Dell Precision M2800 is an Entry Level Mobile Workstation Starting at $1,199

9

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

big_montana

I still prefer Lenovos W540 mobile workstation over this Dell selection. Higher screen res 2880x1660 (lowest is 1080), dual HDD in a raid array, mobile broadband, Core i7 only, Thunderbolt, and less than $1900 for a better built machine.

avatar

NavarWynn

"Many designers and engineers are not realizing the full potential of their professional software because they are using a business or consumer-class PC instead of a workstation,"

Except this 'workstation' still has consumer/business class display resolution. C'mon guys, we NEED more PIXELS on our workstation class machines... There is simply no reason that 6yrs ago my laptop had greater display resolution than this guy does....

avatar

Renegade Knight

The reason is that Windows does a bad job of scaling to higher resolutions. If they did that right or even ok, we would see the higher resolutions handy for design software much more commonly than we do now.

avatar

HOYT

I to cant believe the standard for any 1000+ dollar laptop is still 1080p... I mean you would think well bigger screen more pixels... but nope they put the better screens on the 400 dollar tablets... So ass backwards...

avatar

Eoraptor

Several points, so stay with me.

first, logistics; Because to put in a 2160p screen would take the price well up past two grand. much of the cost of current mobil devices, be they phones, tablets, or laptops, is in the screen tech, since the SOCs have just about plateaued in both ARM and x86x. Also the weight to support the reinforcement of such a screen to keep it from shattering or suffering flex death with all the electrical complexities it has to have would take these from "mobile workstation" to "luggable" at best, and the yield on the screens would be low because so many would come out with seriously dead pixel counts at thie eleven inch and above scale.

Plus mobile graphics already has trouble driving attached external screens for anything more strenuous than youtube as far as processing. then the juice for just lighting anything other than an Amoled since more pixel density means more brightness required from the backlight; look how much electrical power is devoted toward driving true workstation-level graphics. so you're adding a lot of mass to the power brick, the battery, or both.

would it be nice to have a seventeen inch retina-class display or quadHD res? sure, except everything in the workstation and pro industry is actually headed in the other direction; simpler interfaces which require less, not more, graphically smooth and intense looks. Are a lot of people going to add two grand and several pounds to their budgets for each of those machines when instead they can tell their workers to buy a much less expensive static external display to plug in to if they want a shinier experience that the work itself doesn't call for (except for a few niches like photo and video editing)? almost certainly not.

Development costs; right now the development money is on tablets, where you can crank out a 1080 or 1296p panel without a huge risk of dead pixels, flexing stresses, or added weight, and until movies start coming in quadHD or RED formats instead of Blueray's 1080p, there won't be much cash devoted to making large quadHD screens mobile-ready in any form factor; tablet or laptop.

In truth, until you move into the 60" sized screens, there is little perceivable visual difference to the average consumer between HD and QuadHD so I doubt there will be that much demand for such a change any time soon on the consumer side of things; so it's up to Hollywood to provide content that demands ultra high res displays. A decade ago that was BBC/Discovery's Planet Earth content blitz, driving home HD sales both on live broadcast and on blueray resale. I don't know what, if anything, is in the pipes to really Drive QuadHD or RED. Most homes don't really have room for more than one 60" display, which means Hollywood has no interest in producing content for them when they can instead produce content that can be sold to the five or six HD displays in that same house.

avatar

vrmlbasic

I believe that you are redefining terms but I'm not sure as where you have "HD" I believe that "Full HD" is meant and where "QuadHD" is written "4K" or "2160" was intended...?

Either way, "there is little perceivable visual difference to the average consumer between HD and QuadHD" is still saying that the consumer can't notice a 4X increase in pixel count and that is bogus. I have a QHD monitor and it is insufficient. A 4K monitor might be sufficient.

Full HD screens blow and have no place on a workstation.

avatar

Renegade Knight

I did some research into our ability to discern resolution. It turns out that it's about 720 dpi for the normal human eye at reading distances.

That's why while I agree with your manufacturing and cost argument I disagree with the resolution being moot. It's moot for most of us at greater than 720dpi. Until then there is something to be gained by higher resolutions (in spite of the modern OS being horrid at scaling them).

avatar

vrmlbasic

720 DPI sounds much better than the lowly 300-some of today's "retina" displays (which is FAR too low) but I am still leery of that figure. Pixel density isn't what we should chase, it is raw resolution. My QHD monitor has a MUCH lower PPI than my mobile displays but it is much more useful because it allows me to "see more".

I'm leery of all eye research as it relates to computing as it gave us the "can't see more than 60 FPS" myth, something everyone with a 120 Hz display has already disproven.

avatar

LatiosXT

Because you get a higher yield out of a 5" screen than you do with a 15"-17" screen.

Specifically you could fit about 12 5" screens in a 15" screen using the same amount of silicon.