The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
WOW for that price I'd sell you my M18X with a 7970m and a spare 6990m. they both seem a bit over priced to me to be honest.
all in all I prefer the M18 for the upgradability and the bigger better screen, but that's just a personal opinion
M18x FTW, and for the reasons
@KCETech1 mentioned. Put a 2920XM and 780M SLI in that bad boy and it will destroy any of Alienware's current offerings. Personally, I wouldn't touch the BGA machine unless it were going for about half that price and then only use it for a web browsing appliance.
Edit: "neither" is also equally good advice.
Is this your budget limit, or just a couple of deals you stumbled upon? I think you can do better with some other options out there with a little extra money. Just don't buy anything with a BGA mounted CPU or GPU if you can avoid it.
M18x R1 without a doubt. Just a better computer overall and can be turned into a monster with a 2920XM/2960XM and a GTX 780M (or R9 M290X if you want to stay with team red)
Sorry to double post but forgot to mention that the Alienware 15 can also be upgraded later on with the graphics amplifier and a desktop GPU hence why I'm considering it.
Have you checked the UK dell outlet? You should be able to beat those if you keep an eye on it. No AW15s on there atm but they come on quite regularly.
I had my "scratch and dent" AW15 from there earlier this week. I've not yet uploaded photos of the "scratch and dent" parts, but suffice it to say the discount was massive compared to the damage. If there's interest, I'll post the photos in a thread here.
In terms of performance in the long run won't the Alienware 15 take the crown with the external graphics?
The Alienware 15 tied with a NVIDIA Titan card would hammer the performance of the larger system.
No?
The effort and precision it would take to replace 2 GPUs in the M18x, not to mention the cost (Single 780m goes for at least £300) as well as the minor loss of switchable graphics is really starting to sway me.
Unless any other points I've missed are raised think I'll just go with 15
The graphics amp will never let you run the graphics card at full speed due to PCIe limitations on the motherboard chipset. In addition, all systems with a HQ intel chip (soldered) will not hold turbo boost speeds and regularly throttle. M18x build quality is second only to Apple macbooks, and easily the best of any PC laptop.
Supposedly this is
somewhat mitigated when an external monitor is also connected to the eGPU in the graphics amplifier (meaning the signal image does not have to travel back down to the laptop. .. supposedly ...
Supposedly this is
somewhat mitigated with the eGPU, as the dGPU is disabled when the eGPU is attached and active.
Part of the problem is their CPUs throttle severely, they use pathetic CPUs and the problem is compounded by a crippled system BIOS. If you look in the sub-forum for these BGA machines, there is a fair amount of drama. Some are very happy and some are very unhappy. I have actually handled the new machines (all three of models) and I am not impressed. I didn't expect them to have the power of an dual GPU beast with an Extreme CPU, but performance and feature set leave a lot to be desired, and build quality is inferior to prior generations. Whether an eGPU is enough to make up for all that, only the individual end user can answer. Honestly, the logic of tethering a compromised laptop with lackluster specs to a desk and expecting a desktop GPU to make up for its inadequacies makes no sense to me. I know it's not compelling enough to make me want one as an 'Alienware' replacement. I will say that they are very nice and a decent replacement for a mainstream consumer laptop if that's all the higher one's bar has been set.
The whole thing with the throttling CPU's is that the majority of games will not require an extreme CPU to have awesome FPS because they just don't really depend on it, especially with this generation of games being ported over from consoles that are essentially using a cell phone CPU. I think in terms of future proofing the 15 is much better given that you already are ok with the idea of an external gpu.
They are definitely not the caliber of product some of us have loved and come to expect from the brand. Huge disappointment would be an understatement. They are built on a concept of compromise from the ground up. Some people really go for that compromise thing. Whatever floats your boat. All that matters is that the end user is happy. But, it's always good to have eyes wide open, knowing what to expect and avoiding unpleasant surprises.
Throttling is an inherent problem with most of the BGA CPUs in all laptops, so probably so. The 13 I tinkered with had a locked i5 processor and usually would not hold full turbo speed. The 15 and 17 both had i7 and both did throttle. I don't think you can get away from it 100% because of the way Intel designed them. Alienware hobbled them further in the BIOS to where optimal system performance requires an eGPU be connected, but I think there have been some workarounds that help minimize the problem and the behavior varies by BIOS version if my reading of their posts are correct. Probably best to ask in the forum from the people that own one with an i5 to get the clearest picture. Since this is in the main forum it may not be seen by as many Alienware BGA laptop owners. The model-specific owner's lounges and overclocking threads are probably where you will find the most detail already posted.
