POST A COMMENT

32 Comments

Back to Article

  • phoenix_rizzen - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    All the CPU and GPU power going to waste pushing a measly million pixels. :( With hardware like that, you'd expect it to come with at least a 1200x1080 screen.

    Shoot, my first laptop (Fujitsu Lifebook 765dx) had a similar screen size and resolution (1024x768) back in '97.

    Why even bother putting that much GPU power into a laptop with such a crappy resolution? Even the onboard GPU in the CPU would be more than enough.
    Reply
  • Meaker10 - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    The GPU is pretty bandwidth constrained anyway, so really it suits the res. Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    Even if it did suit the resolution... My PC back in 1998 had more pixels. (1280x1024 CRT).

    It's been 14 years since then, 1080P should be a minimum in my eyes, heck my 10" tablet has a 1366x768 screen and that's several years old now.
    Reply
  • Meaker10 - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    That would swamp the GPU and be unusable. Reply
  • SlyNine - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    I agree the GPU wouldn't push 1080p on some games (but it would on others). But thats no reason to not add a 1080p screen.

    Its called, non native resolution, and at that size its not that big a eye sore.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    The problem is that 1080p at 11.6" is really high DPI, and Windows does not scale perfectly with the DPI setting. Some apps do, but there are plenty that break -- modern apps, web pages, etc. Reply
  • bennyg - Sunday, April 29, 2012 - link

    The overstating of problems with huge DPI is getting old. I have experienced none of the issues that people regularly whine about, and I have been using 15 inch 1920x1200 / 1920x1080 panels with font scaling >125% on my everyday workstation@wok/gaming@home lappy for over 5 years now. The only things I've seen genuinely visually screwed (text wrapping and chopped top/bottom issues mostly) work are old 32 bit programs run in compatability mode on XP.

    I hate 768 V px screens sooo much now. If I were Clevo I would have an option for uberDPI screen to make money... I cannot understand why they do not.
    Reply
  • FaaR - Sunday, April 29, 2012 - link

    First off, it's of course a big difference between 1080P at 11 and 15 inches, and second, your anecdotal evidence that high-DPI screens aren't a problem is worthless. Sorry, but it's true.

    Windows currently isn't equipped to handle this. Many people would find it really uncomfortable to use a 11" 1080P computer. Not to mention, it would likely choke on that rez in heavy gaming titles like BF3 and Crysis 2, thus defeating the whole point of sticking in a high-rez screen in the first place.

    If a screen is uncomfortable to use in productivity apps and useless in gaming = bad idea.
    Reply
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Sunday, April 29, 2012 - link

    You realize that 1920x1080 at 15.6" is only slightly denser than 1366x768 at 11.6", right? Like, six more pixels per linear inch? I very much doubt you would see any real, practical benefit from increasing the density much beyond 135-140ppi.

    The bottom line is, there's only so much information you can fit in a given area of a surface viewed at a certain distance before you run into the limitations of your eyeballs.
    Reply
  • ET - Monday, April 30, 2012 - link

    1366x768 is an okay res for 11.6" (though I agree it would be nice to go a little higher), but you can always hook this up to a monitor when you're at home, so you have a flexible gaming station. Reply
  • Meaker10 - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    The M11X has been officially discontinued by Dell. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    Unless they change their mind. Honestly, having played with an M11x, I'd actually prefer something larger for a gaming laptop -- not heavier, but the M11x always wasted a lot of bezel space to be "11.6 inch" when in reality it was nearly the same size chassis as a 13.3" laptop. Reply
  • TrackSmart - Sunday, April 29, 2012 - link

    Agreed! I always thought it was idiotic to put an 11" screen on such a large chassis. The M11x weighed as much as a 13" MacBook Pro and it's footprint was pretty similar (though the Macbook is longer and the M11x is deeper from front-to-back. Everyone would have been better off if the M11x just came with a 13" screen and was called the M13x instead. Reply
  • Mathieu Bourgie - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    It's perfect for me, except for the 1366x768 resolution...

    If ASUS can offer 1920 x 1080 in their future Zenbook, why can't Eurocom at least offers it as an upgrade option?

    I understand that it would hurt gaming performance, but still...
    Reply
  • cjb110 - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    Not sure if I'd want 1920x1080, for far to many years we had the opposite problem with gaming laptops, high res screens without the power to drive them at decent settings.

    But a 1440x900 would have been a nice middle ground.

    More height to make general computing easier, tbh I can only think of two activities where widescreens are good, movies and games...for everything else you need height not width. Which is the biggest issue with 720p screens, they are no use for most of the tasks!
    Reply
  • kyuu - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    This is an ELEVEN INCH screen. 768p is a fine resolution for that size. Of course, I'm sure the display is crappy in all the usual ways that cheap 768 panels are, but the resolution really is not an issue at that display size, guys. Reply
  • tim851 - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    It's a meme. Getting to be the first to whine about a laptop's resolution is like being the first to make a sazzy comment about negative votes on youtube videos - it's nerd heaven.

