Print 91 comment(s) - last by borismkv.. on May 20 at 8:51 PM

Alienware going low-end with $1699 gaming desktop

Gaming PCs tend to be some of the most expensive computer systems that you can buy and routinely sell for many times the cost of traditional computers. Gaming PCs also tend to set trends that trickle down into mainstream systems as the high-end components become cheaper.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the gaming PC market is currently worth about $12 billion. To grab its share of this massive market Dell purchased gaming PC maker Alienware in 2006. Rather than integrate Alienware into its traditional business, Dell opted to let Alienware continue to develop and market its own products and simply helped Alienware by using Dell’s massive purchasing power to get cheaper components.

As part of it’s mostly hands off approach to Alienware, Dell continued to develop, market and sell its own line of gaming systems in the Dell XPS line. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that Dell has said it will begin phasing out four of the gaming systems in its XPS line, moving Alienware into the only high-end gaming computer maker operating within Dell.

Alienware tumbled from the top of the gaming PC heap after its purchase by Dell in part due to competition from Dells own XPS line. Dell recently placed Arthur Lewis, who joined Dell with the Alienware purchase, as the head of its gaming PC division. Lewis said that Alienware was still a premier name in the gaming PC market. Lewis was a vice president with Alienware.

Dell is also going to end the tie-in with World of Warcraft and its XPS machines. Lewis says that Alienware is going to be updating its boxes, which have had the same look for a long time, by using new materials for the exterior of the systems.

Gaming PCs in general for the last several years have for the most part used Intel over AMD due to the typically increased performance that Intel parts provide. Despite this tradition, Alienware has also said that it will be bringing a low-cost (by gaming PC standards) gaming system to market in the next few weeks powered by AMD/ATI.

The new Alienware system will be priced at $1,699 according to CNET. The machine will use a quad-core Phenom X4 9550 processor running at 2.2GHz. Graphics for the machine will be via ATI’s dual GPU HD 3870 X2 video card. The system is reported to use an Asus mainboard with the AMD 790FX chipset.

PC gamers will likely understand what Alienware is going for here -- a lower cost system. Price is one of the places Alienware is criticized the most. Marc Diana, Alienware product marketing manager for desktops says, “We're seeing huge demand from customers. AMD is a good entry point."

Other high-end gaming PC makers don’t echo that sentiment. CNET says that Falcon Northwest reports virtually no demand for AMD based systems according to a company spokesperson.

Comments     Threshold

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

By FITCamaro on 5/13/2008 1:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
They view that as cheap? And for a Phenom system with a 3870 X2? You can build that system on your own for about a grand.

Honestly Alienware desktops aren't that great. The case may look cool but the airflow is terrible. I'd prefer a Dell Optiplex case to an Alienware one (especially since they use BTX). Clean, cool, and quiet. Then of course there's the huge premium you pay for the name. About the only thing worthwhile is that they do a fabulous wiring job.

RE: $1699?
By 16nm on 5/13/2008 2:05:17 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but some people are willing to pay extra to not have to fiddle around with assembling a computer. Some people just want to pull it out of the box and it already be tested and working.

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: $1699?
By darkpaw on 5/13/2008 3:49:23 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone that gives Apple crap about high prices pretty much hates on Dell and others for their expensive builds too. Funny, how Apple fans always use the XPS to compare prices too, even though the other PC lines are much cheaper. XPS has always been the eXtreme price system, and they suck just as bad as Apple does for ripping people off.

Some of the XPS laptops aren't badly priced though if bought on sale/open box, especially if bought from the Dell Depot. $999 for a fully loaded M1310 is pretty damn nice.

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: $1699?
By darkpaw on 5/13/2008 5:45:37 PM , Rating: 5
Because they use cheap parts? It's not hard to figure out.

Now Apples use cheap parts and charge primo prices for them. It's pretty apparant they are over charging, just look at their profit margins. I can't blame them though, if I had thousands of idiots willing to pay me more for the same thing everyone else is selling for less I'd be happy too.

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: $1699?
By cmdrdredd on 5/13/2008 6:32:57 PM , Rating: 3
Apple uses low wattage power supplies for one. Second they Use generic memory for their builds but charge 50% more than name brands you can buy from newegg. Third, they don't offer multichannel analog output for most PC 5.1/6.1/7.1 speaker sets. Their new systems have an optical connection, but this goes largely unused.

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: $1699?
By tastyratz on 5/14/2008 7:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
the difference is that apple sells the exact same product for substantially higher prices which only results in larger profit margins. They aren't getting more money because that memory was custom designed for apple, its the same product and they pay the same price as other system builders- they just charge more.

High quality parts and builds regardless, look at the psyclone systems that have gotten media attention lately. You can build a similar or substantially better spec-ed system for much less money.
The same machine that apple considers mid level might be an entry level generic pc.

I will say that I have seen the insides of some mac pro workstations and while those use xeon cpu's and scsi disc's I cannot attest to their consumer marketed machines being the same.

The case designs are excellent, the cases are stylish in appearance, and they run quiet.

Who cares if they have a custom motherboard? so does dell. what about custom power supplies? hp can do that too.
all the big names do the same things... usually its just called relabeling.

Would you pay an extra hundred bux for a pc power supply that's dimensionally 1/4 in shorter or has 1 extra plug? custom doesn't matter when its consumer pre assembled machines and its certainly not an excuse.
All this in the end still results in proprietary hardware (less than it used to but still prominant) that's charged substantially more than its competition. Now that they are using intel cpu's its just glaringly obvious.

But they have funny commercials, so there must be some magic right?

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: $1699?
By daftrok on 5/15/2008 12:34:27 AM , Rating: 4
1) Apple uses the same CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, screens, wifi card and bluetooth cards as the major PC retailers (Dell, HP, etc.)
2) Apple utilizes space and energy saving techniques to make their computers and laptops more compact and energy efficient, however this does not make the laptops significantly more costly, but rather more cost efficient.
3) Their Leopard OS has been priced at $129

1) Though the Mac Mini is indeed energy/space efficient, it is severely crippled by its small HDD, slow CPU, slow GPU, and high price tag; a 1.83 GHz C2D, 80 GB HDD, 1 GB RAM, Intel 950 and Combo Drive for $599 is a rip off no matter how many ways you look at it. Make it 2.1 GHz C2D, 250 GB HDD, 2 GB RAM, 8400M GT video card and Super drive for $499 and that's a good deal.