Which i5 was it? The 4210u or the 5200u? I'd be more inclined to believe it was the i5-4210u since the Broadwell CPUs hold their turbos much better than Haswell (my i7-5500u rarely drops turbo).
Found one. And it was the 4210u.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8806510 http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/8806510/3dm11/9605554 I have to say, I'm surprised at the graphics scores. Might be due to drivers. I have another OC 860m benchmark, but with the 347.90 driver, which was worse than the 347.25 driver. And in the CPU case, the clocks were/are fine compared to the 4210u's odd turbo clock.
Anyways, back on topic. I don't think the i5-4210H would throttle as much as the i7-4710HQ or i7-4720HQ. A dual core processor with 47w as its TDP should be fine, in my opinion.
The
specs for the 4210U are just totally pathetic. Two cores short of a full load, anemic 15W TDP and a dismally low turbo clock that refuses to stick under load. I think it was a horrible choice for something being marketed as a miniature gaming laptop. This is smartphone fodder, not even good enough for a low-budget consumer Dell, Acer, Lenovo or HP IMHO. They may as well have used an Atom or Qualcomm Snapdragon CPU.
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/10075764/3dm11/9966906/3dm11/9755624/3dm11/9450936 In regards to the CPU, the i5-4210H should be slightly better than the i7-5500u when it performs as it should. I also showcase my 5500u + GTX 960 run to show close I am to GTX 970m performance. The voltage reliability problem was holding it back (happens with my desktop), as well as the PCI 2.0 x4 bandwidth. Once I get the modded vBIOS flashed (thanks to Mobius), I should get better performance.
I saw more benchmarks with the i5-4210H struggling with its turbo, though. I don't know why (possible sleep bug when they used ran the benchmark, but it's one guess), but they performed slightly worse than my i7-5500u.
The 4210U almost always dropped clocks after about 5 to 10 seconds of heavy load. It struck me as being "false advertisement" because its turbo speed was never usable. You can see that in the benchmarks you linked. At least the 5500U has a 3.0GHz turbo clock. 4210U is only 2.7GHz.
But that's with one core. When using 2 cores, the i5-4210u runs at 2.4 GHz, and the i7-5500u runs at 2.9 GHz. The i5-5200u runs at 2.5 GHz on both cores, and the i5-4210H runs at 3.4 GHz (as opposed to 3.5 GHz on 1 core).
Funny, I have an old M18X and I find it BETTER built than my rMBP's and other Apple kit, and certainly far more durable. however it is not quite as well built as my top end Dell and HP portable workstations
it is, plus you have the option to put in a bit bigger CPU and/or overclock the crap out of it. I have also read you can do a motherboard swap and put in an R2 motherboard, but these guys will know far better than I . The big thing with the 4th and 5th gen cpu's is battery life and as you can see at the cost of heat and throttling issues.
I'm getting a little tired of hearing CPUs for gaming isn't important. For 60hz/fps this is closer to reality but still not correct and shouldn't be said with such conviction.
If one uses an external monitor (which is highly likely in the case of Aw15) that's 120+hz, CPU potency matters a great deal too.
I just don't think it's good practice to 'poo-poo' the importance of a well functioning CPU in a system outside of benchmarking.
Yeah, there's no such thing as "too much" CPU power... that notion is just ignorant. "Good enough" is subjective. I don't know many serious performance enthusiasts that allow much room for "good enough" hardware. That's more of a mainstream consumer and casual PC/console gamer view. Now, "good enough" hardware (what you already have, etc.) can be useful to tide you over while you're saving money for something more awesome, but that can't be the end game. And, BGA filth puts a permanent kink in the hose of that approach.
Yes, manual graphics switching (no Optimus/Enduro garbage). You use one or the other and switching completely disabled (cuts power) to the discrete graphics and they become totally invisible. In fact, if the battery is in good condition you will be getting 4.5 to 5 hours using the Intel HD Graphics. The Alienware M18x screens are excellent. Very close to the 1200p RGB LED in our M17xR2. I have a difficult time telling the difference between them unless I set them next to each other.
