Alienware M18x R2 Notebook Review: NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 680M in SLI
by Dustin Sklavos on September 28, 2012 12:01 AM ESTConclusion: Go Big or Go Home
As I mentioned in the conclusion of my review of the Alienware M17x R4, there are no points awarded for repetition. The original M18x was good but not perfect, and simply repeating the design instead of at least iterating it isn't going to somehow result in a better review. I think for the most part the shell does work; the aluminum is attractive and however you feel about Alienware's aesthetics, it's at least distinctive and feels sturdier than competing notebooks from Clevo. Bonus points also to the cooling system, which does a solid job of keeping the internals from roasting.
If we take the repeated chassis design out of the equation, we're faced with an amusingly unique problem that I haven't really seen in a notebook before: too much graphics power. The GK104-based GTX 680M is so good at its job that for notebook users who are going to be limited to a 1080p resolution, there's very little reason or need to add a second one. In fact, only Battlefield 3 seems to really benefit from the second GPU; everything else was already butter smooth on just one. It's a silly thing to complain about until you realize the Alienware M18x R2 costs an arm and a leg.
.jpg)
But wait, it gets better. Because the pair of GTX 680Ms are limited by both the resolution and by the CPU, even a relatively pricey upgrade like the i7-3820QM actually becomes borderline inadequate. Consider what that means when an i7-3610QM was perfectly fine support for a GTX 675M or 680M, when historically upgrading past the entry level quad core in a notebook has been a fairly questionable value proposition. If you simply must have the fastest gaming notebook you can find, the M18x R2 is going to be it, but the upgrades are all ridiculously expensive and amusingly, if you want the most out of your purchase you're not going to be able to cut corners. You can save $250 by not having Alienware overclock the CPU for you and do it yourself, but you're still going to want to spend the $900 upgrade cost to get the i7-3920XM just to keep your disgustingly powerful graphics subsystem from being curtailed by the CPU.
I'll level with you: the Alienware M18x R2 is a notebook for people with more money than sense. Bleeding edge hardware has always cost a pretty penny, but while I could produce a corner case need for the original M18x, the M18x R2 just isn't necessary for even the most die hard mobile gamer. A single GTX 680M is screamingly fast on its own and well paired with an Ivy Bridge CPU, making the M17x R4 a better choice in almost every way. If you really, really want the absolute fastest notebook money can buy then by all means, and you just absolutely hate having money, shell out for the M18x R2. But if you want a premium gaming notebook and aren't interested in setting your money on fire to get it, a single-GPU solution like the M17x R4 or iBuyPower's Valkyrie CZ-17 is going to suit you far better.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
PCMerlin - Saturday, September 29, 2012 - link
Wow.... Either you guys missed the "or better" aspect of it or you just haven't been paying attention to what the rest of the world is doing.Apple is offering up to 2880x1800 on MacBook Pro Retina (problem is, I'm not too keen on Apple). Retina screen resolutions are also available on i-Pads and i-Phones.
Android phones and tablets are also catching up to those resolutions, Asus has a 1920x1200 on their 10.1" Transformer now.
New TV's are coming out with 4k UHD (2160p)
My 4 year old Gateway has a 1920x1200 screen - all I'm asking is why the PC market feels that 1080p is "good enough" when the rest of the world is aiming higher?
If high-resolution PC laptops are dead, then my prediction is that the PC laptop itself will soon be dead, also.
seapeople - Sunday, September 30, 2012 - link
Would be interesting if they put 2560x1440 in this thing, considering the graphics power.JPForums - Monday, October 1, 2012 - link
No. It is my money and I can buy what I want. If I want 1920x1200 and they aren't offering, there is nothing forcing me to buy their product. Also, if I never make them aware that they lost a sale due to the panel, then it will never get addressed.On the flip side. While 1920x1200 is not in fact dead, it has been largely relegated to high end offerings (with high end price tags). Now I must make a choice to spend the extra cash or do without. For the laptop market, I must also decide whether I can live with the other tradeoffs. For instance, I may be able to get 1920x1200 in a mobile workstation, but I also have to buy a workstation graphics card that isn't optimized for gaming. This may or may not be acceptable to me if I value gaming. High end workstation graphics, last I checked, had worse optimus support than their consumer counter parts. If I value optimus, this may not be acceptable.
My personal number one issue is that most laptops don't have what I consider to be adequate cooling. I don't like to see my graphics cards breach 90C, much less my processor. Thermal throttling due to inadequate cooling (even with help) was the achilles heal of the M6400 I used at work (before it fried) and I'm not satisfied with <10C of margin before the dust even starts building up. Unfortunately, good cooling solutions seem to be mutually exclusive to 1920x1200 screens on performance laptops, so I'm now at 1920x1080 due to my prioritization.
If PCMerlin prioritizes screen resolution, that is his choice to make. Alternately, he could buy the laptop and purchase an additional 1920x1200 or better monitor for when he's docked like I did.
Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Saturday, September 29, 2012 - link
You know what would make this whole 16:9/16:10 discussion go away? If they kept the same aspect ratio and physical size and just upped the resolution/pixel density. A 2160x1215 screen would have more vertical pixels than our old favorite and a nigh-perfect 134.7 ppi at 18.4".Do I prefer 16:10 over 16:9? Sure. Do I prefer 1440x900 over 1600x900? Nooope. Would a 2160x1215 screen be more expensive to manufacture than a 1920x1080 screen at the same size? Not significantly, since the size of the screen drives the price more than it's resolution.
What kills this Alienware (well, all Alienware laptops) for me, though, is the glossy screen. There's no way I'd pay more than a few hundred dollars for a laptop that has one.
seapeople - Sunday, September 30, 2012 - link
Don't know where you've been, but most of these 16:9 whinefests contain at least a few comments of people specifically mentioning how they would prefer 1440x900 over 1600x900 because of how the aspect ratio is just inherently superior...Sufo - Monday, October 1, 2012 - link
Rubbish. The complaint is 1080 vs 1200. WUXGA can display 2 documents side by side comfortably. This is what is was designed for. Anything lower will not. Anyone who is found arguing that 1440x900 is superior to 1600x900 should not be counted towards the collected opinions of 16:10 supporters. The sad fact of the matter is that 1440x900 was replaced, by and large, by 1333x768 which is, by all accounts, a travesty.noblemo - Friday, September 28, 2012 - link
Thank you, Dustin, for both the M17x R4 and M18x R2 reviews. As a general question, are the display benchmark tests performed on the unit as shipped, or do you run a calibration first?Dustin Sklavos - Friday, September 28, 2012 - link
We run a calibration first.noblemo - Friday, September 28, 2012 - link
Thank you for replying.Tchamber - Friday, September 28, 2012 - link
"It's heavy enough that it can be uncomfortable on your lap or even to cart around from place to place..."I still have my old HP HDX9000 20" laptop that weighs neigh on 15lbs lol, its collecting dust except when I want to use its HD dvd player. My M17xR1weighs as much as this 18xR2, so I feel like its a bargain as far as size/weight is concerned. Its impressive how far laptops have come in the last few years.