Dell XPS One 27 Review: The Premium All-in-One
by Dustin Sklavos on May 29, 2012 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
- Dell
- Intel
- XPS
- Ivy Bridge
- Kepler
- all-in-one
- 600M
- NVIDIA
New Inspirons and the Conclusion
I've mentioned briefly that in addition to the flagship Dell XPS One 27 being launched today, Dell is also launching two smaller Inspiron One systems, the One 23 and the One 20 (take a wild guess what the numbers after the "One" represent). These systems honestly just aren't quite as compelling as the massive 27" XPS One 2710, but they're also more affordable.
The Inspiron One 23 peaks at the same top-end CPU as the XPS One 27, but loses the 27" Quad HD display for a standard 1080p display. You also sacrifice the mSATA SSD, and the GPU takes a major hit, being able to top out at only AMD's Radeon HD 7650A with 1GB of DDR3, rendering it essentially unable to handle gaming at the system's native resolution. For these sacrifices, though, you do go down to a starting price of just $749, making it a more affordable option.
Dell's Inspiron One 20 is their ultra-affordable entry level model. CPUs are still Sandy Bridge generation and top out at the Intel Core i3-2120T, with a TDP of just 35W. No dedicated graphics options are available and worse, the only GPU on hand is Intel's horrendously crippled HD 2000, taking any casual gaming beyond Angry Birds completely out of the equation. The 20" screen is also specced at an anemic 1600x900. On the flipside, the Inspiron One 20 starts at only $529, but it's one of those situations where I'm incredibly disappointed to hear these words from a vendor: "We're committed to Intel." There's no reason to commit to anyone, and an entry level all-in-one like this one is the kind of place where AMD's Trinity would thrive.
So with the broader Dell all-in-one line in perspective, I'm of the unusual opinion that the end user should probably go big or go home. The Inspiron One 23 may offer a compelling enough price-performance ratio, but the One 20 is just too cut down. Meanwhile, the XPS One 27 is essentially the One to go for if you're in the market for a Dell all-in-one. Of course, I wish the situation were so cut and dry.
Big Buddha strike me dead for saying this, but the lack of touchscreen support is, in my opinion, a potentially serious liability. Windows 8 isn't that far away, so to not offer a touchscreen on a premium model like this one is extremely shortsighted in my opinion. I also feel like the 65W processors Dell outfits the XPS One with are just too much for the cooling system. Intel's 45W models may take a bigger hit in performance, but they're better suited to builds like this where thermal headroom is at a premium, and I'm not sure most people using an all-in-one really need much more CPU power than what the T-series offers. Then again, with a 27" display taking up plenty of space, it's difficult to believe there wasn't a better way to keep both CPU and GPU temperatures in check, even under load. Laptops have managed far more with even less space after all.
The good news is that Dell has largely fixed the aesthetic and connectivity from the previous generation, and the screen quality is excellent. If you're not going to push the system too hard the XPS One 27 is probably worth considering. Once again, though, thermals prove to be the Achilles' Heel of an all-in-one, and the lack of foresight demonstrated by the omission of a touchscreen should give you pause. This isn't a bad system, but as always, end users should be cognizant of what they're getting into.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
lurker22 - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
Just buy an iMac. Dell continues to be lousy engineering.lowlymarine - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
Well, I'd say at least wait for the IVB refresh of the iMacs (which should land inside a month or so). When that happens, the prices on these will have to com down; they're barely competitive with the current-generation iMacs as it is.Also, remember when Apple used to be the company using hilariously anemic GPUs in their computers while everyone else had higher-end chips available? When did that table turn? A 640M as the highest-end option in a 27" AIO, with the XPS branding no less, while Apple offers a 6970M in last years model? Ridiculous.