Ok everyone.
thank you all for the assistance amd advice.
I've decided to go for the M18x as it's in new condition.
I know it's only the R1 and not cutting edge but from what I've gathered many of these new Alienware line systems are lacking in terms of build and overall finish.
I'll see how things go from here.
Crossfire Hd6990m should be plenty for the games I need and the 16GB of Ram will also be incredibly useful for the 100's of tabs I leave open.
Nope, nothing stands out as a negative. Rock solid machine. Mine is still kicking... good for upgrading up to 780M SLI and 2920XM/2960XM if you ever get the itch to do that. Good choice. Enjoy it.
Absolutely not. I have one, it is leaps and bounds more inferior to the M17x R4 it replaced. Would NEVER own another one again. Same goes the for the Alienware 18. The M17x R4 and M18x R2 are the best computers Alienware ever produced, rivaled only by their predecessors the M17x R3 and M18x R1. More ports, better keyboard, better build quality, they don't run as hot, no el-cheapo bezel around the screen, BETTER BATTERY LIFE (which I COULDN'T believe.
From my limited experience with an R4, I'll have to disagree with a few of those points. Not sure what you mean by build quality. Didn't seem any more solid or durable than my R1. Didn't like the keyboard (matter of preference I guess). Can't say about battery life. Runs hotter? Can't say I took temperature readings, but on my R1 the CPU barely hits 70C when gaming, and mid to low 70s under XTU stress test. GPU barely hits low 60s when gaming. Surface temps never go above 34C when under load. How much better is the R4?
Ultimately whatever floats your boat. But leaps and bounds inferior? I think not. Maybe for your own personal needs that would be the case. Having played around with the R4, can't say I would ever want it above my R1. But that's just me.
Not arguing for the sake of arguing. But a few of your points are more about personal preference, and statements about things like build quality don't seem quite accurate given my experience with both.
Ok, points of impossible contention in this comparison:
1. Port selection. More exist on the M17x R4, plain and simple
2. Screen quality. The M17x R4 had a better screen than the Alienware 17 R1 did, as it had full sRGB coverage whereas the Alienware 17 R1 couldn't even muster that (talking 1080P vs 1080P screens here).
3. Thermals. By definition, the Alienware 17 runs hotter than the M17x R4 given the same paste job. The 3630QM is a 45W chip, the 4700MQ is a 47W chip. It WILL run hotter, and it sure did for me and countless other haswell users. Your R4 may have had a poor paste job. Even with the XM/MX series, 3920XM is a 55W chip and the 4930MX is a 57W chip. Haswell runs hotter than ivy bridge. Too many variables with GPU due to undervolting/overvolting, but the M17x R4 had higher CFM fans that moved more air, and kept my 7970M cooler in the R4 than it kept my R9 M290X in the Alienware 17 R1
4. CMOS clearing. It is simple to clear invalid/poor BIOS settings on the R4, but it is a risky procedure to do so on the 17 R1.
Now, the qualitative/subjective
1. Edge-to-edge glass was simply beautiful on the M17x R4, and I was really pissed that Alienware resorted to putting a bezel back on the LCD. It signifies cheapness.
2. My R4 was built solid, with no creaks or sqeaks. I see where you would say the 17 R1 had better quality with an aluminum lid/sides, but it really made no difference to me coming from the R4. Both were sturdy.
3. I did not like the curved keys, nor did I like the fact that they took lighting away from the frame around each key.
4. Lack of an Alien head power button
5. Lack of dedicated physical keys for volume up/down/mute, playback, and eject.
The only thing the Alienware 17 R1 has that I WISH the M17x R4 had, is a SATA III msata slot. That is it.
1. Agreed
2. Are you sure? Which panel are you talking about? The default panel is pretty average I admit, but the TrueLife 120Hz panel is apparently amazing.
3. True, Haswell runs hotter, but thats due to the chip, not the laptop. The fans on the R4 are known to be better, was thinking of picking some up myself. That being said, the R1 runs cooler than pretty much any other laptop I've ever owned. Also, stick an Ivy Bridge chip in it + swap out the fans, and it will probably run just as cool. Which is kind of the point of enthusiast machines. But, strictly speaking, its probably accurate to state the R4 runs cooler with its base configuration.
