Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Middle-Weight Gaming Notebook Battle!

Last response: in Laptops & Notebooks
Share
August 29, 2007 11:42:30 AM

http://www.geardigest.com/2007/08/29/two_middle_weight_gaming_notebooks/index.html

Gaming notebooks aren't what they used to be, thanks to concerted efforts by manufacturers to reduce weight and heat. But can they perform well enough to replace your desktop?
August 29, 2007 12:26:52 PM

I don't get it?

Was one notebook tested under XP and the other Vista???

Why would you do that?
a b D Laptop
August 29, 2007 3:04:23 PM

Congrats to the morons at gear digest for providing a comparison of apples to oranges. What a great idea it was to compare a notebook with SLI and XP to a single card solution and Vista. This comparison really wasn't worth anything to me. They would have been better off comparing two similar laptops like the M9750 to say K|N's upcoming Odachi. or the Eurocom M570RU to the K|N Executioner or even an offering from Falcon-NW or xoticpc.com. That review reminded me of what CNET.com has started to turn into.
Related resources
August 29, 2007 5:16:05 PM

warezme said:
I don't get it?

Was one notebook tested under XP and the other Vista???

Why would you do that?


They had two notebooks come in at the same time, with the same display size and resolution, similar weight, etc. so the higher ups thought it would be the closest match for a comparison from notebooks they had on hand.

The only "fair" way to compare two "similar in some ways, disimilar in others" systems is in "bang for the buck".

...it would have been nice if Eurocom had used WinXP Pro, but they didn't. It was up to the technician and writer to work with whatever they had.
August 29, 2007 5:57:29 PM

Problem is, I think the differences are so extreme that it becomes common sense rather than actually finding anything useful.

SLI = better gaming than single
XP = better gaming than Vista

SLI + XP = better gaming. Duh.
August 29, 2007 7:54:02 PM

yes, but if Eurocom had used WinXP it would have been the perfect opportunity to examine the SLI advantage in a Notebook setting. The big question being "for MY game, is the performance advantage worth the price?"
a b D Laptop
August 29, 2007 8:32:57 PM

Crashman said:
yes, but if Eurocom had used WinXP it would have been the perfect opportunity to examine the SLI advantage in a Notebook setting. The big question being "for MY game, is the performance advantage worth the price?"


That I'll agree with. I wold have liked to have seen that XP SLI vs XP single. Weird comparisons aside, it was a well written comparison with good benchmarks. I came down kinda hard on it....... I hate 8 AM classes.
August 29, 2007 9:12:18 PM

Crashman said:
They had two notebooks come in at the same time, with the same display size and resolution, similar weight, etc. so the higher ups thought it would be the closest match for a comparison from notebooks they had on hand.

The only "fair" way to compare two "similar in some ways, disimilar in others" systems is in "bang for the buck".

...it would have been nice if Eurocom had used WinXP Pro, but they didn't. It was up to the technician and writer to work with whatever they had.


The only fair way would have been to format both machines and install either XP Pro or Vista on both. Yes it would have been more time consuming but not impossible. Then there would have been a clear "apples to apples" comparison between the two which would have give folks a real idea if there was an advantage between a single card versus an SLI system without distorting your results with driver issues, compatibility issues and OS issues. You could have easily been robbing one system out of 15 - 20fps on any one application.

Its just sloppy and lazy.

When I recieved my Dell XPS M1330, the first thing I did was format that sucker into two partitions. In one I installed XP Pro and in another I installed Vista U. I then installed like applications and benchmarks and proceeded to see what differences I was getting. As expected, the XP games ran much better than Vista, but Vista multitasked a bit better. It was a pain getting all XP drivers but I did it and wasn't even getting paid by a high profile company to do so.
August 29, 2007 9:45:35 PM

Yes, I just put XP on my Vista notebook, but that was much easier since I actually have it here.
August 30, 2007 1:11:18 AM

Am I missing something here... with a $3400 - $4400 price range, GeForce Go 7950 (or two), and 17" with 1920x1200 resolution - Aren't these the higher end of gaming laptops? Or is their some significantly faster laptop hardware (CPU/GPU) out there that I don't know about?

