# DELL XPS 210 Video Card. Please Help!



## kihoon07 (Feb 27, 2008)

Hey

i bought this desktop (dell xps 210) about 6 months ago now.

I upgraded my video card to Radeon X1300 Series when i first bought it.

As you know, this desktop has really small cases which i regret now.

I really like to upgrade my video card that will play video games such as WoW, Guild Wars

at the best condition it can be. i coudln't find which video card will fit into this desktop.

If someone out there can help me to choose the video card, that would be very appreciated.

my budget is $250 for the video card.

http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_210?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19

Above is the link to my system. (I have 2 GB Memory, not 4 GB)

Thank you


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

Other peoples advice (WRONG)

I see many people suggesting low profile 8600gts etc to xps210 users, but in reality the system will not boot due to its 300watt requirement. Plus to fit it in you'll need to mod the fan (an xps210 only has 1inch space beween the hardrive) and even then it won't power up! 

My advice

A low profile hd2400 xt (overclocked) should do the trick, its slim with passive cooling (the same thickness as its bracket) and runs all games 10-15fps+ faster than a x1300 or hd2400. It also only requires 270watt and should work within your 275watt psu. Plus its got some great multimedia capabilities. Dell sell these cards.

Another area you may look at is your dell pc ram (which is usually :down. Changing the ram to a good low latency solution may provide the answer to your framerate problems. 

The 533 or 667mhz ram dell provide impacts performance, to give your g965 motherboard a proper work out upgrade that to 2gb or even 4gb of speedy pc6400 800mhz (which the g965 should be able to run). If upgrading your ram, remember to check the voltage! your psu provides 1.8v. It must also be JEDEC, Unbuffered, Non ECC.

Changing the ram should be enough alone to boost your framerates. Plus it would be a shame to get rid of your xps210 as its sleek, simple and compact design looks great. Low profiles are a bugger to upgrade but with some research can go along way as many people are happy with around 30fps and resolutions up to 1280x720 (ps3 resolution) and not 100fps+ at 1920x1080!

Infact I'm testing a xps210 in the next few days with corsair dominator xms pc6400 which they claim only needs 1.8v so I'll get back to you with results!


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

Hey, installed 4gb of pc6400 (800mhz) Corsair XMS2 ram. This is on a system with an e6300 and x1300 pro. And the system has recieved a significant boost. The system boots around 25seconds quicker. Game loading is fast.

Benchmarked Far Cry all high settings at 1184x864 with no AA and resulted in an average framerate of 35fps in the middle of a jungle battle. Framerate averaged 54fps in Open ground (Sea and cliff side) with little going on. Quite impressive. The x1300 is not at stock speed, as I overclocked the core 645mhz. Load times were very fast with the corsair installed.

No time to benchmark:- 
Tested Prey briefly with most on high. No real slowdown issues

Tested Crysis briefly (Extremely fast load time) all settings on low apart from shaders at , texture, post processing and water quality - medium at 1024x768. Framerate was certainly alot better than expected. Smooth and fast.

Note, I set Anti Aliasing and Anistropic filtering off - this left most of the games running smooth, with few hiccups. No point in using such intensive features on a low end card!

All in all I come away quite impressed with how the ram boosted the system performance. And certainly impressed by how the x1300 pro coped. Others aps such as Photoshop cs3 loaded in a breeze and the system didn't let a chirp out of it once.

If you really want to upgrade - graphics wise, get yourself a good case and power supply (double check type, connectors etc, then a good cheapish graphics card (8800gt or 9600) as the core 'equipment' of the xps210 is certainly more than capable of really capable of putting on a show on the graphics front.


----------



## estaff (Apr 25, 2008)

livewire im sure glad you added to this thread! i have a 210 and am currently looking for an upgrade. im a little confused on what youre saying, so i hope you can help.

did you like the hd 2400 or x1300 more? im looking for the very best or something close to it that will run on the 210. i am aware that one of the best is the 512mb 8600, but im glad i saw you said it wont boot.

please let me know if you can ,the best card (preferably a 512mb) that will meet the 210 standards


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

Hey estaff, hopefully the below advice should help with your queries

:down: HD2400

My advice would be DO NOT purchase a stock HD2400 as it basically outputs the same performance of an x1300pro, infact the x1300 can outperform it.

