Alienware 17 Gaming Notebook Review
by Dustin Sklavos on September 6, 2013 12:00 PM ESTDisplay Quality
The panel employed in the Alienware 17 is by no means bad; it's actually pretty solid for a TN panel, and 1080p is really the target gaming resolution right now even as higher resolution panels are creeping up the vine in ultrabooks. The time when 1080p will be inadequate for a desktop replacement notebook is on the horizon, but we're not there yet.
But while I appreciate that Alienware offers a 120Hz 3D Vision enabled version of the 17, I'm still going to take them to task for not offering a high quality IPS panel on this notebook. When the 14 and 18 both have IPS options, why are we still stuck on TN for the likely most popular model in their lineup?
It's hard to complain too much, though. This is a TN panel, but it's a pretty good one, and the switch to a matte finish is tremendously appreciated. Alienware opts to tune the panel a little more for brightness, but it's still lovely and I have a hard time imagining any end users are going to be especially disappointed beyond the initial irritation that they couldn't request an IPS display.
Battery Life
This class of notebook just doesn't exist to run off the mains. We're talking about a nine pound notebook here; NVIDIA's Optimus does a fine job of curbing power consumption, but you're not going to actually game off of the battery, not when the GTX 780M is pulling 100W on its own.
I never thought I'd see the day when Clevo notebooks would be posting better efficiency than Alienware, but there you have it. Battery life isn't awful and isn't as relevant for this class of notebooks, but the Alienware 17 does seem to be nipping at the heels of the competition rather than being out in front.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
kogunniyi - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
Oh, and Dell's NBD warranty.nerd1 - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
Personally I think it should be more sensible to just get last gen model with 680M and save $1000. I prefer the old design and keyboard, and 680M is still no slotch even compared to 780M.xenol - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
No temps, noise, or the like?Drumsticks - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
It's amazing how you can write "the progress is palpable" for the exact same thing! Haswell) in an ultra book review and an alien ware review and have it mean the same thing.Drumsticks - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
Different things* no edit :(inighthawki - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
Anyone else ever wish there were baselines of desktop models to compare against? I've never purchased a gaming laptop before, so it'd be really cool if I could see the difference between the two. Like, how much slower is a 780M than a GTX780, or a 7970GE. I know they're significantly less powerful, but it'd be nice at some points to see by how much rather than just comparing to a bunch of similar classed laptops.JarredWalton - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
780M is going to be more like a GTX 680 with lower clocks, and performance will also be a bit more variable thanks to the thermal constraints. If you're after bang for the buck, gaming notebooks have never been a good choice; we figure anyone looking for a new gaming notebook is looking for a new gaming notebook -- they don't need to see how much faster a desktop that costs less will be. Or if they do, they can do a bit of research on their own -- our system benchmarks and desktop benchmarks are using the same core tests (other than battery life, of course), though the lack of higher resolution tests on notebooks makes it a bit trickier.If you want a couple links, though:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/984
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7098/2
I've taken the Enthusiast gaming scores and compiled them into a single image, showing performance differences between the Alienware 17 and an overclocked GTX 680 and stock GTX 780 (with overclocked CPUs on both as well). Here's that image (hopefully the link works):
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7284/Alienware%20...
Short summary: the desktop 680 OC is 12% to 60% faster than the AW17, with an average increase of 33%. The desktop 780 is 32% to 77% faster, with an average increase of 53%. StarCraft II is the game that shows the smallest improvement, being largely CPU limited even with OC'ed desktop CPUs. Metro Last Light shows the greatest improvement, followed by Tomb Raider and then Bioshock.
nerd1 - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
Recent laptops are quite good up to 1080p. 680M or 7970M can run pretty much anything on 1080p, and cheaper one like 765M can run most games on 1080p, except for metro or crysis series maybe.waldojim42 - Sunday, September 8, 2013 - link
I actually play Crysis 2 on my AW 14 just fine. Have to use the "Extreme" preset rather than "Ultra", but 1080P is no problem.brucek2 - Friday, September 6, 2013 - link
Actually Jared I'm not sure at all that the difference between desktop and mobile parts is well understood by the mass of computer purchasers. Certainly the manufacturers are not helping by reusing the same product names, a practice I feel is dishonestly misleading. Its something I have to explain to my less technical friends frequently, the last time being not three days ago.Anyway, that's a long way of saying I actually think it would be a great service if reviews could attempt to assign a dollar premium for mobility so potential purchasers understand how much they are paying for the privilege and/or how far down the performance curve they are limiting themselves. In the case of the talk from three days ago, the upshot was the friend realized a desktop would be the better choice after all.