Gigabyte Debuts Aorus Brand With Dual GPU Notebook

News
By Kevin Parrish
published

This gaming notebook has two Nvidia GPUs in SLI.

There's a new gaming laptop by Gigabyte that looks to compete directly with the Razer Blade Ultrathin notebook launched last year. This new laptop, the Aorus X7, marks as the first in Gigabyte's new line of Aorus gaming hardware.

According to the specs, this laptop features a 17.3-inch LCD screen with a 1920 x 1080 resolution. Under the hood is a fourth-generation Intel Core i7-4700HQ processor clocked at 2.4 GHz (3.4 GHz turbo), and 4 GB to 8 GB of DDR3L-1600 RAM, depending on your wallet (4 slots, 32 GB max). This laptop also sports two Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M GPUs in SLI (GDDR5 4 GB).

Also included in this super-thin notebook is a 1.3MP camera mounted above the screen, Killer Wireless AC and Bluetooth 4.0 connectivity, two 2 watt speakers and two subwoofers, and a Kensington lock. There are also three USB 3.0 ports, two USB 2.0 ports, two HDMI outputs, and a handful of other inputs and outputs.

The specs also show that this new laptop supports a triple-storage system: a pair of SSDs backed by a 2.5-inch 5400 RPM HDD. There's no optical drive, but Gigabyte does provide an SD card slot for even more storage. The laptop also provides a backlit keyboard that features a number of anti-ghosting keys and dedicated macro buttons.

Keeping this notebook cool are two fans, four vents and five thermal pipes. All of this hardware is backed by a 73.26 Wh battery.

With all that said, how thin is this notebook? 22.9 mm, or 0.901 inches tall. That doesn't beat the Razer Blade, which measures 0.66 inches tall. Gigabyte is expected to ship this gaming notebook in March with prices to be between $2,099 and $2,799 USD.

Check out all of our CES 2014 coverage!

Kevin Parrish
10 Comments Comment from the forums
  • chumly
    That's too much GPU for 1080p.
    Reply
  • skit75
    12399714 said:
    That's too much GPU for 1080p.

    You think?

    At first glance, it seems this dual configuration of the 765m (128-bit interface @ 64GB/sec) is about as powerful as my desktop GTX 560Ti(256-bit interface @ 128GB/s). The graphics clock and cpu clock are pretty close also. Sure the 765m has twice the CUDA cores but it is strangled by the 128-bit memory interface. I would love to see some comparative numbers of this laptop vs.a desktop GTX 560Ti and maybe a desktop GTX 660.
    Reply
  • Blazer1985
    ...you can't compare two different gpus only looking at memory bandwidth. True they have double the cores but the fermi had a different shader clock (2x multiplier if I remember). So given the same core clock they should almost be on par. Then again you have 2 different architecture and kepler is more efficient than fermi for single fp (games). On the math 765m>560ti. All that said I would have gone for a single 780m :-D
    Reply
  • skit75
    12400324 said:
    ...you can't compare two different gpus only looking at memory bandwidth. True they have double the cores but the fermi had a different shader clock (2x multiplier if I remember). So given the same core clock they should almost be on par. Then again you have 2 different architecture and kepler is more efficient than fermi for single fp (games). On the math 765m>560ti. All that said I would have gone for a single 780m :-D

    Anytime I see "gaming laptop" I just assume it is ready to be compared to desktop counterparts. I included graphics and cpu clocks in my comparison but I understand your point. Couldn't the two different architectures be mitigated by an older test platform such as..... Witcher 2? (DirectX 9 game)

    Also, the math I am seeing doesn't add up to a single 765m > a single 560Ti... but two 765m in SLI, I will surely yield(disregarding architecture). Do you have numbers to support that? Just curious.
    Reply
  • nebun
    nice laptop with mediocre display...this should have a 4k display
    Reply
  • Blazer1985
    Hi Skit, I don't think that using an older game as benchmark would mitigate the difference between the two architecture. Almost like when a new cpu architecture ups the ipc, you get the benefits everywhere. Didn't have time to actually look for real life results but a BAD and RAW way to have an idea of the shading performance is to multiply the core count for the shader clock. In this case 560ti = 384 x 1645 = 631680 and 765m = 768 x 850 = 652800 + kepler improvements. Even taking memory bandwidth into account I shouldn't be too much off, I'd give a small advantage to the 765m in normal gaming but not by much.
    Reply
  • Exia00
    just did some research on the GTX 765M and notice one of the many reasons why it is on SLI and that is for games like Battlefield 4 which the card on the laptop if it wasnt in SLI wouldnt be able to play on ultra setting rather to get the 60 fps you would need to play on a mix of medium and high settings
    Reply
  • patrick47018
    Wish it was at least 1440P
    Reply
  • skit75
    12406222 said:
    just did some research on the GTX 765M and notice one of the many reasons why it is on SLI and that is for games like Battlefield 4 which the card on the laptop if it wasnt in SLI wouldnt be able to play on ultra setting rather to get the 60 fps you would need to play on a mix of medium and high settings

    That is right inline with my experience in the GTX 560Ti and what Blazer1985 mentioned. I can only hit 60FPS on medium settings. BF4 is playable on high settings with my 560Ti setup but my max FPS is about 42-45 using the ingame FPS monitor.... when it dips this low the overlay changes red. On medium, the overlay is yellow and FPS hovers in the 48-60 range.
    Reply
  • quikslyver
    not adding an optical drive is not quite as dumb as putting a dvd player in a 1080p machine, but it's still dumb enough i won't consider it. sure you can get an external, but who wants to drag an extra piece of hardware around when they could have just put it inside?!? Blaming it on having 2 vid cars and 3 hard drives? like someone said, just put one better vid card in... or who really needs raid ssd's? like one ssd isn't enough of a performance increase by itself? Not me, that's who; but maybe it's just me. I love to game, but if they automatically make it so i can't simply pop in a Blu-ray into my $2,000+ entertainment machine, i'll just look elsewhere.
    Reply