To use desktop video cards as a rough scale for the weight classes:
8800 Ultra: Bleeding Edge (Fastest Available)
8800 GTX: Heavy Weight (almost as fast, ~80% price of ^)
8800 GTS: Middle Weight (decent price/performance ratio)
8600 GT: Budget gamer (adequate performance at a low price)
<8400: El cheap-o gamer (student that dreams of something better while forced to eat mac and cheese to afford this one)

I'd personally love to see how a Core 2 Duo @ 2GHz with an 8600 GT @ ~1440x900 compares to those 2 systems.
August 30, 2007 1:42:05 AM

The original title said "Two MIDDLE-WEIGHT..." because these are both significantly lighter than the 12-15 pound units they replace. Evidently an editor got confused about that title.
August 30, 2007 8:11:29 AM

Thomas Soderstrom and Shelton Romhanyi need to do some research before wasting their time on an article like this.

For those who are uninformed, like Thomas Soderstrom and Shelton Romhanyi both Alienware and Eurocom use CLEVO laptops. Europcom pretty much takes the CLEVO models as they are and resells them. Alienware takes the internal components and puts them into a slick laptop shell. For more info on the Clevo models go here...

http://www.clevo.com.tw/

Everyone in this forum is correct, this article compares apples to oranges. The Alienware model is the Clevo D900C while the Eurocom model is the M570RU. If they wanted to have a more accurate comparison they should have used the Eurocom D900C PHANTOM-X. It is the same model... only significantly cheaper and it doesn't sport the Alienware name or case.

Oh and BTW the Alienware mode is considered to be a desktop replacement. Only they don't use a standard desktop processor in order to save energy and allow them to use a smaller power supply. The Eurocom/Clevo desktop replacement I listed above uses full blown desktop processors, making it a better choice for gamers and space concious worker bees.

The Eurocom laptop listed is the only middle weight contender since the Alienware is just a underpowered version of a heavyweight desktop replacement.

Good job on the lack of research, Not!
August 30, 2007 8:56:21 AM

0xygenthief1 said:
Everyone in this forum is correct, this article compares apples to oranges. The Alienware model is the Clevo D900C while the Eurocom model is the M570RU. If they wanted to have a more accurate comparison they should have used the Eurocom D900C PHANTOM-X. It is the same model... only significantly cheaper and it doesn't sport the Alienware name or case.
...

The Eurocom laptop listed is the only middle weight contender since the Alienware is just a underpowered version of a heavyweight desktop replacement.

Good job on the lack of research, Not!


Shoulda woulda coulda...dude, it's been a long time since I've called anyone in here dumb, but get a grip: There's only half a pound difference between these, and THG has little control over the models these companies choose to send. Perhaps you should have done a little research...then slept on it only to wake up and smell the coffee: It was written as a compare and contrast of different technologies vying for similar markets. More like an apples to pears comparison.
August 30, 2007 3:00:24 PM

Quote:
Shoulda woulda coulda...dude, it's been a long time since I've called anyone in here dumb, but get a grip: There's only half a pound difference between these, and THG has little control over the models these companies choose to send. Perhaps you should have done a little research...then slept on it only to wake up and smell the coffee: It was written as a compare and contrast of different technologies vying for similar markets. More like an apples to pears comparison.


Ok, lets assume that you are right... I am a dumbass. Help educate me. Tell me what the differences are between two systems that originate from the same manufacturer (differences that the manufacturer hasnt told everyone already). Why would a manufacturer (CLEVO) produce two systems that do the same thing and/or are in the same class? Ummm... thats right they didn't! Why go for the same market share with two products, why not make one product for each market? Oh, that's right, CLEVO did! Only instead of using the good yet heavy cooling within the heavyweight D90 series Alienware simply used their own solution and used a mobile processor in order to keep temps and weight down, consequently robbing it of its processing/gaming power.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that the Alienware takes the cake here for the better gaming solution between the two. But why do a compare and contrast between to dissimilar systems?

Why not do a compare and contrast with another sli laptop? Oh, thats right thats all they had available to them to review right? Well you could write a review comparing and contrasting the differences between your mom and a pile of feces (since you probably have ready access to both) but would it really be worth writing about? Who would really gain anything from that write-up? Same applies here. If you don't have the right equipment, don't write the article. Do individual reviews with benchmarks if you must but don't try to pawn a review like this off as legitimate.

Calling me dumb because I point out someone elses lack of effort/research is like the pot calling the kettle black. I do my research, as does most of the other readers within the tomshardware realm. But hey what do I know, I'm the dumbass right?
August 30, 2007 11:42:24 PM

Yeh, the pot calling the kettle black, I was just feeding you a little of your own recipie. The research was done and it was determined that two gaming notebooks that have similar size, weight, screen, etc are targetting similar markets. So what it really comes down to is SLI vs non-SLI, because THG only tested the parts that the manufacturers wanted to provide. And keeping SLI v non-SLI in perspective is the price: The non-SLI notebook is good enough for most games, and though the SLI unit was clearly the better gamer it still wasn't good enough for Oblivion.

