Debating purchase of e6400

GPU is a faster calculator for math and physics then the CPU. Tour GPU has more than 2 processors ready to work for you. You have 4 of them on this laptop, or 200+ for the desktop Geforce GTX 200 series.

I don't have such software, nor have the funds nor time to purchase it and try it JUST for you. I said "may", meaning that I am not sure as I did not see actual facts, however looking at the tech specs it seams that the GPU is faster than the CPU.

You like hitting on me on anything I say, don't you?

 

As usual, no facts or data. GPU's are not used for ENCODING videos. Have you heard of any encoding program that uses the GPU processors? You're not trying to draw lots of polygons fast when you encode videos.

No, I just don't want people to get misinformed, thinking that the Nvidia gives them faster encoding times.

 

I just gave a link. Nvidia and Adobe can't lie like that and yes it was proven.
You also have program like Badaboom (shareware)
Because you need proof in the case I think I make up software: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3374&p=1

You also have Adobe After Effects CS4, Premier CS4, Photoshop CS4, PowerDirector 7 (data: http://www.elites.com/hanners/nvidia/pdirector-cuda/render-time.png)

More on CUDA: http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/12/
You have no idea how powerful a GPU can be until the day you'll experience it.

So far you have not been able to prove me wrong at any point.

 

Actually, they exist, and they're even mainstream (Cyberlink MediaShow Espresso comes to mind). GPU-assisted encoding is still in its infancy, but it exists and it's rapidly improving. Here are some interesting links that will get you up to speed:

GPU-assisted H.264 encoding:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3339

GPU Transcoders:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=647&type=expert&pid=3

Excerpt:
While the CPU-based encoder took nearly 5.5 minutes, the ATI Avivo application was able to complete the same job in just 51 seconds.

ATI calls it Avivo, nVidia calls it CUDA. According to nVidia, CUDA speeds up conversion tenfold:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1240981320317.html

GPUs are extremely powerful. They were restricted to very specific tasks until now, but they are now used for much a wider range of uses (a GPU is, for instance, a prime candidate for cryptographic processing).

I suggest you look up GPGPU, and OpenCL, Apple's implementation of GPGPU built in Snow Leopard, for more information about how a GPU can be used for more general processing purposes than simple "polygon drawing" as you put it.

 

OK, I stand corrected about GPU's not used for encoding. There are emerging applications that take advantages of the faster GPU's then.

On the other hand, is there any hint or data showing that the Nvidia Quadro in the E6400 can improve encoding times?

 

Ok, I went to my university and found it it actually is the recommend model configured as follows:

2.4GHz Processor
Integrated Graphics
A/G/N Wireless Card
3 year accidental protection warranty (all warrenty work done right on campus)
160GB HDD (5400RPM)
4GB Ram
6-Cell Battery
Vista Business
DVD Burner

I don't think it comes with the backlit keyboard but for the price ($940) I could probably live without it. Does this sound like a good deal?

 

Sadly no, that is why I said "may".
The reason for this is that the Quadro NVS 160M is exclusive to the Dell Latitude E series. Based on a 1 try benchmark under Vista 64-bit with the stable Geforce 185 drivers I ended up with a score that is higher than a Geforce 9300M but under a Geforce 9400M. The GPU specs seams closer to the Geforce 9300M, so I guess it's some sort of Geforce 9300M OC, with some Quadro (by default) drivers to be more optimized in CAD rather than gaming.

One thing that worries me is the GPU processor count is only 4 for this GPU. So I don't know how it will be compared to the CPU. Will it be few minutes saved, or some more significant? If I have time, I'll try and see if I can do some kind of test this or next week and post right here.

 

Thanks for the links. Looking at the data, the gains of using the entry level GPU's for video encoding are minimal:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3374&p=5

"The entry level and midrange 8/9 series GPUs couldn’t actually do much better. The GeForce 9500 GT was actually slower, as were the 8500 GT and the 8600 GTS. The GeForce 8800 GT changed things though, at 103 seconds it encoded the test in less than half the time."

Not clear at all how the Quadro NVS 160M used in the E6400 can help with video encoding.

 

Hmm I need more details.

My guess, for that price:
- It's no backlit keyboard. The non-backlit keyboard was said to be noisy.. it seams that everyone or almost everyone cashed out over 100$ to get the backlit version. Personally, I can't live without it. It's so bad , that I even changed my desktop keyboard to the Logitech Illuminated keyboard (which has a backlit).
- Basic Dell wireless N card (and not the Intel 5100 or 5300 N, which I was told to be better. I know I have a above average reception at university compared to others. Many classroom have no wireless where I do).
- Vista is probably 32-bit.
- The CPU should be the P8600 Intel Core 2 Duo as it the T series is more expensive. P is better in power consumption than T. T is more expensive due to the more L2 cache, which I think is a bit excessive for a laptop.
- And well you have the Intel GPU.. again it depends on what you plan to do with your system.
- Screen resolution should be 1280x800, which is low in my opinion if you will do more than just type text in Word.
- Warranty is done on compus and not at home.
- If you have long days or want to record classes using your laptop, I think a 9-cell would be better.

These are my thoughts.

 

Remember that it compared a desktop CPU with desktop low-range GPU's. And not laptop Intel Core 2 Duo's (which are much slower), and GPU.
Anyway, it needs to be tested to see.