4. Don't know don't care. If true, then yay?
1. Really up to the user. I hated the edge-to-edge
mirror glass. personal taste though.
2. Agreed
3. Valid point. To each his own.
4. Valid point, not sure why they removed it.
5. Agreed, I prefer those to Fn + combo keys.
You cannot stick an ivy chip in the Alienware 17, the chipset and pin configuration on the socket are incompatible. Every ivy chip will run cooler than a haswell chip, given equal thermal jobs and fans. Your experience is truly a fluke if you found your Alienware 17 to be cooler than the M17x R4. The math doesn't add up on that one, save for a poor paste job on the M17x R4.
Forget the 1600x900 panel on both rigs they are absolutely terrible. The 60Hz 1080P panel on the R4 was better than the A17 R1. I do not have review information that covered the 120Hz panel on either model, so I can't comment either way.
I used to have it, but unfortunately, I never bothered to take note of the model. I have EDID data somewhere for it I think, from when I was working on OS X adaptation for the M17x R4.
One (very) important thing I left out: you cannot control C-states on the Alienware 17/18. They are 100% locked, so there is no way to force turbo clocks all the time. This wasn't an issue on M17x R3/4/ and M18x R1/2. XTU had the option of disabling package C-state lock, as well as an unlocked bios to disable C-states altogether.
Later ones uses the somewhat inferior AUO panels which suffer from vertical line problems (like the one I have, panel will be replaced next week though with a b173hw01 v.5)
I own both a R4 and a 17 at the moment (see specs below, the R4 is up for sale though and will probably be gone next week).
1. Agreed, the R4 has a better port selection
2. Even the inferior auo panel (auo b173hw02 v1) has a complete sRGB coverage so that is not valid. It is however as I said above a somewhat inferior panel due to the horizontal line problem.
3: That is because the fan settings on the M290x are faaaar less agressive than the ones on the 7970m on the R4 which runs much much louder (the difference is pretty huge, even while the 17 still has a stock paste job while the R4 runs with MX4). It has nothing to with the GPU thermal solution on the 17 which is alsmost identical than that on the R4. The R4 ramps up the fan to 100% after just 67 degrees and the 17 doesn't
The CPU thermals are a different story, but the 4710MQ that I have performes the same as the 3740QM in the R4 and the cpu temps don't differ that much. Though even I will agree Ivy bridge is still superior to haswel but it's not that bad.
4: And even worse the 17 bios is locked down due to secure flash.
Subjective
1: That was the main reason I bought the 17, the extreme reflections of the e2e glass (or rather to say it's a hard type of plastic) makes it unusable in just any room with lights. It drove me nuts to point I wanted to tear it off. Also the glass is very prone to small dents in the glass at the top, every R3/R4 that I owned had some and replacing it or the lcd panel itself is almost impossible due to dust getting in (it's a sealed unit).
2: I owned three R4's and one R3, the 17 is better build than all of them were. Less keyboard flex, much stiffer lcd cover, less panel gaps. It just feels so more solid. The R4 however has a more durable rubber coating.
3: The keyboard has a better layout for me, and feels better. Though the R4 one looks better.
4 Agreed, but overal the R4 looks a lot better than the 17.
5 Not a problem for me since the FN key sorts that out and the media buttons on the R4 are also very stiff to use.
I would like to add a point
1: The adaptor plug on the 17 is placed to the left, which I don't really like but they did it for a very good reason. On the R4 the power socket was soldered mounted direcly on the mainboard and when it gets damaged you either had to replace the whole socket or mainboard. On the 17 however the socket is connect to the mainboard with a seperate cable. So if it gets damaged you can easily replace it, a much much better design like the Precision M6** series.
In a conclusion: Both machines are great and have their strong points, for me however the 17 is a better option due to it not having the e2e glass and being a lot less noisy than the R4 (though it's a different story with the 780M in the 17, which makes even more noise than the R4 with the 7970m does).
I can see where you are coming from. I almost bought a M18x R2 (in nebula red) from the outlet when I bought my 18. The Samsung PLS display panel sealed the deal on the 18. But I was seriously temped on the M18x R2 even though it was older CPU tech.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