2) The iMac is good for a simple All in One solution, however how much simpler is it really? You have the tower and the screen together and thats about it. Most monitors today have built in speakers and webcams can be clamped to the top of the monitor with ease. On top of that, its a desktop. Why does it matter if a couple extra wires are being thrown behind your desk? And if its space that's a problem, then get this:

It has a 180W power supply (which is 70 watts more than the Mac mini and has much more impressive specs under the hood at the same price), and then get this:

Its a sleek black monitor with built in speakers and consumes 80W. Adding that with the slim PC I linked (which takes 1/3 cubic foot of space) it takes only 60 watts more than an iMac but its hundreds of dollars cheaper and if any component craps out you can replace it rather than the whole computer.

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/15/2008 1:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
this does not make the laptops significantly more costly
Exactly! Compare Dell's 17" notebook and Apple's 17" MacBook Pro, you'll find that with similar hardware specs the price for Apple notebook is not significantly higher. Apple charges extra for less weight and thickness, LED backlit screen option, backlit keyboard, other comfort things like that and more durable case (metal instead of plastic). Seems like a fair deal to me. Wanna extra bang - buy Apple, wanna something more basic - buy Dell for somewhat lower price (but not significantly lower if you take the same specs)
$599 is a rip off no matter how many ways you look at it
That's a rip off only if you look at hardware specs and don't care about ergonomics like most techies here. Ergonomics means size for example. If you don't care about size - then yes, Mac Mini is a rip off. But a lot of people seem to care about ergonomics these days, otherwise we wouldn't see Mac sales grow all the time, and actually faster percentage-wise and money/revenue-wise than any other computer brand.
however how much simpler is it really?
Not much, but iMac is not that much more expensive either. The deal is the same - you pay Apple a little extra for a little more ergonomics, a bit less space, less wires, etc. Don't wanna pay extra for ergonmics? Care only about hardware power? No problem, pay less and buy any powerful cheapo PC you want, Apple is not the only computer brand, fortunately.

P.S. about crapping out components - heave you ever heard the word "warranty"?

RE: $1699?
By daftrok on 5/16/2008 3:26:05 AM , Rating: 3
First point:

This is hundreds less and the only difference is that its not LED and its slightly bigger and 1.6 lbs heavier. Granted ergonomics are a plus but you reach a point and say "800 dollars extra just isn't worth losing a pound and a half of weight and save an inch in length and width".

Second point:
The specs that I stated for a more suped up Mac Mini are within the realm of possibility. It isn't being done because there are enough idiots out there that buy it and say "ooh its so small and pretty" that overshadow the people that say "80 GB?! WTF!" Can they make a Mac Mini with 2.1 GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, 250GB HDD, 8400M GT video card and DVD burner for 500 bucks and still make at least a 200 dollar profit on it? Yes. Will they do it? No.

That All in One rant was really my hate for All in Ones in general and not aimed towards Apple. Yes there is a warranty, but suppose during traveling or picking it out of the box the first time you accidentally drop your iMac. You turn it on and lo and behold a giant crack on the screen. You call up Apple and guess what they say?

"The Plan does not cover:
Damage to the Covered Equipment caused by accident, abuse, neglect, misuse (including faulty installation, repair, or maintenance by anyone other than Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider), unauthorized modification, extreme environment (including extreme temperature or humidity), extreme physical or electrical stress or interference, fluctuation or surges of electrical power, lightning, static electricity, fire, acts of God or other external cause"

In other words, you are SOL. Now with a computer, if your monitor breaks and you are no longer under warranty, you replace the screen. With an All in One, if you break your screen and your warranty doesn't cover accidents; the company will happily repair it for hundreds of dollars leaving you computer less for week(s). Warranty or not, All in Ones are illogical.

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/16/2008 5:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is hundreds less and the only difference is that its not LED and its slightly bigger and 1.6 lbs heavier. Granted ergonomics are a plus but you reach a point and say "800 dollars extra just isn't worth losing a pound and a half of weight and save an inch in length and width".
Well, this is why both Macs and Lexuses are too rare, compared to PCs and Chevys, because only a few people can afford that high level of ergonomics.
It isn't being done because there are enough idiots out there that buy it and say "ooh its so small and pretty" that overshadow the people that say "80 GB?! WTF!" Can they make a Mac Mini with 2.1 GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, 250GB HDD, 8400M GT video card and DVD burner for 500 bucks and still make at least a 200 dollar profit on it? Yes. Will they do it? No.
Exactly, and you know why? Because noone can compete with them, and noone can compete with them because all the other computer makers use totally different business model than Apple. Nobody develops their own custom software and OS in addition to computer hardware design, and does heavy investment in ergonomics related R&D, all of this _at_the_same_time_! And if there's no real competitor - why get your prices lower? This is simple marketing and economics. Apple has this nice Microsoft-like monopoly on Mac market. Noone else makes Macs, so why lower prices? They just don't care and I'd do exactly the same if I were them.
With an All in One, if you break your screen and your warranty doesn't cover accidents; the company will happily repair it for hundreds of dollars leaving you computer less for week(s).
I agree, that's a good point, but! Think about complex luxury cars and simple cheapo cars. Everyone knows that luxury car is so stuffed with electronics and sophisticated hardware that a minor bump to it can cause a serious glitch. While something as simple as old Chevy with some rusty retuned 4-banger and lousy seats can withhold A LOT MORE shock and trouble and road bumps than any Lexus (I'm not talking about Lexus AWD SUVs here, these are too ultimate to discuss) it's still true that people continue buying somewhat fragile and overly complex luxury cars that have very expensive replacement parts and stuff like that.

So same is true for monoblocks - you are right that they have negative sides, but what's interesting here is that what you call a negative some other people will call a positive. You may hate complex machinery of a luxury car, because it's easier to break. But there is another guy over there with too much money to spare, he doesn't give a thing about potential problems that could be popping up in future because of sophistication - once he breaks his Lexus in an accident he just buys a new one. And he will NEVER buy your Chevy even though Chevy may be more bump and scratch resistant than his Lexus. Got my analogy?

RE: $1699?
By daftrok on 5/16/2008 6:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, dude. Stop with the car references. Lexus vs Chevy does NOT equal to Mac vs PC. Mac is a Honda Accord with 150 HP, weighs 2000 lbs, is 12 ft long and gets 40 MPG for $30,000. PC is a Honda Civic with 150 HP, weighs 2300 lbs, is 15 ft long and gets 35 MPG for $15,000.

