Clevo X7200: Breaking Application Performance Records

We're obviously running a substantially faster CPU than any other notebook, so we've decided it will be more meaningful to compare the Clevo X7200 with a few of our recent desktop reviews. We'll still have some high-end notebooks in the charts as well, including previous Clevo designs to put things in perspective. For application performance, though, there's no mobile chip that can touch a desktop i7 processor—especially not the hex-core models.

Incidentally, we've decided to ditch Peacekeeper because frankly the scores are just too unreliable. If you want an example, the X7200 managed 3667, which is lower than the i7-820QM and i7-920XM results despite a substantially higher clock speed. It could be that updates to Firefox 3.6 have reduced the score, or maybe it's in the GPU drivers; either way, the results don't seem to be that pertinent. If anyone has a better "internet benchmark" they'd like us to run, drop me line (jarred.walton@anandtech.com) or sound off in the comments!

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

Futuremark PCMark05

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

Video Encoding - x264

Video Encoding - x264

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

Futuremark 3DMark05

Futuremark 3DMark03

Starting with PCMark, we have commented in times past about how heavily an SSD can influence the result. Well, if a single fast SSD is able to boost scores by 50%, imagine what happens when we run two of the fastest SSDs in RAID 0—plus we're using a desktop CPU. The X7200 scores 24% higher than AVADirect's Nano Cube (another system with a fast SSD), and it's nearly twice the performance of the Clevo W860CU with a Corsair Nova (Indilinx Barefoot) SSD.

AVADirect reported an internal result of 20146, but by the time we installed our full test suite and ran PCMark (no fewer than eight times!) we "only" managed to get 19486. Incidentally, AVADirect reported a score of 19940 with RAID 0 OCZ Vertex 2 drives; I wonder if the 3.3% drop in performance might be to the degradation in the C300 SSD performance we discussed in the introduction? How much further will it drop as the drives fill up? It's difficult to say for certain, but I'd be inclined to stick with a SandForce 1200 SSD just to be sure, at least if you're planning on doing RAID. Anyway, PCMark Vantage is an SSD whore and shows huge gains with both SSDs and RAID 0. Depending on what you're doing, you may or may not see as big an improvement, but the overall experience with the X7200 and C300 RAID is blazingly fast—I measured sustained network transfer rates of up to 110MB/s, essentially maxing out my gigabit switch, which is something I haven't managed before.

PCMark05 is less disk intensive, so the RAID 0 SSDs don't manage to put the X7200 ahead of the heavily overclocked CyberPower system. The same goes for the single-core Cinebench result, with the iBUYPOWER overclock coming in ahead of the X7200 as well. Once we move into the multi-threaded benchmarks, though, none of the quad-core CPUs can come anywhere near the performance of the i7-980X. The X7200 is anywhere from 13 to 32% faster than the CyberPower system, 18 to 42% faster than the iBUYPOWER, and 72 to 144% faster than the i7-920XM equipped W870CU.

GTX 480M SLI Takes on Desktop SLI and CrossFire Introducing the Clevo X7200 UPS
Comments Locked

38 Comments

View All Comments

  • CharonPDX - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    My Macintosh Portable weighs 16 pounds. It's a monster. A gigantic behemoth.

    This thing weights almost as much. And once you include the power bricks, it's probably a tossup.

    And whaddaya know, they're pretty close to the same physical size, too! The Macintosh Portable is 15.25" wide, so this thing is an inch wider; the Macintosh Portable is 14.83" deep, so this thing is 3.5" narrower, but this also has 2" less thickness. (4" for the Portable.)

    Although the Macintosh Portable came with a 2 pound lead acid battery that could run it for nearly 10 hours... Or nearly 1400% the battery life of this new behemoth.
  • MeTechE - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    A bit heavy on the memes here, eh? Otherwise an excellent review, what an outrageous notebook...
  • CharonPDX - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    I mean, with that little battery life, it's just a glorified UPS, as you call it.

    Why not just go for a dual-socket briefcase computer with a full-blown desktop video card in it? http://www.nextcomputing.com/products/mobile-works...

    Their website doesn't list their latest models. While at Intel, I played with one that had dual Xeon L5530s in it, and a GeForce GTX 280. (The fastest GPU available at the time.)

    Now you could throw in two 6-core L5640s and a GTX 480 or Radeon 5970. And with its 520W power supply, you could *POSSIBLY* go with a Crossfired pair of 5870s.
  • yelped - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    Isn't X59 under Chipset a Typo?
  • yelped - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    Spotted another one. Under the specifications it says that the USB 3.0 ports are on the right side, a few paragraphs later it states that they are on the left side.

    I don't mean to nitpick, just making it look more professional for those who will read it later.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    Thanks, no problem with the corrections. Got the sides switched in the table. :-)
  • my_body_is_ready - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    Choose one
  • SteelCity1981 - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    Really Clevo, only a 9 cell Battery? At least throw in a 12 cell battery for how much this thing cost.
  • MrSpadge - Friday, October 8, 2010 - link

    And that would change what except price?

    MrS
  • jed22281 - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    So who's getting their wallet out?
    Pics or it didn't happen!!! :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now