentage of people are using thier comps for these days. and if you wanted to stretch to fill the screen, it looks better streching a 4:3 vid wide than to stretch a 16:9 vid up. Actually, I really wish someone would make a 2:1 screen and movies were made available in that format.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Heatlesssun on 11/1/2006 4:43:35 PM , Rating: 2

4:3 content on a widescreen display is a problem period. HDTV's have the same problem. Honestly though, yeah bars suck, but do you really want to go back to a 4:3 standard definition display?

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/1/2006 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
do you really want to go back to a 4:3 standard definition display?

I want 4:3 HIGH definition display! Oh wait... is my 1600x1200 screen a high definition one or not? ;)

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By braytonak on 11/1/2006 10:17:12 PM , Rating: 2

1600 x 1200 is not an official HD resolution, but it can display 720p (which is 1280 x 720). The downside is that since it's not natively 1280 x 720, you can get some blurring. The highest HD resolution is 1920 x 1080. Viewing that on your 1600 x 1200 display would need to be converted down in resolution, thereby losing detail.

There is no 4:3 HD. There's 480p, but that's EDTV, and even then, just barely.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By copiedright on 11/1/2006 6:31:29 PM , Rating: 1

Most humans read across ways, so wide-screen allows more text on a single line, which when complimented by a scroll bar makes the issue of height unproblematic.

Why do you think most hand-held PC's now support landscape, because its easier for humans to read across ways.

And, for the issue of movies, when a wide-screen movie is viewed on a wide-screen display, the movie will take up more screen space and leave smaller black spacing top and bottom.

I like using a wide display, hence why I have a dual monitor set-up!

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By mindless1 on 11/1/2006 6:55:22 PM , Rating: 5

Quite wrong. The ideal reading width is far fewer characters than the # of pixels ANY typical laptop or desktop LCD can support.

Hand-held PCs have landscape because their resolution is lower, because at such low res. and size it does make more sense to have to constantly scroll.

4:3 is far far closer to ideal for a computer. If you want to watch widescreen movies, buy a TV or DVD player. If you don't have a TV, suddenly it makes more sense to prefer wider screens on laptop or PC, but most people do have access to a TV when they have enough time to watch a movie.

Geeze, why don't people use common sense, and the right device for the job instead of trying to pervert a PC into a money maker for the movie industry.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By copiedright on 11/1/2006 8:11:59 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
pervert a PC into a money maker for the movie industry

You obviously have a few issues with the movie industry!

I personally like to utilise my PCs to their potential as both a medium for work and entertainment.

Using wide-screens for work I can view documents side by side, and when I'm on a long trip I like to be entertained...

so I can either utilise a laptop I already have, and watch movies on a nice wide-screen display, or I can go and fork out another couple of hundred dollars for a device that isn't as good as my laptop! just to watch movies.

And 4:3 is not ideal for a computer. And if you are running your monitor at 1280*1024 which is common for LCDs now you are actually running at a 5:4 aspect ratio.
Also, if 4:3 is ideal, why then is the Apple 30" Cinema display a wide-screen with an aspect ratio of 16:10?

On the cheaper LCD screens, yes you do not get as many pixels as with a standard 5:4 screen, but pay a little more and wide-screen is clearly the answer.

So Mindless1, I think I'm using common sense in choosing an appropriate device to suit my needs.
You however don't want me to utilise my computer because it might help the movie industry. GROW UP!

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By mm2587 on 11/2/2006 12:30:25 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Also, if 4:3 is ideal, why then is the Apple 30" Cinema display a wide-screen with an aspect ratio of 16:10?

Apple fan boi anyone? Can you please clarify this statement? Because it currently reads as; the apple 30" cinema display is the greatest of all displays and since it is 16:10 4:3 is obviously less then ideal.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By copiedright on 11/2/2006 4:36:11 AM , Rating: 2

Actually I am not an apple fan boy. I don't own an apple and never have!

I was just using it as an example of how top of the range is in a wide-screen format.

If I had of gone for a dell you would have called me a dell fanboy.

And yes, 4:3 is less than ideal, wide-screen is better!

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By copiedright on 11/1/2006 8:13:11 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
pervert a PC into a money maker for the movie industry

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By copiedright on 11/1/2006 8:14:07 PM , Rating: 3

Sorry, I didn't mean to post twice.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By copiedright on 11/1/2006 9:24:34 PM , Rating: 3

And since the human eye has a field of view that extends farther to the sides than it does above or below, a wide-screen image makes more effective use of the field of view, thereby producing a more immersive viewing experience.

- wikipedia

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By MuskBassist on 11/1/2006 3:11:11 PM , Rating: 2

I can't imagine what you expect to be different two years from now that will cause you to finally need widescreen.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/1/2006 3:22:41 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
what you expect to be different two years from now that will cause you to finally need widescreen

1) widescreen camcorder prices 2) my movie collection

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Heron Kusanagi on 11/2/2006 2:07:33 AM , Rating: 2

If Dell could have a line for 4:3, I will be the 1st in line to buy it...

Who cares whether humans read better either way, we need choices and Dell is not really offering that experience.

Parent

RE: Gimme 4:3

By Pirks on 11/2/2006 1:53:25 PM , Rating: 2

doh :))

nec sells da perfect 4:3 lcds, in fact my nec 22" crt will be replaced with nec 21" lcd when the crt dies (which is not gonna happen it seems, the sucker works around o'clock since summer 2001 and makes any lcd gaming look quite fugly, EVEN when run on expensive nec 4:3 lcd)

go dell or whatever, I'm staying with nec, my experience with my 1375X is too damn good to drop 'em. I haven't seen anything better among displays for gaming.

so I'm a nec fanboy now :P

Parent