No one can compete with Apple's Mac mini? Did you just say that? Who are the top 5 computer sellers in the world?
1) HP
2) Dell
3) Acer
4) Lenovo
5) Toshiba

No one is competing because no one cares. If the Mac Mini got suped up like I said and sold for 500 it would really start to make a dent in the market, but they are perfectly content in selling a 200 dollar product for 600 bucks rather than selling a 300 dollar product for 500 bucks.

I stand by what I said about All in Ones: They suck.

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/16/2008 7:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Mac is a Honda Accord with 150 HP, weighs 2000 lbs, is 12 ft long and gets 40 MPG for $30,000. PC is a Honda Civic with 150 HP, weighs 2300 lbs, is 15 ft long and gets 35 MPG for $15,000.
Yeah, you can say Mac is an Accord instead of a Lexus, this changes nothing. Macs are still more expensive (not twice more expenisve for same hardware, rather close to 20% more expenive) because people are willing to pay that price for them, period. Same is true for any other product including cars or what not.
Who are the top 5 computer sellers in the world?
Haven't seen any desktop computer from them that is a clone of Mini, in the sense that the size AND the hardware specs AND the price are the same or better. Have you?
No one is competing because no one cares
Wow, nobody wants to quadruple their market cap over Dell's? Did PC makers' execs just stop wishing for more stock price and more market cap or what?
If the Mac Mini got suped up like I said and sold for 500 it would really start to make a dent in the market
Apple computers still don't make any serious dent in the market, but it does not prevent Apple market cap/stock and revenue to soar like a jet. Does it encourage you to have second thoughts about the relation between market share and market cap/stock/revenue?
they are perfectly content in selling a 200 dollar product for 600 bucks
That's what I call business genius. Their profits are out of reach for all the other cheapo PC makers like Dell, and you should envy that, not criticize that. You look stupid when you criticize a company for being TOO PROFITABLE, do you know that?
I stand by what I said about All in Ones: They suck.
You must be hating fragile and oversophisticated luxury cars just as much. Too bad :-)

RE: $1699?
By DEredita on 5/13/2008 8:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know man, my Macbook has been by far the best laptop I've ever used. It's the perfect balance of size, weight, and performance. My only disappointment was when I upgraded it to Leopard. It became slow and unstable. I wiped the drive clean and reinstalled Tiger, and have been happy since. I have a 2.16 GHz C2D w/ 2GB of ram and a 160GB HD.

RE: $1699?
By Omega215D on 5/14/2008 12:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the same way about my MacBook. It may use all the same Intel parts and whatnot but they managed to fit it in a case that remains 1.08" all the way around instead of getting wider towards the back like other laptops. Also the battery life so far is quite good compared to many other notebooks (I have a few from Dell, HP and Sony).

I'm running Leopard (came with it anyway) and it runs quite fast on 1GB and supposedly better with 2GB (It felt snappy either way). Maybe you had a problem with the install, plus new drivers and firmware updates should probably fixed a lot of things by now... again I wouldn't know.

Anyhow, it took Dell a long time to figure this out, they could've saved money if they'd done this before. When people think of Dell they think educational or business class machinery. Not too many enthusiasts appreciated Dell for being proprietary with their gaming machines. Then again Alienware is kinda overrated since many "low end" desktops can be made into gaming machines just as well.

RE: $1699?
By mattclary on 5/14/2008 9:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
What's funny is many e-Machines and other manufacturers actually use Intel motherboards. Doesn't Apple use Foxcon?

They may not all be feature rich, but no one can really accuse Intel motherboards of being cheap (in the sense of "shoddy").

RE: $1699?
By lagitup on 5/13/2008 8:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
The asus f8sp-x1 is an excellent laptop and runs substantially less than the xps 1330. Yeah yeah i know its slightly smaller but the hardware in the 1330 is so much cheaper you cant expect me to believe it costs more to pack that in a smaller package.
IMO dell charges over the top just because they have the brand
recognition and can afford to. Think of American broadband and tell me that tech companies arn't willing to pull that kind of crap...
Just my 2 cents

RE: $1699?
By jonmcc33 on 5/16/2008 1:17:19 PM , Rating: 1
Any interesting thoughts about this phenomenon?

Sure, you can't game on an Apple?

RE: $1699?
By Pirks on 5/16/2008 3:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly prevents you from playing on Apple computers? There are graphics cards in them, iMac now has 8800GS, so why not play on it? What's the problem?

RE: $1699?
By borismkv on 5/20/2008 8:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
The 8800GS is a budget piece of crap, maybe?

RE: $1699?
By Operandi on 5/13/2008 2:07:45 PM , Rating: 3
Do people really think they look cool?

Personally I find the Alienware cases even more offensive than the their prices, the XPS cases on the other hand are pretty nice (in my opinion).

RE: $1699?
By Arribajuan on 5/13/2008 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
I will agree.

The alienware cases appera as "too much" in my opinion while the xps where just like a nicer inspiron with far more options.

I actually do not hing the xps and alienware try to get the same audience, alienware is more high end and expensive.

And starting prices tell nothing to the price the rigs go or the average selling price of the customized systems.

RE: $1699?
By Omega215D on 5/14/2008 12:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, the XPS line had those nice Afterburner cases but used proprietary PSUs and motherboards.

I wonder if any company makes a regular ATX case like that I know I would buy one.

RE: $1699?
By MGSsancho on 5/13/2008 2:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree FIT, the XPS systems looked great. They are used a lot by the people who make games and by professional. Ive used them many times in recommending system to anything type of imaging professional. They used name brand parts (foxconn doesn't count imho.) Oh well nothing we can really do about. XPS will be missed. I assume the XPS laptops will be axed as well tho article doesn't mentioned it.

RE: $1699?
By michaelheath on 5/13/2008 3:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, anybody could pick up all given components contained within any Alienware desktop and assemble it themselves for much less. What people fail to remember (and I have to remind folks who bash Apple for their high prices and seemingly lacking hardware configurations) is: 1.) 95% of the world doesn't have the initiative, knowledge, or want to do so, otherwise everybody would be doing it; 2.) Warranty and customer experience often times are not factored into pricing, especially these days in our currently floundering economy where it costs more to maintain facilities.

[H]ardOCP did a few reviews on Alienware systems back in 2006 along with a few Dell systems. If I recall correctly, they tried all aspects of each company's technical support, including troubleshooting and general technical support. Dell tech support was hit-or-miss across their entire product line [H] tested, but Alienware was consistently well-received.

