AVADirect Clevo P170EM Part 2: GTX 680M Grudge Match
by Jarred Walton on October 15, 2012 6:50 PM ESTAVADirect’s Clevo P170EM: GTX 680M FTW
You’ll note that I skipped discussion of the various benchmark results for general performance, CPU speed, synthetic graphics testing, and even LCD testing. All of the results are available in Mobile Bench, but more importantly nothing has really changed in those areas compared to the P170EM with 7970M. Other than some variation in PCMark 7 scores (which is pretty common), the CPU performance is basically splitting hairs. Thus the focus for this second P170EM review is squarely on gaming performance, so let’s quickly recap the situation.
If you want the fastest mobile gaming GPU your money can buy right now, NVIDIA’s GTX 680M is where it’s at. There are a few titles where AMD’s Radeon 7970M comes out ahead, but there are far more instances where the GTX 680M has a substantial lead. More importantly, NVIDIA has a track record of releasing their Verde Notebook Drivers every time they put out a beta or WHQL desktop driver. They’ve been at it for more than two years now, and outside of the first month or so after a laptop first goes on sale (e.g. before the next official driver update), you should be able to update your NVIDIA GPU drivers—regardless of whether or not you use Optimus. AMD is working to get Enduro to that same point, and there are a few games that suggest with more driver enhancements AMD could even close the gap with NVIDIA, but I cannot recommend a product today based on promises of driver support tomorrow. Hopefully everything will be in place by the end of the year so that the next time we do a mobile GPU head-to-head we won’t have to worry about discussions of driver support.
As for Clevo’s P170EM, subjectively there are still some elements that I dislike, but I’ve beaten that horse enough. I don’t think anyone is really concerned about how nice a laptop looks if they’re considering a P170EM; they’ll be going after raw gaming performance, and that’s what the P170EM delivers. It also manages to keep the CPU and GPU relatively cool, even under sustained 100% loads for hours on end—the types of load a gaming notebook is likely to see when fulfilling its purpose. The question then is what sort of price/performance you’re looking at. As I noted in the 7970M conclusion, the competition right now for a high-end gaming notebook basically consists of three options: MSI GT70 (iBUYPOWER Valkyrie CZ-17), Alienware M17x R4, or the Clevo P150EM/P170EM. There are slightly lower performance gaming notebooks as well (e.g. the Razer Blade, ASUS G-Series, Samsung Series 7), but the GTX 680M in particular is about maximum GPU performance, even if it costs a bit more. So if you want a GTX 680M, let’s look at the various online prices (as of October 15, 2012).
AVADirect’s Clevo P170EM Gaming Notebook is what we received for review, and they appear to have the most memory and storage options of any of the Clevo P170EM resellers. That can be overwhelming if you don't know much about computer components, but for enthusiasts we love having options. We'd like to see their configurator updated so that it changes pricing in real-time, and the ability to narrow down some of the search fields (e.g. only show 8GB RAM and 240/256GB SSD options) would be nice to have as well. Their support throughout our review period has been good, but then I haven't really had any horrible experiences with companies as a reviewer. For most people, the final decision is going to be made based on pricing or other features, so let's look at that aspect.
We configured a P170EM with a GTX 680M, i7-3740QM (i7-3720QM if the 3740QM wasn't available), 256GB Micron M4 (or 240GB/256GB alternatives if the M4 wasn't listed), 8GB DDR3-1600, Intel Ultimate-N 6300 WiFi, a DVDRW, and a matte LCD; for those components, the price comes to $2276. A semi-complete list of other P170EM resellers includes the Sager Notebooks NP9170 ($2299), XoticPC (Sager NP9170) ($2199 “Autumn Sale” and $2133 with cash discount), ProStar P170EM ($2299; $2230 cash discount), Origin EON17-S ($2489), Mythlogic Nyx 1712 ($2271 w/glossy LCD), Eurocom Neptune 2.0 ($2563), and Digital Storm x17 ($2395). Of those P170EM-based offerings, about the only really noteworthy difference is that Mythlogic actually has an option for a chiclet backlit keyboard (for $100 extra); the other differences mostly come down to component offerings, and I’m sure if you call any of the companies you could custom-spec a build with identical components.
