General Performance of the Studio 14

The Studio 14 we have on hand has a fairly low-to-middle-of-the-road configuration, but upgrade pricing on Dell's site for most components (excepting graphics) is reasonable at least. Here's a refresher of how our unit was configured:

Dell Studio 14 Test System
Processor Intel Core i5 430M
(2x2.26GHz, 32nm, 3MB L3, Turbo to 2.53GHz, 35W)
Chipset Intel HM55
Memory 2x2GB DDR3-1333 (Max 2x4GB)
Graphics ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470 1GB GDDR3
(80 Stream Processors, 675MHz/1.6GHz Core/RAM clocks)
Display 14" LED Glossy 16:9 720p (1366x768)
Hard Drive(s) Seagate Momentus 7200.4 500GB 7200RPM
Optical Drive Slot-loading DVD+/-RW Combo Drive
Battery 6-Cell, 11.1V, 56Wh battery
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Dimensions 13.25" x 9.48" x 0.98"-1.52” (WxDxH)
Weight 5.25 lbs (with 6-cell battery)
Pricing Starting at $599.99
~$900 as configured from Dell

Once again we employ Futuremark's PCMark05 and PCMark Vantage to get a feel for the basic performance of the Studio 14's Core i5-430M processor, with some of the tests also stressing the storage and graphics subsystems.

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

Futuremark PCMark05

The i5-430M in our review unit slots in exactly where it should be. Intel's per-clock performance in this line continues to be impressive and a healthy jump from the previous generation, outclassing competition from AMD.

Internet Performance

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

Video Encoding - x264

Video Encoding - x264

Once again, no surprises here. The i5-430M performs exactly as you'd expect and falls neatly in line. At least we can say that as far as basic performance is concerned, the Studio 14 is where it should be and will certainly be more than adequate for most users.

The Studio 14 Examined Synthetic Graphics Performance with 3DMark
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Wolfpup - Thursday, September 16, 2010 - link

    I really hate that Dell has such terrible GPUs in everything except their Alienware, and I guess their single Studio XPS (which has all kinds of issues) lines.

    I mean looking at this, it would be fine, but it's a joke next to what Asus offers for the same price. Heck, my Asus from NINETEEN MONTHS AGO cost the same price, has a superior Geforce 9650GT (32-core part, probably marginally better than AMD's 120-core part...compared with this one's 80-core part), and a somewhat worse CPU (2.4GHz Penryn Core 2 versus 2.26GHz Corei5).

    I mean the bottom line is my Asus notebook has what I consider a better mix of hardware, for the same price...only it's nineteen months old. That's nuts. And of course when I bought it it was the same deal, Dell's stuff was weirdly low end. That new Asus n83 or whatever it is looks so much more appealing for this size and price range... probably double the GPU power and a bit more CPU power too.
  • caffy2103 - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link

    Just bought mine for $599 plus $34 tax on Dell

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now