Think as a gaming enthusiast who wants to purchase a system rather than building it: Is it worth it to some who would be interested in such a gaming system that you have a dedicated chat program (something that no other system manufacturer I know of has as a preloaded feature on their computers) to talk to tech support in Florida who can think on the fly and have a set of restore disks that contain a factory-fresh Ghost image? That's what you get with Alienware. Also, thinking of the words of Rahul Sood, if something dies in an Alienware desktop, it's a retail part. There's a guarantee that, if the part is available in retail, it's available at Alienware.

In contrast, Dell gives you outsourced tech support that uses a structured troubleshooting tree to eventually figure out the problem, which may take replacing several components and many hours on the phone before they get the real culprit. You get restore disks that even some technically inclined people can neither make heads nor tails of (Dell's restore disks give you every driver for a product line on their disks and it's up to you to choose the right one) and, sadly, downloading WHQL drivers from the internet will not work and, in fact, cause more problems because Dell uses proprietary components even for the most mundane parts (e.g.: The graphics card, chipset drivers, power supplies, etc.)

Which boils down to the base quandry: Do you choose simple to use but more expensive, or cheaper but a headache to maintain?

RE: $1699?
By darkangelism on 5/13/2008 7:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
XPS systems are not outsourced, only the low end dell stuff is, all the high end stuff is domestic.

RE: $1699?
By edborden on 5/13/2008 7:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think Dell dropped XPS because they had to. The "competition" thing is a PR spun distraction from the fact that they are getting spanked by HP.

RE: $1699?
By Samus on 5/13/2008 11:38:15 PM , Rating: 1
I suppose you build your own vehicles too? Most people go out and buy a GTR. Nobody tried to build a car that can match it. And if they do, and succeed, they'll likely exceed their budget tenfold.

Most people just want to buy the shit, not build it.

I rather get an HP
By DEredita on 5/13/2008 4:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
For around the same money (~$1700), I could have an HP w:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 (2.66 GHz)
8GB (4x2GB) DDR2 800 ram
nVidia GeForce 8800GT
Windows Vista 64-bit
Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer
15-in-1 memory card reader, 2 USB, 1394, video, audio
Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n & Bluetooth
500GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive
LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive
ATSC-NTSC TV tuner with PVR, FM tuner, remote
HP wireless keyboard and HP wireless optical mouse

I'd personally prefer the above workhorse, especially with Adobe Creative Suite 4 (64-bit edition) coming out later this year. Maybe I'm not the target audience of the Alienware system, which to me only offers an acceptable processor with a good video card. I rather the boatload of ram and processor power (in a relatively affordable package) for image and video editing, and light duty game play.

RE: I rather get an HP
By Pirks on 5/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: I rather get an HP
By EricMartello on 5/13/2008 6:15:24 PM , Rating: 5

Here we go again:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 (2.66 GHz) - underutilized CPU not needed in games (games need ultra fast GPU, not CPU)

Actually, a slow CPU can bottleneck a fast GPU.


8GB (4x2GB) DDR2 800 ram - most of this ram is useless, 4 gigs is more than enough for a gaming PC

Even 2GB is still sufficient...and by sticking with 2GB you can forgo 64-bit OS which STILL has driver issues.


nVidia GeForce 8800GT - yeeeaahh! - a puny GPU for a "gaming" computer, haha, try to run Crysis on that little P.O.S.

The 8800GT is right in line with the 8800GTX that costs nearly twice as much. Running Crysis isn't really a priority for many people since that game pretty much sucks. Sure, you can brag that your system CAN run Crysis, but I'd rather not inflate the cost of a build for being able to run a single game that isn't even a good game. Also, you can SLI two 8800GTs.


Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer - another waste of money, Creative is dead for gaming, hello? I'm done with Creative, forever, my X-Fi is the last Creative card I bought. I played Crysis on my mobo HD audio and on my X-Fi - they sound exactly the same. Modern games do not use Creative hardware (EAX) for audio acceleration anymore. And EAX is dead in Vista so who cares, really.

Wrong do use hardware acceleration for sound but the problem is that Creative, which has been the main supplier of consumer sound cards, failed to stay on the ball about keeping their drives up-to-date. You can actually get by with an Audigy2 and a hacked driver set that enables all the Audigy features that Creative purposely disabled in Vista.

Onboard sound sucks...plain and simple, unless you are using SPDIF pass-thru. If you are using the analog sound output jacks, the SNR of onboard sound is terribad. Soundblaster cards have always had quality hardware, marred by crappy drivers. Motherboard sound is not "HD" and is basically a "winmodem" of sound...and it sucks.


So here's my suggestion, if you wanna make REAL gaming computer (the one you got now is pretty far from gaming, it's rather a video encoding workstation with a penchant for Matlab x64 with 8 gig of RAM and some casual gaming with 8800GT)

1. Drop this waste of money called Intel CPU, go for Athlon X2, pick something like 2.6 GHz it'll be head and shoulders above anything modern game wants from the CPU

Intel C2D >>> Athlon X2. The SLOWEST C2D is about as fast as the fastest X2...not to mention the fact you do need a fast CPU to power a fast GPU, as I previously stated. Do a little research.


1a. By the way you'll save some money on mobo as well if you go for AM2+ SLI mobo instead of LG775

2. Drop memory to 4 gigs, more than 4 is not needed for gaming PC

3. Drop Creative P.O.S. 'cause you'll get exactly the same sound with a decent HD audio on your mobo

1) Any quality gaming motherboard is going to be in the $100-$200 price range. You will not notice a huge price difference between AMD and Intel, but you will notice the huge performance gap.

2) Stick with 2GB

3) Terrible advice. DO NOT stick with onboard sound if you CARE ABOUT SOUND QUALITY. If you just want to hear "something", fine, use onboard...but trust me...if you have a decent set of speakers or headphones, the difference between onboard sound and add-on sound is night and day.


4. Aaannnd... after you saved a lot of money by throwing out junk you won't need for games... time to invest IN REAL GAMING HARDWARE - GPU! Get yourself a pair of 9800GTX (these cost $195 a piece at newegg if you know how to buy hardware properly, hehe, I just got mine from them last week) this will cost ya $400

NOW. This IS Da UlTiMaTe Gaming PC. I mean it is bred for ultimate gaming, it is as tuned for gaming as it can be and costs probably the same as your original config.

