Application and Futuremark Performance

The Intel Core i7-2720QM and AMD Radeon HD 6970M powering the Alienware M17x R3 should provide more than enough power for any task. Keeping with our updated testing suite, we'll start with the breakdown of PCMark 7 performance.

Inexplicably, the Alienware M17x R3 hangs out in the middle of the pack for almost every test. When you get to the storage score, it's clear the RAIDed HDDs just aren't cutting it. The 2720QM is a more than fast enough processor, so why is it having issues lagging behind the i7-2630QM? The HDDs underperform, but here's the weird part: the ASUS G73SW also has two Seagate HDDs in RAID 0 (500GB instead of 750GB). How the two newer 750GB 7200RPM drives can trail the 500GB RAID 0 HDDs remains a mystery, but it appears ASUS is better optimized in the storage arena.

PCMark Vantage remains just as confusing, but once we get to Cinebench and the x264 benchmark, the M17x performs exactly where it should be. If anything the Clevo P150HM seems unusually sprightly. It's also interesting to get another good look at just how far behind Sandy Bridge leaves the last generation mobile quad-core processors.

3DMark performance again seems to favor the unusually quick Clevo P150HM, while the GeForce GTX 485M soars past the 6970Ms in 3DMark Vantage. Futuremark isn't everything, though, as we'll soon see with the gaming tests.

Making the Case for Bling Gaming Performance


View All Comments

  • KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 - link

    That MBP has the same CPU and a GPU that is only a little bit slower. These aren't massive differences in performance here, but one has a much better keyboard, multitouch trackpad, real battery life, slimmer/lighter chassis, 16:10 display, etc etc.

    Bashing Alienware is like shooting fish in a barrel anyway. Lenovos are also great, if you're dead set against a Mac then at least give a reasonable alternative.
  • KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 - link

    I take back what I said re: GPU performance, I got one of the numbers mixed up when checking on other sites. The Macbook Pro is surprisingly good for a gaming laptop, its great for Starcraft 2, Team Fortress 2, LoL, etc etc, but the Alienware can legitimately be a full desktop replacement if one was so inclined based on these numbers:

    Its still not going to make me sell my SLI desktop PC, but its nice that the option is out there. :)
  • Shinya - Monday, June 20, 2011 - link

    Protip: intelligent computer users dont care about battery life on a GAMING/HIGH PERFORMANCE laptop. We all know these are supposed to be plugged in. These tend to be desktop replacements/lan machines.

    "Paying this kind of money and getting a bouncy keyboard should be illegal!"
    so should spending the same amount of money on a apple computer and getting dated hardware, crap cooling, and a fraction of software availability. All while labeling yourself an in insecure macf** in the process.

    Go back to Engadget you'll fit right in with the rest of your kind. Your Lord n Savior (Jobs) will be waiting for you.
  • ganjha - Monday, June 20, 2011 - link

    Don't poke the trolls. If you ignore them long enough they'll go somewhere else... Reply
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, June 20, 2011 - link

    "intelligent computer users don't care about battery life on a GAMING/HIGH PERFORMANCE laptop"

    What total BS. Only an idiot wouldn't care about battery life on a laptop. If you have to plug it in, then it's not a desktop replacement, its a small form factor desktop with average performance and a $2500.00 price tag. Oh yeah - I forgot butt ugly.

    The MacBook Pro uses the same Sandy Bridge processors found on the Alienware systems.

    Yes, people complain about the heat while gaming on the MacBook Pro, but the Alienware in this review got same complaint. Obviously Dell doesn't have a magic solution for the heat either.

    The MacBook Pro can run Mac OS X *and* Windows 7 - therefore could run a much larger suite of applications than any PC ever could.

    Yes the Alienware has a couple better features, like the faster GPU option. But given all the pluses and minuses, I'd take the MacBook Pro every time. It simply is a better value for my $2500.00.

    If I'm a troll for thinking that, well at least I'm a troll that can back up my rant with facts. And not insane musings from insecure winf***s.
  • The0ne - Monday, June 20, 2011 - link

    So now you're thinking because Apple uses Sandy that the performance is the same? Or did I misread that. What do you mean by that statement so we're all clear. Let us all forget about the surrounding designs around the processor for argument sake.

    There is hot and there is hot hot. Not like your Sandy bridge comment.

    I can run Mac OS, why do you think I can't? And are we referring to raw install, emulated or VM? You do realize the difficulty in using a Mac OS on a non-Mac PC is right? Go have a chat with the VMWare dev team. Currently I have Windows 7, Redhat, Fedora, Unbuntu and XP SP3 available for my business use. I have absolutely no use of Mac OS for work or play. Absolutely zero of my business associates here or in China (contract manufacturing) has a Mac. So while I can use it, I have 0 need to use it. And if you have to ask why all the flavors of Linux then I'll just have to slap you silly.

    So for a high end laptop, in which most users pay to be able to play games much better, having a better GPU option is not such a big concern to you. Ok. Fine, that's fair. It's also fair that with all the +/- the user gets to choose the laptop of their liking. Cool. Value sure has its niches.

    I don't mind you choosing a MBP but please at least try to be reasonable and have some common sense in your comments. Just looks so redneck and childish...see, kinda like what I just said!
  • DanNeely - Monday, June 20, 2011 - link

    This is a gaming laptop not a general purpose system, and the MBP gets stomped in any relevant comparison. The 6750m it offers is less than half as fast as the alienware's 6970 (half the cores and slower clocks), the 6490 that's the baseline option is about 4.5x slower. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 20, 2011 - link

    Actually, the 6870M is about twice as fast as the 6750M, and thus the 6970M is more like three times as fast as the 6750M. If you want a comparison, on the High quality gaming charts the 6750M would be around 5-15% faster than the GT 540M. (That's the line second from the bottom in most of the games... and that's not even running at 1080p, where the limited memory bandwidth on the GT 540M and 6750M becomes even more of a handicap.) Reply
  • KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 - link

    I would really like to see some gaming benchmarks from the 15" MBP under Windows, because a 3x increase in performance with the 6970m seems quite massive. I've tried Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft 2, and Bad Company 2 on a 2011 MBP. Not the most straining games by any means, but they were all very smooth from what I saw.

    Unfortunately is the only place I found stats on the 6750m, and their testing methodology isn't the best since they just aggregate random data from different hardware and displays that aren't necessarily the same:

    Based on those benchmarks the difference seems to be under double, with the 6750m yielding about 40fps in Bad Company 2 with high settings while the 6970m gives about 65fps based on the results in this review.

    Again, the 6750m numbers can only be taken as ballpark since the rest of the machine specs are unknown. Again, too bad there aren't many 2011 MBP reviews out there with gaming benchmarks, it'd be interesting to see how well the medium end AMD GPUs stack up to the monster in the Alienware machine.
  • KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 - link

    Well well well:

    Such impressive numbers there. You're compromising size and battery life, but man that thing screams, truly a desktop replacement.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now