    The next thing is going to be 48p. Ever since it was announced that The Hobbit is filmed at 48p, nerds are outdoing each other with claims of how much they've been suffering from stuttering 24p movies since ... well, forever.
    Reply
  • SlyNine - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    24P is pretty crappy, I didn't know a movie filmed at 48P. Bet the flicker will be more pronounced tho.

    What kills me is your over emotional whine state in which you whine about other peoples whining. Without providing useful feedback on the subject.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    768p at 11.6" is really fine enough.. actually borderline uncomfortable already if you don't have 100% vision. Maybe the support for larger fonts will work good enough in win 8? Reply
  • Roland00Address - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    1366x768 on a 11.6 is 135 pixels per inch
    1920x1080 on a 15.6 is 141 pixels per inch
    1920x1080 on a 17.0 is 130 pixels per inch
    1920x1080 on a 23.0 is 96 pixels per inch
    2560x1440 on a 27.0 ix 109 pixels per inch.

    Trust me 1366x768 on a 11.6 inch is perfectly fine. I use that same resolution on my current acer netbook (uses intels ULV i3 processor.) The problem with my acer screen is not the ppi (which is great) but instead the horrible viewing angles and the glossy screen!!!
    Reply
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    What he said. I have an 11.6" Thinkpad and I really don't think that there would be any practical benefit from increased pixel density. I'm using glasses that are one or two months old and my corrected vision is 20/20.

    Also, I really think that glossy screens are more difficult to use at a given ppi. I went from a 13.3" glossy screen on my old Acer to an 11.6" matte screen (both at 1366x768) and I swear the smaller screen is easier to read.
    Reply
  • manwdaplan - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    you can buy it as a barebones, or config it,

    http://rjtech.com/shop/index.php?dispatch=products...

    pretty cheap for what you are getting, with the price of ram and wireless nics, this is a great build.
    Reply
  • twjr - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    I know it is a technicality but this:

    "Okay, seriously, that is a metric ton of performance stuffed into a relatively small chassis. "

    Should read:

    "Okay, seriously, that is a metric 'tonne' of performance stuffed into a relatively small chassis. "
    Reply
  • coder543 - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    a metric ton is also written as 'tonne' and therefore metric 'tonne' could be rewritten metric metric ton... else someone needs to have a talk with the nice folks at Wiktionary it seems. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metric_ton Reply
  • overseer - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    Hope this piece offers good thermal characteristics too Reply
  • twotwotwo - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    Doesn't really mean anything, but that keyboard's a remarkably precise dead ringer for the ASUS Eee PCs' keyboards (which I liked!), down to exactly how the function/Fn/arrow keys are arranged, which keys are shrunken, and the font. Maybe it's a hint at where they sourced some parts, anyway. :) Reply
  • twotwotwo - Sunday, April 29, 2012 - link

    Huh--it turns out it's a rebadged Clevo. Wonder if there's some interesting reason ASUS and Clevo keyboards are so freakishly similar (tiny Shift key and all). Reply
  • HanzNFranzen - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    One thing I see happen with discreet video cards in laptops is an overabundance of video RAM. Why on earth would this laptop need a 2GB framebuffer for a relatively weak GPU and a screen res of 768p? It seems the only use is to make the spec sheet look better and add unneeded cost to the consumer. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    There is one small benefit I believe: Windows 7 can store Window contents in VRAM and not have to keep a second copy in system RAM. I'm not sure there's a need for 2GB though. Reply
  • Baenwort - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    This is just a rebag of the Clevo w110er if you want to google some more information.

    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNLUjJEZPEQ&fea...

    Thermals: per http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo-review... this post are that after a 1.5 hour BF3 session on high at native and with a 45W TDP i7-2760QM sandy bridge quad core it reached 91C on the CPU and 81C on the GPU.

    Exterior pics:

    http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7427/frontangleview...

    http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/641/rearanglevi...

    http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3623/leftportvi...

    http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7572/rightportvie...

    http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1785/rearportvi...

    http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1347/frontportv...

    Interior pic with iPhone for size comparison:

    http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7240/58262426.jpg
    for more see :http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo-review...

    Benchmark scores:

    3DMarkVantage: P9841 / GPU 7900 source: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo/653705...

    3DMark06: 12738 source: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo/653705...

    3DMark11: P2453 (using unofficially supported 45W i7-3710QM however) source: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo/653705...

    If you're interested in the 45W quad IVB I know that Mythlogic in the US will be installing them.
    Reply
  • Baenwort - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    The 410 minute battery life came from Clevo's product literature. http://www.mediafire.com/?gx3o8x493jfx2ir Reply
  • Hulk - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    another crap display Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now