But man, believe me, you will run Crysis on this one with AMD X2 and a couple of 9800GTX - and you will thank me all your life. I know what I'm talking about here, I'm building and modding my gaming PC all the time and I know how to tune PC for gaming.

Obviously the choice of GPUs is going to determine the overall game performance, and if price is no object you get the best of whatever is currently available. However, while running two 9800GTX in SLI is an option, that card goes for $300 per unit or $600 for two. If you are willing to do SLI, then a pair of 8800GT can be had for about $360 total...much better price/performance. You would be a fool to get two 9800GTX and then stick them with an X2 CPU.

RE: I rather get an HP
By cmdrdredd on 5/13/2008 6:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
With a new build there's no reason in my mind NOT to use 64bit OS and 4GB+ of memory. it's been proven across many studies and tests that 4GB of memory or greater with vista x64 runs faster than x86 with any amount of memory given and available. Driver issues? Please, that argument is so old it's not valid anymore except for old hardware that you should replace anyhow. Everything from motherboard, video, sound, and peripherals (mice, LCD keyboards etc) works with manufacturer driver sets. Pretty much any part made within the last few years has a driver for Vista x64. Even my Canon IP4300 photo printer that I got on sale has a x64 driver and it's an older model that was bargain priced.

RE: I rather get an HP
By DEredita on 5/13/2008 7:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
I've configured the hardware on Newegg, and managed to configure a full system for a hair over $1,000 w/shipping.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 (cheaper/easier to find than Q9450)
Gigabyte motherboard (no SLI)
8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill DDR2 800 ram (~$160)
Antec Nine Hundred case (excellent cooling)
PC Power and Cooling 750W PSU
ATI HD3750 (w/ GDDR4) video card
500GB Hard Drive
DVD+/-RW drive

I'm missing the sound card, which is good to have. Point is, that's a ton of hardware for the price. I spec'ed out a Mac Pro, but it's $1000+ more than I have the heart to spend on a computer (that's even after my discount).

RE: I rather get an HP
By DEredita on 5/13/2008 7:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Replying to my own thread, the reason why I am reluctant to build my own, is I rather have a 3-4 year warranty and know that is is guaranteed to work for that long and parts would be covered and fixed for free during that time without me needing to figure out what's wrong.

Also, drivers - HP offers a few home systems with 64-bit Vista and up to 8GB of ram, which if they are selling and advertising it - then I know it will work out of the box without any worries on my end.

RE: I rather get an HP
By strmbkr on 5/14/2008 11:58:49 AM , Rating: 2
Intel CPU - 3 year warranty if Retail
Motherboard - not sure about Gigabyte, but I know Asus provides 3 years of warranty
HDD- Segate 5 years, WD 3 years
Power Supply - PC power and Cooling 5 years
Video Card - Asus 3 years, Sapphire 2 years, VisionTek lifetime

All those extra years of warranty from the computer makers or shops (like Futureshop, Bestbuy) are warranty linked to the suppliers (Asus, Foxconn, Gigabyte, tec...), they just send the malfunctioned parts to the manufacturer; you are paying a price premium just so that they send the parts to the supplier for you (which takes about the same time or longer than if you send it yourself).

If you want, you could purchase the parts individually and do the warranty yourself.

I know, for some, we would rather have others do it for us. ;)

RE: I rather get an HP
By jonmcc33 on 5/16/2008 1:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
You did go overkill on that PSU though. 750W? That setup probably doesn't use more than 300W under full load.

RE: I rather get an HP
By Pirks on 5/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: I rather get an HP
By DEredita on 5/13/2008 7:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you are saying, but I am not a hardcore gamer. I would be doing hardcore image editing, which leaves my Macbook (2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 2GB of ram) suffering. 2GB of ram is just not enough for the image editing, and I am also doing video/audio too.

Gaming, while I might get curious to try a game or two out, it's not my primary concern. I would likely never run more than a Crysis demo, because the whole FPS genre doesn't interest me, and the WoW style games require far more time then I have in my hectic schedule. Gaming is definitely a secondary perk.

I dunno if the 8800GT video card would be my best bet, would've preferred the ATI HD3750 video card (w/ GDDR4 memory). If I was going for a gaming system, then I would give serious consideration of the HD3750x2.

But, for my needs, the 64-bit version of Vista just works better for me - I find it significantly runs significantly faster with apps such as Mathematica and SPSS at work. I have a 32-bit Vista partition on the same machine, and tried those apps on there and they are noticeably slower in 32-bit Vista. I run both on a Dell Optiplex 745 w/ a E6600 C2D, 4GB DDR2 ram, and an ATI x1300 Pro.

RE: I rather get an HP
By EricMartello on 5/13/2008 8:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why then Crysis gets no speed increase when I overclock my C2D from 2 GHz to 3.33 GHz? Why it gets massive speed increase when I pair slow CPU with the fastest GPU?

When you overclock, depending on how you do it, you may or may not notice improved benchmark performance. In a lot of cases, the multiplier your motherboard actually uses for the CPU:MEM bus reduces overall bandwidth, or requires that you increase latencies for stability - thus countering any benefit of a higher CPU clock. Also, modern CPUs don't scale as well with overclocking, save for some processor-centric applications like media encoding or Folding@Home.

Again, my experience with Crysis tells me that investing in a CPU is a waste of money. Like I said before, Crysis gets absolutely nothing in terms of speed when you overclock CPU to 4 or 5 GHz, but it gets absolutely huge speed increase when you start increasing power of your GPU. Replacing ATI 3870 with 9800GTX alone boosted Crysis speed like a good strong kick in the #ss

Yeah, you would notice a GPU upgrade more than a CPU point is that you'll get more out of your setup by matching a fast CPU to your GPU. Some 3D engines take better advantage of CPU power...iD's engines scale better with faster CPUs.

That's a lie, the REAL price is $400 for two 9800GTX cards. Check out this:

THat is not a 9800GTX. That is a 8800GTS. The 8800GT is still a solid price:performance card.

RE: I rather get an HP
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 9:17:31 PM , Rating: 1
modern CPUs don't scale as well with overclocking, save for some processor-centric applications
And since games are not processor centric, but rather GPU centric... see my point now?
you'll get more out of your setup by matching a fast CPU to your GPU
Which is going to give me less return on ivestment compared to matching slower CPU with faster GPU. This is why I always invest in GPU and I always see hefty return on investment for that. While investing in CPU gives me NOTHING in terms of additional frames per second.
That is not a 9800GTX. That is a 8800GTS
Did you look at the clock? ;-) I think not!