:up: HD2400XT

I suggest the HD2400 XT if your hankering a graphics upgrade for an xps210 (XT comes pre overclocked and provides 5-20fps faster depending on game over the standard 2400 and X1300.) The HD2400 XT should definitely work fine in an xps210, dell have a small passively cooled version on their site - just ring their customer services to double check.

:down: 8600GT

The system will not manage to boot with a low profile 8600gt (it may get past the initial boot if your lucky before shutting down!) I have read many arguments from people on many web pages who say it will work - but I hope people don't make that mistake if they read this! Trust me it won't.

:down: low end 512mb graphics card

Doubling to 512mb does not give much of a performance boost - if any in low end cards (they already lack the capability to throw heavy geometry and AA), and IMO are only there to trick people into buying a more expensive version of the same card. (though this is usually the opposite with high end cards)

:up: PC6400 800mhz ram

Corsair® 4GB DDR2 XMS2-6400C5 (800Mhz) TwinX (2x2GB) Unbuffered 5-5-5-18 is perfect and definitely works for your system, its JEDEC approved and only needs 1.8volts to operate, it will provide the biggest performance boost, It boots games extremely fast (Crysis within 20seconds anyone?), it will speed up framerates and make your system extremely happy!

Hope this is of help :up:


----------



## estaff (Apr 25, 2008)

thank you again for your posts.

would you recommend any of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...11+106792278+1067929490&name=Radeon+HD+2400XT

or should i go through dell.

as far as memory goes, i havent researched that at all. how expensive and easy to install is the products (corsair) you mentioned?


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

That card is fine but I think the real point is spend the rest of the money upgrading your ram. Want to match it with guaranty to work, go here:
www.crucial.com and put in your pc brand and model number....you won't go wrong.


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

estaff - both those HD2400xt's are full height - They will not fit in your system, heres a picture of what your after on dells euro site

http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=uk&l=en&cs=ukdhs1&sku=490-10749

Open up your case and size up the x1300pro, all low profiles look similar to it.

I would suggest Dell for the graphics card if you want to upgrade, as their 2400 xt's are for their low profile systems.

Low profile cards are easy to spot because of their odd shape

As for the ram. I can guarantee that Corsairs xms2 pc6400 will work in your system as I tested an xps210 rig myself with 4gb (2x2gb) installed.

Rich-M gives some good advice too, whatever you choose your Ram needs to be

JEDEC approved (1.8v)
unbuffered, Non-ECC DDR 2 memory
And you can have a maximum of 4gb in dual channel.

below is an specification of the ram I recommend
http://www.advancetec.co.uk/acatalo...x256Mx64_non_ECC_240_DIMM_128Mx8_DRAMs_U.html

Ram is easily installed with a good shove in and dell provide all the step by step instructions you need in the Owner's manual. Its located at the top end of your motherboard. Your first upgrade can be abit daunting, (abit like becoming a parent) but after that you'll be flying!

Anymore questions ask away!


----------



## estaff (Apr 25, 2008)

i heard that my OS will only read up to 3 gb, and that my system requires that i install memory in pairs....

is it possible to install a 2g and 1g together?


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Yes just make sure the ram is the same model which the mfgr should be able to tell you.


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

I still recommend to opt for the same ram modules, memory types and size. 2x4gb will work more efficiently, faster and offer more bandwidth than a 2gb and 1gb separate.

Even though your os is 32bit and can only use 3gb of the 4 your still getting a 75% increase and dont forget 100% compatibility - so it is worth getting 4gb.:up:


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

> I still recommend to opt for the same ram modules, memory types and size. 2x4gb will work more efficiently, faster and offer more bandwidth than a 2gb and 1gb separate.


I'm sorry this makes no sense and it isn't true. 2X2gb installed is no more efficient than 2 gb+ 1 gb. I would not have a problem with you using 4 gb, though 3.2.-3.5 is the most you will have onboard.


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

woops lol. 