Looking elsewhere, iBUYPOWER’s Valkyrie CZ-17 is probably the least expensive option in terms of pricing, often beating the P170EM by nearly $200 for otherwise identical components (currently $1925 with i7-3720QM, ADATA 256GB SSD, and otherwise similar components to the above notebooks). In fact their Battalion 101 is a P170EM based notebook that costs about $250 more than their CZ-17 for otherwise identical components. As I’ve said in the past, I’m not sure that any of these companies are inherently better or worse than the others and their prices change frequently, so it can’t hurt to shop around. As for Alienware’s M17x R4, aesthetically I still think it’s the most pleasing of the notebooks, but at roughly 20% more for a similar configuration to the above ($2644) that’s a tough pill to swallow—plus it has an uber-glossy edge-to-edge glass cover in front of the LCD.
Given my gripes with the keyboard and touchpad, I’m not going to be handing out an Editors’ Choice award, but if you can overlook those areas the Clevo P170EM certainly deserves props for being one of the fastest gaming notebooks this side of the dual-GPU behemoths (e.g. Alienware M18x and Clevo P370EM). I’d also say it has the best cooling of the current trio of GTX 680M options listed above, and that’s definitely an area you should pay attention to when looking at high-end gaming notebooks. And that’s really the star of the show here: NVIDIA’s GTX 680M. Yes, it will set you back an extra $195 to $350 (depending on notebook vendor) compared to AMD’s HD 7970M, but it's generally impractical to look at just purchasing a GPU upgrade for a notebook so we have to look at the total notebook cost. Looking at AVADirect, a reasonably configured gaming notebook (e.g. i7-3610QM, 8GB RAM, 256GB M4 SSD, Intel 6300 WiFi) runs $1822 with the HD 7970M compared to $2096 with the GTX 680M. That’s a cost increase of 15% for a typical gaming performance increase of around 20% at high quality settings (e.g. 1080p 4xAA). Add to that the proven track record of NVIDIA's driver updates and for gaming purposes, that extra $200 is money well spent.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link
It's very simple to say, it's 15-20% faster, my overall experience was better, and if I were in the market for a high-end gaming laptop I would be unhappy with the [current] drivers on the AMD platform, plus the inconsistency of performance.However, if you love Sniper Elite V2 and hate most other games, I sure hope you won't just read that above sentence and assume it's an absolute fact that GTX 680M is better. That's what the rest of the review is for (all 7000 words of it). You're nitpicking over some remarks in the conclusion and suggesting I presented an "inconsistent" piece of information by discussing FPS and performance, when again the conclusion states:
"That’s a cost increase of 15% for a typical gaming performance increase of around 20% at high quality settings (e.g. 1080p 4xAA). Add to that the proven track record of NVIDIA's driver updates and for gaming purposes, that extra $200 is money well spent."
You've got a brain Krumme; use it. If you're in the market for a GPU upgrade to your laptop and you can actually get an MXM 3.0 module with HD 7970M or GTX 680M that will work in your system, obviously you're going to need to look at different pricing that the cost of an entire notebook. My statement comparing total notebook cost with the two GPUs is for 99.9% of people that buy a notebook and don't upgrade it, and I'm not going to try to appease you by dumbing it down. I'm also not going to fall for the marketing gimmick of saying, "NVIDIA is only 20% faster on average but costs 50% more!" That's blatantly false and misleading information for most people shopping for a gaming notebook. Just like I didn't compare a base model Alienware M17x R4 with a GTX 660M, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, 1600x900 LCD, etc. to the P170EM reviewed and say, "Wow, Alienware M17x R4 costs $1500 while the P170EM costs $2250!"
krumme - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
You are right. I am nitpicking and i am also constantly hysterical critical. Thats why i read Anandtech.And i dont expect you to appeace me, thats also why i read Anandtech. I know my words can be very harsh, sorry for that. I will try to improve it in my next life, as it seems i am to old and sour to change.
And i have the higest regard for the quality of the review, and especially for you beeing involved in the discussion afterwards.
I think its a strawman when you put up the statement "NVIDIA is only 20% faster on average but costs 50% more". Technically its right, and its methology right by comparing single cost to single benefit, but putting it on words is walking all over the fact that the benefit is one of the most important - ift not the most important - benefit of the rig. Then the review would be skewed. We agree.
But you argument is still comparing a - single - benefit, to the - total - cost.
I am not saying you judgement is wrong, probably for most people it is right, but you are not to be the judge. We have plenty of opinion on the net, and thats not why i read Anandtech.
