Dell misrepresentation? 2

[LANmass]

Dell advertises their cheapo Dim 3000 with a Pentium 4 2.80GHz on a 533MHz FSB. This also includes their stated memory config of: "256MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz".

Now according to info from Intel's i865 chipset specs: "To minimize system latencies and optimize system performance 400 MHz DDR memory is clocked at 333 MHz when using an Intel processor with a 533 MHz system bus speed."

Is Dell overstating their memory speeds, or do they have some way of overcoming the system latencies that Intel says exists in that configuration?

 

[denny705]

LANmass
The Dell catalog I received 2 weeks ago says the Dim 3000 is a Celeron-D 320(2.40GHz).

 

[LANmass]

Well, I think there are config options, but the Dim 3000 currently on their web site shows the config in my first post message: P4 2.8GHz/533MHz with memory at 400MHz.
I don't think this is the actual setup, and it misrepresents the system specs to unsuspecting customers.

 

[cdogg]

No, they're simply saying that they are selling you PC3200 which is 400MHz DDR SDRAM memory. That is true.

What you are looking at are the white paper specs for the i865 design. This in no way means that board manufacturers must follow this same design. Also, custom BIOS's can open up more options like asynchronous modes - meaning the FSB and memory bus run at different ratios.

It's possible to run the memory at 400MHz, even though the FSB is only 133MHz.

In theory, this is not the best option due to latency, but it is possible. I'm not one that usually recommends Dell, but even if the memory isn't running at 400MHz, I don't see that they are doing anything wrong. They're still selling you memory that has that potential.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[paparazi]

A play on words, me thinks!
with memory at 400Mhz, they don't actually say:
With memory RUNNING at 400Mhz
I'd be more worried about getting a Celeron D 533 instead of the P4.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[bcastner]

cdogg and paparzi,

Stars. You guys are good.

 

[technome]

Two cents..........
In my opinion Dell does misrepresent their hardware in general. Finding specs on the site or calling Dell for them is difficult. The other day it took me over an hour of searching their site to find particular info about a raid device, 90% of the supplied info is vague and repetitious.

Example..
Dell will offer raid controllers which are a generation in the past on their top models; read the specs, or talk to a Dell rep and you would think your getting the newest technology. There is much more profit in older technology.

My response...

Generally for top performance servers, I build them myself.

If I purchase a Dell, generally I purchase the raid adapter separately to get the match to the server.
Dell loses out, I buy the raid adapter separately, and the minimum number of disks offered to get the server..
The disks are close to half the cost via the Internet, with a 5 versus 3 year warranty.

Obscurity works for Dell..

 

[RITE1]

Two more cents.

There is a clear difference between processor/mobo capability and ram speed. If the person buying this machine doesn’t understand that then the difference, then it probably won't matter to them.

Consider Dells position. If they buy a 1000 chips of ram. If they buy all 400 chips they pay $10 each or 750 of 400 @ 12 and 250 of 266 @ 9, they would be screwing themselves. Im sure their suppliers set them up with deals so every once in awhile they have to outfit a machine with over-achieving parts.

If they would have stated it any other way, it would have been misrepresentation!

Technome - I buy a quite a few servers and would love to build them myself but the mobos and cases I find online seem like crap compared to the stuff I get from dell. Where can I find a dual power supply unit and a sweet rack case???? The only stuff I've found like that is hella expensive compared to dell and dells cases are bad a$$ - nobody can argue that... best cases and cooling..ever!

Rick

 

[cdogg]

If they would have stated it any other way, it would have been misrepresentation!

Well, they could have plainly said:

[blue]256MB "[navy]of[/navy]" 400MHz DDR SDRAM[/blue]


Instead, they chose "[navy]at[/navy]" 400MHz which is what's causing an issue here. Regardless of how it sounds, it's possible that Dell has it running at 400MHz in asynchronous mode.


My last 2¢!!


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[technome]

Rite1...

For servers at clients I use Supermicro motherboards and cases.
Neither of these item are inexpensive but they are extremely reliable and my disk arrays remain a few degrees above room temperature.
The last one I build consisted of a CSA 850-P4 case,3.0 Ghz X6DA8-G2, 2 gig ram, Lsilogic u320-X, 5 73 gig Seagates for $8000 including labor, same equivalent in Dell (6600 model) $15000. With the Supermicro cases cooling is better, more space to work with, no proprietary backplanes or power supplies. The case has (2)6 drive chassis racks,split backplane, two media bays (aside from the floppy and CD bays),13 fans; case is heavy gauge like Dell's, far easier to work on than Dell servers. Only negative is no same day warrant.

At the moment I have 8 Supermicro servers at clients, varying in age, no problems; more than I can say for the Dells I have at clients (power and drive backplane problems)

Supermicro cases initially are more expensive...
Just built a raid server for myself using a SR 107 Chenbro. Initially it was quit a bit cheaper, but by the time I purchased the drive racks , cables, extra fans, the end cost was nearly the same. An extra 4 hours of assembly to get the drive racks in; case is definite not the same quality.

 

[pweegar]

What bothers me with Dell is the fact that I can't get any more warranty service for my 2 Dell servers. They are just under 6 years old and the warranty has been extended as far as Dell will extended them. In the 2 plus years I've been responsible for them, I've had ONE hard drive fail. And it being a part of a RAID 5, poping in the new drive and letting the RAID controller rebuild the drive was easy. In other words, Dell servers seem to be fairly reliable. Down time is kept at a min. My servers are up 24X7 and get used constantly for at least 16 hrs a day.

 

[cdogg]

Yeah, unfortunately extended coverage only goes so far. It would not be cost effective for Dell to cover the entire system beyond 5 or 6 years, when certain components are reaching old age in IT terms.

For a system that is on 24x7 more than 6 years old, all sorts of things can start happening in the next couple years (failed power supplies, any original HDD's in the system could go, etc). Like certain parts of a car, these are issues that are considered part of the normal "wear and tear". They just don't grant much more life expectancy than what you've already received!


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[pweegar]

cdogg:
I understand the normal wear and tear part. I guess my whole point was that Dell servers, at least in my exp. have been relieable. Yes, parts are beginning to wear out (One drive replaced in one server. A RAID controller in another sometimes needs to be rebott 2 or more times for it to recognize drives. Not to mention the proc are P3!!!!). We are in the process of replacing servers with new ones. Already replaced one server (and found problems with IIS 5, depending on the client desktop OS). Plus a new mass storage system will be added in order to act as our primary storage, replacing 2 old and slow Optical jukeboxes.