RE: I rather get an HP
By Omega215D on 5/14/2008 12:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with everything except the 64-bit OS part. Vista 64-bit is quite good and stable for me in the past week that I have it installed (finally!). All my stuff seems to run without a hitch and gaming seems just as fine.

Maybe XP 64 left a sour taste in everyone's mouth?

RE: I rather get an HP
By cmdrdredd on 5/13/2008 6:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, that system would be fine for Gaming. HP offers MUCH MUCH better deals on PCs than Dell. I was looking at laptops from HP, for under $900 I got a 2Ghz C2D, 2GB memory, 12 cell battery, 8400GT video card, and 80GB HDD.

The closest match from Dell was $1100

RE: I rather get an HP
By Runiteshark on 5/13/2008 6:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
Are you ignorant?

He said he was going to use it for ACS4 (Which I'm looking froward to as well because of the first real 64b support).

I don't know about you, but I usually have quite a few applications running at the same time, and I use regularly 70% of my C2Q @ 4.11ghz, and I regularly use about 80% of my 8GB of ram. The 8800GT is no slouch either, I don't have any problems running Crysis at 1600x1200 on max settings.

RE: I rather get an HP
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 6:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are you ignorant?
Yes I am :-) You're right, his machine is made exactly for what he meant - Adobe stuff plus light gaming. I was more into tuning his machine for games instead of Adobe, this was stupid thing to do, I agree. Sorry.
The 8800GT is no slouch either, I don't have any problems running Crysis at 1600x1200 on max settings
Try it on Very High DX10 in Vista and you'll see what I mean :-P

RE: I rather get an HP
By Runiteshark on 5/13/2008 9:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
I did the "DX10" mod, which is using the very high settings in XP, but I will admit I didn't try it in DX10 in vista, nor do I see much difference between the two.

RE: I rather get an HP
By Redwin on 5/13/2008 6:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read his post before typing out your lengthy and condescending response? He specifically said he wanted the machine for video editing and "light gaming duty". The machine he describes fits that bill absolutely perfectly.

IF he DID want to build the ultimate gaming machine, you're more or less right the GPU is far more important, but if you're spending the money on a real GPU to build a gaming PC, I disagree with your statement that you should get a good video card and a crappy AMD cpu. If you're gunna do it, do it right, fast intel cpu AND a real gpu.

Personally I have a dual-core E8400 running at 4ghz and a 9800gx2, and I got it instead of a quad q9450 because I agree you don't need 4 cores for games, but I disagree that higher clockspeeds for your single-threaded game doesn't make a difference.

My 4ghz machine will slaughter your 2.6ghz AMD, if they are using the same video cards, with the possible exception of Crysis, which is horribly GPU constrained and doesn't scale correctly on faster machines, and is also the only game you mentioned comparing on. Try a few other games that actually use the CPU for something and don't just throw massive shader work at the GPU while the CPU twidles its thumbs and you will see your slow X2 taking a huge performance hit compared to a high-clocked C2D machine.

RE: I rather get an HP
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 6:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
He specifically said he wanted the machine for video editing and "light gaming duty". The machine he describes fits that bill absolutely perfectly.
Yeah, I agree I was wrong posting my suggestions, they are useless for him.
Try a few other games that actually use the CPU for something
Is there at least ONE game that can seriously challenge my 2 GHz Allendale? Please please please, tell me about it! I was looking for such a game but so far found nothing, all of them overload my GPU like crazy while my little CPU is always idling.

RE: I rather get an HP
By Spotacus on 5/15/2008 12:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
Supreme Commander. 8 players, biggest map. It will make your CPU cry. It will be fine for a little while, while there are very few units. Wait until each side gets a couple hundred and see how quickly the game moves compared to when you started the game.

RE: I rather get an HP
By 4wardtristan on 5/13/2008 8:12:02 PM , Rating: 1
didnt read all your post, i stopped reading after the athlon x2 comment.

can you run dual nvidia cards on a amd chipset?

haha! no you cannot! you saved alot of money only to have 1 9800gtx sitting on your shelf


RE: I rather get an HP
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 9:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I rather get an HP
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 9:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Hint: I said NOTHING about "amd chipset". Don't tell me you didn't know that nVidia does AM2+ chipsets too. I'm not gonna believe you're that stupid.

Which ones?
By stburke on 5/13/2008 1:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
I can only speculate what Dell will cut. As of now they have the XPS 210, 420, ONE, 630, 720, and 730. I'm gonna guess the 210, as it has not been updated in some time. The 630 which is awkwardly placed. The 720 and 720H2C which is replaced by the 730. leaving the XPS ONE, 420 and 730. I just have a hard time believing the 730 will go away as it was just introduced.

RE: Which ones?
By Shane McGlaun on 5/13/2008 1:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm betting all the real gaming ones and the only machines to carry the XPS name will be the M1330 and M1530 and maybe the One-- none of which were real gaming machines in most books.

RE: Which ones?
By Neamhtearanntacht on 5/13/2008 2:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's in the name, XP S. Windows XP was one of the reasons it was called that, easier for us consumers to associate. With Vista selling over 140 million units and Windows 7 only about 2 years away time to get a proper brand name out there. Personally I built my own rig, clocked Q6600 clocked to 3.6GHz. I have more control that way, which raises a big issue with companies like DELL, upgrades and motherboard longevity!

RE: Which ones?
By Coca Cola on 5/13/2008 3:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't realize they named it xps because of windows xp, I thought it was named like that because it seems every company must use the word extreme on just about everything high end. The word extreme kind of lost it's meaning, like when you say a word several times in a row.

RE: Which ones?
By Neamhtearanntacht on 5/13/2008 4:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
You know marketers. I guess the main reason behind it all is cost cutting, and having one product range instead of 2 in the same field makes dollar sense, especially marketing wise. Alienware seems exotic/out of this world (it makes people look) and it is true in the sense of some of their product pricing ;-)

RE: Which ones?
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I built my own rig, clocked Q6600 clocked to 3.6GHz
What's the fuss with all these monster CPUs in gaming PCs? Are you encoding four H.264 1080p streams while playing a game or what?

I tested my gaming rig on Crysis yesterday - increasing C2D clock from 2 GHz to 3.33 GHz gave me one additional FPS, decreasing resolution from 1400x1050 to 1024x768 gave me 15 extra FPS. Clearly you will benefit 15 times more for every dollar you invest in GPU compared to investing in CPU.

