M6400 vs M17

September 16, 2009 at 12:41:18
Specs: Windows Vista
My school is using M6400 over the M17 at the moment and i can't understand why. The M17 is much better, and specs wise the M6400 is not that good.

I am going into Game Production, so basically we need a workstation for this program. You can get the exact same specs on the M17 as the M6400 for a thousand dollars less. I have the option to opt out and get the M17 on my own, but first i want to know if it is worth it. I feel like the M6400 (dell) is just ripping people off.

Is there anything that really makes the M6400 so much better for production? Or are they just over pricing their product?

See More: M6400 vs M17

Report •

September 16, 2009 at 13:26:46
The Dell M6400 is a workstation, the Alienware M17 is a gamer. You're comparing apples & oranges.

Report •

September 16, 2009 at 13:32:25
I know that one is a workstation and one is for gaming. I am asking what makes them different, what is the lines between them and makes one a workstation and one for gaming.

Report •

September 16, 2009 at 13:39:13
Also you said the school uses that one. I am betting they paid less for it than you would pay for the M17. You have the option to buy your own, it's your money, go ahead. The computers my school uses are also dells and the school only paid $270 per unit ofcourse they bought 300 plus units as well. And the local dealer they bought from gets a hefty tax break for it as well. I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.


Practice makes perfect but only if you practice perfectly!

Report •

Related Solutions

September 16, 2009 at 20:09:53
"I am asking what makes them different"

Compare the specs. I have no idea what the specs are but I assume that you do?? Do they both use the same motherboard or at least boards based on the same chipset? Are the CPU's identical? What about the RAM? I know the video cards are different...the Dell uses a professional graphics card, the Alienware uses a gaming card. Do they both use the same size/type screen? same resolution? And a RAID 0 config would be a poor choice for a workstation unless some sort of backup is in place.

Just compare the specs side by side & you'll have your answer.

Report •

September 16, 2009 at 20:31:36
I did that's why it confuses me. The M17 and M17X are by far better specs wise, in CPU, RAM, HDD, GPU and etc.

The only difference is the price, and you can get a LED screen on the M6400 if you want to.

That is why i came here because M17 hands down specs side by side kicks its ass, and so does the M17X, even worse.

The ONLY difference is LED screen and PRICE! The price is like 1000 dollars more!

Report •

October 7, 2009 at 08:26:54
I believe the core difference in price you are referring to is due to that "workstation" class graphics cards are optimized for high polygon count and accuracy performance, whereas the "gamer" graphics cards are optimized for textures and frame rate performance. This is the difference between nvidia's Quadro (workstation) and GeForce (gamer) graphics cards. The smaller market for the workstation cards forces nvidia to charge more for the hardware (more accurately, the development of the additional driver costs money, but I suspect that because drivers are free they have no choice but to market and sell different HW). The M6400 costs more because it is packaged with a workstation card. The GPU may be identical for two different Quadro and GeForce model cards. The only difference is how the card IDs itself to the driver. Search "soft Quadro" for the utility that changes the ID of the card and can turn your "gamer" into a "workstation"

Report •

Ask Question