So there you have it, depending on what games and settings you use, the non-SLI unit might be a better deal, or the SLI might be worth the extra money. That's about all a writer can do when presented with this information.
September 15, 2007 1:28:11 PM

Quote:
Added drive performance comes from a RAID 0 array of two Seagate Momentus 7200.2 160 GB hard drives, each at 7200 RPM. Pairing the drives in RAID 0 allows peak throughput up to twice that of a single drive without sacrificing capacity: the result is a total of 320 gigabytes of fast storage space.


Pretty sure that's 100% wrong. Would you not get only 160gb of space? :non: 
September 15, 2007 3:05:44 PM

Quote:
Everyone in this forum is correct, this article compares apples to oranges. The Alienware model is the Clevo D900C while the Eurocom model is the M570RU.
Um, no, the Alienware is not the D900C, it isn't a Clevo at all.
I would argue that the Eurocom is NOT a Clevo M570RU, they DO IN FACT use the M570RU chassis, but a 570RU is NOT a complete computer. What Eurocom does to the system and how they warranty and support it makes it the notebook a Eurocome 570R Divine... there is an enormous difference.
Quote:
For those who are uninformed, like Thomas Soderstrom and Shelton Romhanyi both Alienware and Eurocom use CLEVO laptops. Europcom pretty much takes the CLEVO models as they are and resells them. Alienware takes the internal components and puts them into a slick laptop shell.
That is incorrect. Maybe you could cut (at least) Shelton a break because the guy actually tries, the other guy I don't know so he probably is a goof-ball (if I don't know him :kaola:  ), have at him. Alienware doesn't use Clevo as an ODM on this model, they at one point did use Clevo to a certain extent, but no longer.

They don't take the internal components of anything apart and put it in another shell. That is giving Alienware WAY too much credit being as they are just a puppet for DELL. They use Arima as an ODM on their more top of the line models (which have experienced substantial problems). So Eurocom and Alienware are distinctly different. Eurocom and Clevo are similar, but still different as YOU as "Joe computer guy" can't call Clevo and have them send you out one chassis, in fact it is more like 50 times that.
Quote:
Added drive performance comes from a RAID 0 array of two Seagate Momentus 7200.2 160 GB hard drives, each at 7200 RPM. Pairing the drives in RAID 0 allows peak throughput up to twice that of a single drive without sacrificing capacity: the result is a total of 320 gigabytes of fast storage space.

Pretty sure that's 100% wrong. Would you not get only 160gb of space?

A Raid 0 array would give you twice the drive size of the individual drives used. Check out my RAID Arrays Explained primer.
You are probably thinking of a RAID 1 mirroring array which would be 160 GB.
A RAID 0 won't give you twice the throughput, that's a little generous, realistically about a 45% improvement with the RAIDs overhead factored in, sometimes maybe peaking at 55-60% under optimal conditions.

Why was it Vista vs. XP?
Because they test what you send in. VISTA and SLI is a BETA affair of drivers. Alienware (IMHO) can barely get and keep their notebooks running in the first place, they sure aren't going to send it in to test with BETA drivers on it.

September 15, 2007 5:58:16 PM

HDDFreak said:
Quote:
Added drive performance comes from a RAID 0 array of two Seagate Momentus 7200.2 160 GB hard drives, each at 7200 RPM. Pairing the drives in RAID 0 allows peak throughput up to twice that of a single drive without sacrificing capacity: the result is a total of 320 gigabytes of fast storage space.


Pretty sure that's 100% wrong. Would you not get only 160gb of space? :non: 


No, Level 0 gives you 320GB, RAID 1 gives you 160GB.
September 15, 2007 6:04:59 PM

killernotebooks said:

A RAID 0 won't give you twice the throughput, that's a little generous, realistically about a 45% improvement with the RAIDs overhead factored in, sometimes maybe peaking at 55-60% under optimal conditions.


That's true, there seems to be a missing word "theoretical" here, as in "peak theoretical throughput", though that's what the article speaks of before going on to benchmark the drives and find the actual performance difference (theory vs practice).
September 16, 2007 12:37:00 AM

I am in the process of building a 3 disk RAID 0 array for a review unit. Should make the slowest component. the hard drives as good as they can get.
!