Still, people go crazy and buy all these underutilized OCed quad CPUs who just idle there while cheapo 3870 GPU or #rap like that is choking on graphics.

Am I missing something important here or are the majority of people just plain stupid?

Isn't that a proven fact that replacing my C2D 2.0 GHz CPU with $500 fresh 45nm Intel OC blah quad blah will give me almost nothing in Crysis or any other modern big-budget heavyweight game compared to investing same $500 into the second GPU and running Crysis/World of Conflict/STALKER/etc in SLI?

RE: Which ones?
By Neamhtearanntacht on 5/13/2008 4:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
The CPU compliments the GPU, the faster the CPU the more you get out of the GPU, especially if you are folding@home. The main reason I have mine clocked that high is for folding@home. And with a proper cooling system and low voltage my carbon foot print isn't too high. The ATI 3870 is a very good card, just because it is a small amount of fps behind Nvidia doesn't make it #rap. Note: I have a 7900GTX, no fanboy here.

RE: Which ones?
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 6:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
The CPU compliments the GPU, the faster the CPU the more you get out of the GPU
This sounds great in theory, but what would you say about this: for a modern PC game every dollar invested in a GPU is going to give you much more FPS back in return than the same amount of money invested in CPU.

RE: Which ones?
By cmdrdredd on 5/13/2008 6:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
Modern PC games like what? Crysis? There's not one game this year that I can honsetly say will be worth having a super high end PC for. Not one...sorry, but it's a console gamers world these days and Alienware/Dell feels it. The fact is they hide behind this idea of consolidation, but they aren't making lots of money on top gaming PCs these days.

First off, many gamers just use consoles and their PC is just a tool to finish homework on before they go back to Xbox Live. Second many people who know enough about PCs to know they want a gaming PC will likely build one. Third, there are hardly any notable games coming out that will tap the power and potential of these high end rigs.

RE: Which ones?
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 9:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
There's not one game this year that I can honsetly say will be worth having a super high end PC for
Exactly! Now why do these people buy Intel quads again? For _GAMING_? I think not!

RE: Which ones?
By Neamhtearanntacht on 5/13/2008 6:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Your current argument is correct (since we are discussing Game rigs) with regard to the most expensive CPU's, but wrong in my case, with a cheap Q6600. So you seem to be putting words in my mouth there.

Yes if you want greater FPS you will side with the strongest GPU. Which happens to be Nvidia for the moment. However, ATI in June with the 4870x2 and then Nvidia, in July, with the GT200, possibly followed by Larrabee.

It is a well known fact that the CPU and the GPU are going to merge, so your arguments will be muted in time.

RE: Which ones?
By Pirks on 5/13/2008 8:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
cheap Q6600
No, your Intel quad is not cheap - Athlon X2 is what I call cheap

RE: Which ones?
By nineball9 on 5/13/2008 9:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
No, Dell did not name their XPS systems with Windows XP in mind. I purchased an XPS system in March, 1999 which came with Windows 98. Windows XP was introduced in 2001. It's development code name was Whistler, so Dell couldn't have used Windows XP to name their XPS systems.

Full name of the system I purchased: Item number 220-1394. Dell Dimension XPS T500MHz Pentium III MiniTower Base with 512K Cache.

Makes Sense
By Enigmatic on 5/13/2008 1:43:59 PM , Rating: 5
This seems like a good idea. Rather than competing with themselves, might as well just market Alienware as the only gaming line provided from Dell.

RE: Makes Sense
By maverick85wd on 5/13/2008 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to agree, however I would keep a few lower-end gaming rigs in the lineup as most people automatically assume the computer is going to cost a lot if it's an alienware PC. I'd basically just have the alienware section stick to high-end rigs only and let the Dell Gaming PC division handle more cost-effective options. This would especially help as a lot of people don't even know Dell owns Alienware.

RE: Makes Sense
By Enigmatic on 5/13/2008 1:56:53 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah that's true. When I think Alienware, I think very high prices. And Dell did build a fairly thorough XPS line that covered more than just gaming. Alienware on the other hand seems to be targeted at just gamers (I think they may have one media oriented PC in their line-up though). If Alienware can expand their line-up then I can see them filling in the XPS void quite nicely. The only thing I don't see is them bringing their prices down; since they do cost about the same as an equivalent Falcon Northwest or Voodoo PC. They would have no incentive to charge less.

RE: Makes Sense
By othercents on 5/13/2008 2:56:19 PM , Rating: 3
I have yet to ever buy an XPS or Alienware. In the past I was able to get the performance I needed out of an Inspiron. I would expect Dell to start marketing higher end graphics cards in their Inspirons to lessen the gap between "gaming" computers and mainstream computers.


RE: Makes Sense
By jtemplin on 5/13/2008 2:44:42 PM , Rating: 2

(BTW thats freakin, Im not incensed or anything ^^)
...Alienware has also said that it will be bringing a low-cost (by gaming PC standards) gaming system to market in the next few weeks powered by AMD/ATI.

And to the below poster, acknowledging you are referring to perceptions of cost, the cheapest XPS gaming computer is $1,199 and the cheapest alienware is $999.

THis makes me wonder why they are casting a 1,699 computer as some new standard of cheapness. Perhaps some argument of price/performance ratio can be made but I'll wait to see a review documenting this before I am convinced (anand usually does great articles assessing this metric of value)

RE: Makes Sense
By Carter642 on 5/13/2008 3:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
$1700 might be a deal if it came with a nice 20+" widescreen monitor but I doubt it does. My last full build last june cost ~$1500 sans monitor and speakers and out spec's that alienware pretty badly (Q6600 & 8800GTX). Not to mention that I think those Alienware cases are just obnoxious. Lian Li for me.

I think that Alienware would be well served adding a "stealth" option to their models. Replace the nasty bright plastic billboard case with a conservative aluminum high quality enclosure. The option at least might get some more buyers who want a fast PC but would be mortified to have your standard AW case on their desk.

RE: Makes Sense
By jtemplin on 5/14/2008 5:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I wish I had the $ for Lian Li. Those cases are baller...For me, its CM 690 (30 bucks post-rebate ftw!) with an E6750 @ 3.7 GHz, 2x1 Patriot EP Ram @ 1162 Mhz and 8800gtx currently @ stock clock until I can get a better fan on my HR-03. Pushing 465 FSB on an $85 dollar motherboard (DS3L) makes me happy too. Overclocking the cheapest parts to stratospheric levels is what I'm all about.

