CNET m17 Review

I'm surprised nobody has posted this yet..


http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/alienware-m17/4505-3121_7-33367399.html


Some good things.. some bad...

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=317455&page=7

 

that's right baby, I am faster than anybody.

 

Am I reading this wrong, or did the m17x beat the M17 in EVERY catagory?

 

I believe they were comparing a top of the line m17x with a budget model m17

 

How is that a budget model?

2.26 Core 2 Duo, 3GB DDR2 1066 memory, and dual 3870's in CrossfireX

compared to what? a top-of-the-line m17x?

2.8 Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2 667 memory, and dual 8800GTX/9800GT's in SLI

.... I don't see the difference for 3D...

Almost all of the Core2's (especially the penryn's) are so fast that they DO NOT limit 3D performance... as many frames as the graphics card can render, is as fast as it renders... therefore a 2.26 Montevina Core2 vs a 2.8 santa-rosa refresh Core2 shouldn't have any major effect.

the 3GB in the M17 was fully addressable, due to the test systems 64-bit OS, and the m17x can only address 2GB of memory with the stock 32-bit OS... so functionally, the m17x only has a different brand of video cards (nVidia vs. ATI) and ~500Mhz of more-or-less useless-in-games CPU speed.

 

I'm really not much of a computer expert, but I thought there would be a difference in performance when comparing a 2.26 to a 2.8 Ghz processor.

If not, maybe it's that the Nvidia GPUs, the 9800m GT, are more efficient than ATI's 3870?

 

That's what I'm thinking.

for 3D with Core 2 CPUs, GHz is starting to mean less and less.

 

The difference in speed has everything to do with the M17X's faster processor. Its a little less than 600 mhz faster and has double the cache and that alone gives it a large advantage over the processor in the M17 that was tested. If you look at the scores in UT3 the M17 is very close in score and UT3 is VERY cpu intensive as compared to other games.

If the M17 had been tested with an equal processor it would have at least matched the M17X scores and probably beat them.

Take a look here and see for yourself that the processor makes a big difference.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/mobile-cpu-charts/3D-Studio-Max-9,463.html

 

^^^ Exactly.

 

Yeah I don't know why they didn't use the faster quad cpu. I'm pondering on buying the new m17

 

Bad example. 3D Studio Max, still uses a lot of CPU to actually do it's rendering. I read on a forum for 3DStudioMax that someone using a Xeon quad-core had 100%CPU usage (100% of all CPUs) being utilized by 3D Studio Max while rendering. therefore, I'm thinking that the application uses the 3D card for on-the-fly rendering (while in the edit modes), and CPU rendering for the 'final-cut'. In that regard, the link you posted is actually not showing us anything we didn't already know.

Something useful would be if all the m15x owners did a study together, where they would compare 3DMark 06 scores, statically analyzed based on value, and CPU speed. all other factors staying some-what constant. (8800M GTX GPU, Resolution of the test, same speed of memory, etc)... and then of course breaking down the sample data into categories based on CPU type.

Then, and only then, would we truly have definitive data on how much of an effect the CPU has on the Graphics rendering speed.

 

dude, u can click and choose other benchmark from that link.

 

but it doesn't say they're all using the same graphics card. the FPS's are different, but I have no idea what they were on.

There just simply isn't enough information on those graphs to make a definitive conclusion.

 

It's a bad review, it has almost no benchmarks. They wrote 30 FPS @ Crysis High @ 1280x1024 (not even 1920x1200 the native resolution), but we don't know how much M17X or anything else gets, so we can't compare.
We need a good review of M17, fast. An Anandtech review would be good.

 

Well you can go to the OCZ forum and check out mhooper's and E-wreck's threads. The M17 and the OCZ Whitebook are twin brothers and mhooper and E-Wreck have reviewed and benchmarked that thing back and forward and back again.

 

I don't like E-wrecked's benches. Sometimes this, sometimes that, not enough details.

 

How about mhooper's? He did every benchmark everyone asked him. Even went bought the program if he had to pay for it.

But I understand, E-wreck oc'ed his NB. I guess you would like a view from a AW that can't be oc'ed and see how it does straight out of the box.

 

cripes, 15.8k in 3dmark06... that's smoking.

 

I think Alienware ships reviewers their machines based on what they want to sell the most..

For example.. The m17x and the m15x.. reviews always got their most top of the line, $4000+ computers.

Since the m17 is targeted as a budget gaming machine... They gave them a mid range "For The Wallet" build (Thats what its called on Alienwares website). Then people reading that review will see how cheap it is yet extremely powerful for the money.

 

good point, but i still think it'd be smarter to send a top-of-the-line machine to do as well as possible in the benchmarks etc.

 

They didn't know cnet is that stupid to compare it with $6000 NB, and they didn't expect cnet doesn't note the price and gaming performance. is the main selling point of this notebook.

if they put up a chart with average FPS/price + build quality, the M17 will be near the top.

 

Getting the top of the line to impress people doesn't get much attention nowadays, because:
1. Majority potential customer can't relate a $6000 nb to themselves.
2. Current economic status suggests premium stuff = no good.
3. I don't even read about something something score the most in the world, di da di da, it's too often.
4. Good deal is what most people are looking for nowadays.
5. Top performance is not the no.1 selling point of this notebook.

 

In some cases, yes. However, in this case that claim is false. The CPU has significant influence on how Unreal Tournament 3 in particular performs. This chart best explains this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-25.html

Although the resolution is a bit different, it still illustrates the difference a CPU makes.