An example following yours. A gamer looking for a Dell machine. He can choose between the 17r with 650 gfx or the Alienware with 660. A lot of gamer would choose the Alienware, not because of the minor difference in speed, but because of the other qualities. Even if there is a huge difference in total cost. Thats because there is way more to a gaming rig for a gamer than FPS. For what and to what degree is a personal preference. The reviewers job is to broaden the view for the reader and put numbers on the consequences.
Your conclusion negates that, directly comparing a single benefit to total cost.
Ofcourse AMD and Nvidia have two different ways they want this presented in the review. Both are wrong.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link
So what exactly would you have me say? Just "it's 20% faster than 7970M, which is a decent jump but not earth shattering. Of far more import is the driver situation. Also note that even the fastest mobile GPU right now, the GTX 680M, is basically offering similar performance to a desktop GTX 660. That's a $230 part (albeit with less memory)." That would be true, but I'm not sure it's useful unless you're wondering "should I get a gaming notebook or a gaming desktop?"Notmyusualid - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link
Well, I own dual 7970Ms, and I think Anandtech has spoken; I would have been better spending on the Nvidia solution, as opposed the AMD offering, and I won't whine about it.Not a fan-boi either way, the benchmarks speak for themselves, Nvidia wins.
Mostly mine work, but on some occasions (Shit 2) they are less than perfect.
Thanks for the review, and like the first poster said, if at all possible, could you pit Crossfire against SLI for us?
krumme - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link
You should say exactly nothing in the conclusion, and let your review stand as it is.For one gamer the 20% could be decisive for if he could play his games on the notebook at all (at native resolusion at good quality), or really make a huge difference. And you have given him the numbers.
For another gamer, the extra performance doesnt mean extra user benefits, but he can enjoy all the other qualities of the notebook. And you have given him all the details.
I know its expected in the conclusion there is some sort of judgement, - like its a boxing fight. But instead i would just point out the strong and weak sides for different users on the notebook and the gfx solution.
Regarding the enduro I would lean on the side regarding it as beta not working, and therefore something that as a start should be disabled in the bios. Its simply not a working feature yet. There is a lot of users buying notebooks, also in this class, that is not nerds. Having the feature enabled as a standard is an error in my view.
I dont know if its relevant for the readers to know that they can buy say a 660 on desktop side and get same performance.But i think its a good question. Its about putting the notebook in its context. And againg perhaps some readers dont use all their time comparing between desktop and notebook but buy either notebook or desktop from tradition. They use their time gaming instead of nerding - and they probably as a result use less money on their gear. Unlike us others who try to get as many excuses to create a need, and buy some new expensive gear.
krumme - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link
I know in the conclusion its expected that there is some final judgement like its a boxing match.But I dont expect you to say something, but let the review stand as it is.
For one gamer, the extra fps can be crusial. And you have given him the numbers.
For another, its doesnt give any noticiable difference, but he is more interested in the other qualities. And you have given him the details.
Regarding enduro, its simply not a working feature for other than nerds. And i think it should have been disabled in the bios as a standard, until the drivers are ready.
I think its a good question if its relevant to compare to desktop solutions. Perhaps, as many of your readers use their time gaming, or being in the off topic thread in the forum, instead of nerding, and therefore probably dont use so much time comparing, but buy more or less by habit.
krumme - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link
Man !Disregard the two above
TokamakH3 - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link
Only $170 more for the 7970 over the 7870 for a 20-30% speed increase? In a $1700 machine, that's only 10% more! What a huge bargain! 10% more money for a 20-30% performance increase! Why don't you recommend that?Uritziel - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
There is certainly no logical flaw in looking at these two laptop configurations and seeing a ~20% gaming performance increase for a ~15% cost increase. Furthermore, the difficulty (and often infeasibility) of upgrading the gpu in many laptops elevates such reasoning from merely correct to obviously sensible. If this article compared two smartphones with the same numbers, would you make your same trollish complaint?Either way, it's perfectly fine to consider the performance/price ratio from both perspectives. What is NOT fine is your uncalled-for insulting of the author. His reasoning is far from 'idiotic,' and, if such reasoning IS the worst you've seen in the last ~9.5 months, I must conclude you have been cut off from society for almost that same amount of time.
I urge to you to rethink both your position and attitude in the future. Next time you might responding more like this: "Hey Jarred. I notice how you consider the performance/price ratio from a system perspective in the article. I was hoping you might include a line or two appraising it from a component perspective, as I think it would be helpful to let people know that the gpu alone follows the more traditional performance/price curve. Thanks!"
Uritziel - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
"Next time you might responding..." should be "Next time you might try responding..."