Wasn't completely concentrating on what I was typing in the reply but what I meant was that users with 32-bit versions of Windows will still be able to access up to 3.5GB of available memory, which is up to a '75%' increase compared to 2GB! and also that using 4GB of memory (as opposed to 2) also provides benefits such as increased multi-tasking flexibility! hope thats clearer hehe.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

OK we'll let you off the hook!


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

phew, thanks Rich lol.


----------



## estaff (Apr 25, 2008)

well im really disappointed in how my computer is running Age of Conan.

i took some of your advice and bought a hd 2400 xt and 2 more gigs of ram so its about 3.2-3.4 recognized.

im wondering about the video card the most, im not sure if i have the most up to date driver. i download the driver off of amds site and install it, but from curiosity i checked dxdiag and it says im still on version 6.something. i believe i should have 8.4


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

I am not familiar with Age of Conan (is this a new game?) however here is what I think may be the issue. Hopefully you will have noticed the speed and overall increase in system, apps and game loading.

As I said before low profiles can give good performance, but they don't excel! Its down to excessive tinkering through which you can achieve a balance between looks and frames. Its one of my most favorite parts of working with a low end card, knowing that you can get it to look and run good, but working out how to go about it. Think of it as a puzzle

As with all games, it could be down to the engine and settings tinkering, perhaps a patch is available which improves frames and known issues? It could be a compatibility issue with ATI cards even. Some games work better on NVIDIA others ATI etc.

Suggestions to learning about your card:-

Start of Low and slowly work your way up in the settings, this way you can see how each setting effects your frame rates. Youll learn which one to turn down and which to turn up! Remember theres a fine balance and that knowledge is power.

1.Make sure post processing isn't turned up as this will ensure frame rates will go down the drain

2.As you said it could be the driver version

3.Download Net framework 2.0 from Microsoft (if you do not have it - this will allow you to make big changes to your settings in CCC)

Other issues

1. Turn off AA and AF (this is a will unburden the 64bit memory issue) 
dont use such features in a low profile card.

2. Start at 800x600 resolution (which still looks good) and then slowly increase - though I wouldn't bother going beyond 1280x720 if widescreen or 1184x864)

3. Ensure all settings are set to performance in CCC (this will reduce effects and details but games will still look really good and many performance zapping effects you won't notice are gone (unless your really looking) while giving a significant boost in performance.) - tinkering around helps to achieve a great balance.

4. There may be an issue with your virus checker - sometimes these things go crazy on some games.

4.Try some over clocking!

Overall:-

Learn more about your card. Tinkering with settings will hopefully help achieve a balance between good looks and frame rates, this way you'll start to learn more about your system and what your card can achieve.

Hopefully after all that you can enjoy the fact that you have achieved the best level of graphics/frame rate you can achieve. I constantly tinker my Media PC and have Prey and Far Cry running around 35fps with high details in many areas. Even Crysis I can get to run in many medium settings with a smooth framerate. But Just remember you wont be able to turn everything up full, you will be able to hit a mix of mostly low to medium settings, with some high.

Enjoy the cards multimedia functions  which it excels in.

Just wondering, What OS are you running? Vista? I still test on XP and usually XP framerates are usually about 20% better than Vista. Though as Microsoft slowly iron out vistas issues I'm sure youll also see improvements! 

Hope this is of help and get tinkering!


----------



## milow (Jun 12, 2008)

would a quad processor help at all? Or would that be too much for the power supply?

BTW, having trouble finding the HD2400 XT in a low profile. Where did you guys find it? I don't suppose this is it...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103047


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

hello millow, 

I very much doubt the board inside the XPS210 is a variant of the G965 and I don't think it supports quad core. The highest may be an E6700, though I am not sure. But anyways app's that generate 4 cores are still in the minority.

The card you have linked it the right sort of card (the pro and xt are similar spec), though check and make sure the fan isn't too wide as you don't have much room to play with!

Just remember the good points and bad points about low profile graphics which are in the posts above.

Do not expect the holy grail of graphics performance, but expect some good performance with features such as AA and AF disabled coupled with settings changes advice I have given in previous post on this thread.

hope thats ok!


----------



## milow (Jun 12, 2008)

Found some Pioneer PC6400 memory laying around, so at least I have 4GB of 800mhz running now. (left over from when I thought I had some bad memory on my other computer, but it was thermal) Frame rate on Mass Effect is still around 10, though.