I always liked Alienware, but you're totally right, the cases have been fugly for a while now. Hopefully the case makeover mentioned in the article takes some of the attractive XPS design and merges it with exotic alien DNA!

RE: Makes Sense
By HOOfan 1 on 5/13/2008 3:37:06 PM , Rating: 3
My guess is that Alienware fell from the top of the Gaming PC market, less because they were competeing with the Dell XPS, but more for the fact that Alienware started using generic "Alienware" branded parts, like PSUs and motherboards,they had started this trend before being bought by Dell, but Dell pretty much sealed that deal. Also, while using these generic parts, they kept the same old expensive prices.

Perhaps people that would be buying from a boutique wouldn't know the difference between name brand and rebadged or generic parts anyway though.

$1699 low end desktop?
By Ish718 on 5/14/2008 12:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
How is $1699 low end? lol...

RE: $1699 low end desktop?
By Ish718 on 5/14/2008 12:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
I just checked on newegg, I can put together a E8400, 9800GX2, 4gbs ram build for $1500.

RE: $1699 low end desktop?
By BruceLeet on 5/14/2008 7:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
It's low-end for their name, not the industry as whole.

I'm not buying a G92 based 9800GTX, Nvidia is on the right track for fooling people seeing theres an idiot ^^ ump there a few topics up about building a gaming PC.

But yeah you can build a quadcore SLI machine now for 1500ish. I bought a computer a few years ago, P4 3.0 512MB RAM Radeon X300, 17inch moniter $2,600!! lol a Dell on top of that!

RE: $1699 low end desktop?
By Ish718 on 5/15/2008 2:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
Lmao. I'm glad I know about building PCs, geez.

XPS gaming laptops axed by inferior brand
By dgxhubbard on 5/13/2008 4:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
I purchase xps gaming laptops for their performance. I looked at the alienware laptop but with its anemic 15 inch screen opted for the xps gaming laptop instead. Yes I paid more for the system, but they are a quality system with quality service people, and the on-site warranty is excellent. Sorry dell but if you dont move your laptop gaming designers to alienware this will definitely be a bad move.

RE: XPS gaming laptops axed by inferior brand
By roastmules on 5/13/2008 4:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
This is bad news for power users at businesses.
I can't buy Alienware for work.

At my work, we can buy any computer we want as long as it is a black Dell and isn't a "gaming" pc. I got an XPS m1330, and am VERY happy. It is well powered for all of my work, light, and is sufficient for several games, when I take it home at night.

I think Dell may want to kill off some of its bleeding-edge high-end gaming pc's, but keep the rest.

By Flunk on 5/13/2008 5:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
The XPS m1330 is not branded as a "gaming" system so it will be staying. Dell is phasing out gaming systems and using the XPS name for higher end systems like the 1330, 1530, etc.

butt ugly
By Cygus on 5/14/2008 3:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Dell seriously needs a new designer for their cases... this thing is damn ugly, a bit better than the previous xps which looked like a heater though. Alienware wins hands down when it comes to looks.

RE: butt ugly
By Teancum on 5/14/2008 7:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
I have an XPS Prescott system from 2001 and its still kicking. That case looks a lot better than the current monstrosities.

Alienware hurt by Dell
By EvolutionTheory on 5/13/2008 5:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Currently Dell sells a higher end laptop than Alienware offers.

If Dell is going to focus solely on Alienware I hope they let Alienware sell the top of the line components (Which ARENT AMD and ATI). Alienwares don't even have Bluetooth for one and didn't release the 8800 sli until just recently.

Dell has purposefully hurt the Alienware brand or Alienware just hasn't been performing well. This AMD move is directed at someone who wants an Alienware but ironically is getting a machine that doesn't deserve the name. Alienware has before Dell took control stood for the best components from a large manufacturer. An AMD/ATI machine can't be the best or even compete. Why buy that when for almost the same price you can get an HP? You're paying for the Alienware name at that point and not performance.

proper headline
By Screwballl on 5/13/2008 10:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
here is what the headline or subhead should have read:

Dell has announced it is dropping its XPS line of systems in favor of the higher end and oft-times overclocked Alienware systems. By concentrating its efforts on the Alienware systems, people can expect to pay at least $500 more for the exact same system but with the pretty "alien" exterior.

By SiliconAddict on 5/13/2008 11:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
No seriously. The XPS systems at least are tastefully stylish. While I don't need bling bling sitting on my desktop I sure as hell don't need a case with a set of gills. Its a pity too since I was planning on getting a midrange XPS system this fall. You fail Dell. HARD.

XPS versus Alienware
By JosefTor on 5/14/2008 12:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing like taking a pretty respected gaming line (the XPS) and replacing with one of the most notorious brands out there... Alienware. A couple years back a bunch of my friends bought alienware laptop and almost a year later every single one of them broke. They got just about no support from the manufacturer either... not sure if it was Dell at the time or still Alienware.

Not quite
By tedrodai on 5/14/2008 10:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
Gaming PCs in general for the last several years have for the most part used Intel over AMD due to the typically increased performance that Intel parts provide. Despite this tradition, Alienware has also said that it will be bringing a low-cost (by gaming PC standards) gaming system to market in the next few weeks powered by AMD/ATI.

Poor wording at the least. Core 2 was released at end of July 2006, about 1 yr 10 months ago--not quite several years ago. If Intel parts were primarily used in gaming PCs prior to that, it wasn't for typically increased performance from their parts. I love my Core 2 Duo as much as the next guy, but they've worn the performance crown for a relatively short time-period lately.

Uhh...this needs to be updated.
By Montrevux on 5/14/2008 2:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
From wow insider:

You might remember yesterday that we reported on the Wall Street Journal's report on the canceling of the Dell XPS line, which includes the World of Warcraft laptop. It seems that the Wall Street Journal got it wrong, according to Dell spokeswoman Anne B. Camden, speaking via Dell's official blog.

She took issue with almost every aspect of the Wall Street Journal's report, saying that both Alienware and the XPS line are hardly in trouble, and are known for excellence and have gained many awards and accolades, and that Dell was dedicated to both. In fact, she specifically praised the XPS M1730, which is the base for the World of Warcraft laptop.

In short, the WoW laptop will probably still be available for your buying pleasure, if you are inclined to drop between 2500 and 3000 dollars on a souped up gaming laptop and a couple of extra toys.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh
Related Articles
Dell Buys Alienware
March 22, 2006, 6:38 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki