Alienware M17x R4 Notebook Review: Ivy Bridge and the GeForce GTX 680M
by Dustin Sklavos on September 21, 2012 12:01 AM ESTConclusions
What we're looking at with this review of the Alienware M17x R4 are really two things: the performance of the shiny new NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M, and the Alienware M17x R4 notebook itself. Amusingly if unfortunately, the conclusions drawn are pretty disparate.
NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 680M is a qualified win. They knew it, and now we know it. Whether or not it's worth the substantial price premium from vendors is up for debate, especially since we don't know just exactly how fast AMD's competing Pitcairn-based Radeon HD 7970M performs in comparison (yet). If AMD can get between 80-90% of the performance of the GTX 680M out of the 7970M, that will probably be enough. The 680M is an impressive beast, though, able to produce performance roughly as good as last generation's GeForce GTX 570 in a notebook form factor. You'll remember the 570 was no slouch, so gamers looking for a mobile fix would do well to shortlist the 680M.
.jpg)
As for the M17x itself, unfortunately it's not the homerun it used to be. While I still personally like the bling and submit you can't really appreciate it until you've played with it first hand, the chassis needs to be updated. The current generation of Alienware notebooks are just rehashes of the successful last generation, but there needs to be iteration and improvement. Those were good notebooks, but they weren't bulletproof. The cooling system needs to be reworked, and more attention really needs to be paid to ergonomics and overall ease of use. The typing experience (layout notwithstanding) is one place where the iBuyPower Valkyrie CZ-17, fugly and unwieldy as it is, offers a better experience.
It gets worse. Given that the CZ-17 is more comfortable to use, it would be a reasonable alternative to the M17x R4 at the same price. But iBuyPower is willing to give you at least identical performance, if not better (by offering a full SSD instead of a small mSATA caching SSD), for $500 less. You lose the option of going for AMD graphics hardware, but the baseline GPU is the very capable GeForce GTX 675M, while the 680M is a slightly more reasonable $350 extra.
Let me be clear. The Alienware M17x R4 is by no means a bad notebook, and if it's what you're interested in I certainly wouldn't stop you from going for it. iBuyPower's offering isn't the greatest thing in the world to look at and its wonky keyboard layout, however responsive the keys themselves are, may be enough to put off a lot of users. The problem is that I'm not sure the M17x R4 is worth the premium over competing notebooks, especially when Alienware elected to just coast on last year's chassis design instead of going back and fixing it. I can't reward a company that chooses to stand still with their hardware, and unfortunately the industry seems to agree. The R4 is a good gaming notebook, but the minor blemishes seen on the R3 have now become more unsightly.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
61 Comments
View All Comments
PubFiction - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
I used a new clevo keyboard and it was horrible compared to the alienware. I cannot imagine how bad it was before.JarredWalton - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
It looks better in images... Dustin hasn't actually used it in person I don't think, and I can attest that the new keyboards actually feel worse than the old ones (and continue to have wonky layout issues). They fixed the number keypad but screwed up the Windows key, took out the context key, and put two backslash keys on the keyboard. I understand Clevo targets an international community, but they should just have a few separate hardware layouts for different regions rather than reusing the same layout and relabeling keys.jbordon - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
This might not be the place, but since it's a review of a gaming laptop, I'm wondering what's up with Razer Blade r2 review?Need more looks versus power debates!
QChronoD - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Either I'm confused or there is an error in those graphs. The Samsung Series 7 and the Clevo W110ER both have 62Wh (according to the charts) and the Samsung beats it in all the tests. Yet when you normalized min/Wh the Clevo appears to be more efficient.drfish - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
The numbers for the Clevo battery life are wrong anyway - no one is getting that much use out of their systems on battery. They should be looked at again or not included in future benchmarks.JarredWalton - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
The Samsung has a 77Wh battery; I've updated the charts for Dustin. As for the W110ER, I'm still not sure how Vivek got those numbers, so you'll have to ask him. Unfortunately, he no longer has the Eurocom Monster 1.0 -- I wonder if Eurocom actually managed to fix the battery life somehow and other Clevo W110ER units are still getting crappy power optimizations? I tested a W110ER from another company and got half the battery life; they ended up asking for the unit back to "look into the problem" and never sent another, so I assume there's a core issue that Clevo isn't fixing.drfish - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Thanks for always replying to my posts about the W110ER's battery life. :)I have no idea how many of them have been sold but I have to consider it "popular" for a niche device so if anyone at Anandtech wanted to look into it deeper I think there would be an audience eager to read their results. Maybe even see how a BIOS mod changes things (http://biosmods.wordpress.com/w110er/).
JarredWalton - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Sadly, as you can imagine no one is really interested in sending us an "older" laptop like the W110ER, especially if all we're going to do is double-check the battery life (and probably end up disappointed). For the record, my test results from a system we ended up sending back before completing the review show the following with a 3610QM CPU:Idle: 217 minutes
Internet: 209 minutes
H.264: 187 minutes
That last item tells you just how bad the battery life is (was?) optimized on that particular unit, as H.264 battery life is typically 2/3 of the Internet battery life, which in turn is about 80% of the Idle battery life. Based off of the "estimates", assuming the H.264 result is a good starting point, the W110ER should be getting 280 minutes Internet and 350 minutes Idle, and of course the H.264 result is already low to begin with.
Vivek's numbers on the Monster 1.0 actually seem perfectly legit (407, 338, 218 means Internet is 55% better than H.264 and Idle is 20% better than Internet). So the question is, how did Eurocom get such good results when no other W110ER seems to? Clevo is often pretty lousy at power management, and the P170EM and P150EM are right in that same categorization. They should be paying Eurocom for whatever fix is present in the Monster.
drfish - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
I would gladly pay Eurocom for that "fix" *sigh*Thanks for the additional details!
Drasca - Saturday, September 22, 2012 - link
I've got a Eurocom Monster 1.0 My battery life is in between Jarred's and Vivek's.Last I checked, I can watch two 2 hr movies on VLC before it gets "low".
I'll can run a few battery life tests, but I do not have the exact anandtech suite or standardization. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what should be setup.
Specs:
CPU: 3820QM
Display: AUO Matte Screen
GPU: Nvidia 650m 2 Gb
RAM: 8 Gb
Storage: Intel 520 256 Gb
Wifi card: Intel 3000