Appreciate your experience and suggestions. I ended up ordering this video card, will report if it works:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133222

I looked at the end-on pic and it seems to be thin enough. Also scanned the X1300 that was in the XPS210 and overlayed the pic of the above in photo shop. Seems to be the same size. Would like to squeeze out a little more life from this computer 

Thanks again.


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

also remember, when your playing mass effect, turn all your options to low and resolution to 800x600, then start tinkering with the settings so you can achieve a meeting point between atleast good graphics and Frames! Turn off AA and AF and If theres post processing option turn it to low as it can kick weaker graphics cards in the balls!  then try a bit of overclocking on the graphics card.

hope all goes well


----------



## milow (Jun 12, 2008)

Ok, I am finally getting back with the results. When things go well, you sometimes forget to share the news. The PNY Verto 8600GT *does* fit in the XPS210 case, and it does boot up. 

The ATI X1300XT was getting a frame rate of 10, idling in Mass Effect, and the 8600 jumped it to 18. Marginally acceptible. This was with 1024x768 res, and settings on low texture and particles. We upped it to 1280x960 to better match the LCD, and upped the particles and texture to Medium and it dropped to 15 fps (still a 50% improvement)

So, I think it was well worth the $80 to get this odd little comp to last a bit longer. The faster memory brought it from 9fps to 10. I dropped in a quad and it had no effect on the frame rate, but it did work.

Another little benchmark -- when you go back on to the Normandy in Mass Effect you have to go through decontamination. This can seem interminable. Before the new video card it took 1:40. After, it took just 30 seconds.

So, that's my report....


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Great glad you got it now you can mark this "solved" in "thread tools" up top!


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

wow, Great job Milow sounds like you've done well there! thanks for posting your results. You're right in saying its an odd little comp. . .but it has quite likeable aesthetics. Next time you should build your own PC! I finish my recent build just over a month ago:

I used an Asus P5K premium wi fi (an overclockers dream!) with a Q6600 GO, cooled by the cheap but exceptional Artic pro 7. Powering the graphics I chose an MSI 8800 512 GTS OC'd, 4gb Corsair 6400 ram, 500gb samsung spinpoint, 750watt thermaltake all wrapped up in the flashy NZXT Lexa classic - looks great in the living room. . .! My os is Windows XP media center (Vista hater!). It was quite a cheap build and This setup allows me to run Crysis on the ultra high xp hack with an ultra smooth framerate on my plasma TV's res of 1280x768 - looks jaw dropping by the way!


----------



## milow (Jun 12, 2008)

Rich, I don't see "solved", maybe because I didn't ask the original question.

livewire, I bought a pair of these for my daughters ( who have no love for the bleeding edge ). Mine is a little more like yours, with an EVGA 780i mobo, 750w thermaltake, 4gb of pioneer 6400. Had a pair of BFG 8800GT 512mb in SLI, but it runs too damn hot, so just using 1 now. You should see Crysis in 1680x1050...


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

OOPs!!!!


----------



## liveWire32 (Apr 10, 2008)

sounds great Milow!, yeah them 512 GT's can run hot!, I was reading the temp of my 512GTS and it sits around 28/29 degrees, even when being pushed by Crysis. The new coolers designed for the GTS are excellent, especially since the shaders and memory are OC'd to 2000mhz, and the core to 750mhz. I must say though no matter what, games always look best in your tv's native resolution. The plasma's 42inch too, so its really cinematic! I've got Grid running at 16xAA/AF etc on ultra high without a hitch. Damn them 8800's are awesome.


----------



## pattonme (Jul 22, 2008)

it's PCIe v2 no less not that the XPS210 can take advantage of it. If I read the various graphics charts correctly it spanks all the current 1/2 height cards this thread has mentioned.

I'm more pissed at Dell for putting a pathetic 100mbit NIC in there. My laptop which is older has a 1G etherface. Somehow I missed that major mistake when I bought it from the Dell outlet.

I put a no name gigE card in the pcie slot and it works a treat.

Now if only I could figure out how to solder headers onto the slew of SATA ports that are actually ON this board which Dell chose not to make accessible. Enough with the freaking USB ports!


----------