tipoo - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
I would have to agree, the iMac seems like a downright great value now that other companies are trying to target the same range. And if it gets upgraded to retina displays this next refresh...JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
Look at the pricing on a 27" iMac with an i7 CPU, 8GB RAM, 2TB HDD, SSD caching and Blu-ray (they don't offer these two options, actually), and a 6970M before you hand Apple the crown for AIOs. If you're looking purely at the GPU, Apple wins. If you're looking at the overall design and aesthetic, I'd call it a toss up, but I'd assume the Apple 27" iMac is able to cool the CPU+GPU better so we'll give Apple another win. And then you get to the price.It looks like a comparable current-gen iMac 27" with a better GPU will run you $2550 online at B&H, and you still lose Blu-ray capability and the SSD caching. I'm not sure if Apple will support Intel's SSD caching with the next generation iMac either -- Apple has been pretty careful about what new techs they support, particularly in the SSD realm. And of course the bottom line is that if you don't like OS X, you'd be crazy to purchase a Mac of any form. I know plenty of people that like OS X, but I know just as many that hate it; I happen to fall into the latter camp.
Still, it boggles the mind that Dell couldn't just have a second HSF cooling the CPU in the 2710 to fix the temperature issues.
Penti - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
You could always install 16 GB SO-DIMM DDR3 plus 128GB Samsung SSD for like 260 USD if you care to do the upgrade. As it might not be straight forward. An external Blu-ray drive costs you 70-100 USD and a Windows retail license of W7HP costs you some 170 USD. That would enable you everything including blu-ray playback. Might be a 600 - 700 USD upgrade though. Just installing ram though costs you 32 USD and requires no disassembly. A 2TB drive is 150 USD though if you don't want to disassemble the case. The i7 is 200 USD addon too, and not Ivy yet. If graphics isn't that important I would go with the HP Z1 Workstation though.On a system with mSATA the upgrade would obviously be to install a 128/256GB mSATA SSD. Not some Intel RST feature. It's just Intel Windows driver software any way.
Not that Dell here isn't unusably reasonable in it's configure. We mostly see 20-23" low end machines around 1000 dollars with TN displays otherwise. But they don't seem to have taken the build seriously restricting themselves to slightly low power cpus. I guess using a 3770k would have speed up things a bit.
protomech - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
"Also, remember when Apple used to be the company using hilariously anemic GPUs in their computers while everyone else had higher-end chips available?"No. I bought an ibook back in 2002 because it had a 100 mhz bus G3 and a mobility radeon 16 MB. Contemporary PC laptops were either integrated graphics (i810 chipset) or a slightly larger form factor with discrete graphics and lower battery life.
While the powerbook titanium / aluminum line never really had high-powered discrete graphics .. they offered basically the best GPUs that could fit in their 1" form factor. Charged an arm and a leg for it too..
Excepting a brief period in 2006-2007 (mac mini and macbook with intel GMA 950), Apple has typically used a pretty high base level of graphics hardware in their systems. They've only rarely offered truly excellent graphics options (6970M in current iMac is a big exception), but by offering a high baseline they've been able to build their operating systems with a minimum level of guaranteed graphics performance.
Perhaps not unexpectedly, the iPhone / iPad lineup has always offered some of the best graphics available among contemporary smartphones.
Dustin Sklavos - Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - link
Think the Mac towers. For a long time, the bottom rung configuration of systems that have almost always started at a brutal $2,499 almost always included what seemed like the worst dedicated GPU they could find.AssBall - Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - link
That still doesn't present a good argument from a reasonable perspective. You don't need a high powered gpu in an i-mac, because you aren't going to run any software that stresses it. imacs and aio in general are for the fung-shui crowds. A lesser gpu in a 27" will run games fine at max with a good subsystem. Gamers don't buy imacs, or any macs, for gaming. They are a nice piece of usefull furniture but nobody should pretend they aren't a luxury item. The rest of us will sb happy to settle for an upgradable, cheaper, run of the mill pc with more versatility.vol7ron - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
Actually, I know someone that purchased one of these. I was skeptical at first, but was quite surprised [in a good way] when I had used it.Mind you, they don't do any serious performance-driven use (gaming/video editing), but video and office products worked well and it had a few neat touch-driven games that came with it.
guidryp - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link
Sounds like you are making things up. Did you read where it says there is "NO Touch Screen"?