New Alienware m17 discussion

I've used the Clevo, Asus, and HP fingerprint readers, they were all ok with Asus being the most liked, however, when I used the fingerprint reader on the whitebook, I was amazed at the lack of performance it gave, too me it was worthless.

 

I 2nd that... I would really like to see a good review/comparison of 3870's VS 9800's. Guess we are going have to wait a bit for them to hit. Has anyone actually received the new M17 in this config.

 

All i want to figure out is if i should buy the m17 over the m17x for gaming

 

How can someone receive a M17 yet? It's only 1 week.

 

I still want to know if I should get an m17 over an m17x for gaming cause I really like the m17 but I dunno if it will perform better for games.

 

I believe m17x is faster in gaming for now, but the price is in different ballpark.
for around $2k, nothing is faster than M17 now.

 

Will we be able to upgrade the Graphic card on this laptop ?
waiting for the AMD's Radeon HD 4870

 

Clevo M860TU . If it isn't faster it comes VERY CLOSE in a 15" package. However you have to figure that I am talking about real world performance here. In benchmarks the Crossfire setup will kill the 9800GT.

 

15" is different market.

 

You tried? You sure it works that easily?

 

OK guys, lemme just clear up EVERYTHING about these benchmark questions (note - done with Nagamaki/Whitebook by various people)

I know 3dmark06 is a synthetic benchmark, but they are the best way to judge performance.

Ok, here we go.
All are default settings
1x3870, P8600 - 9000 marks
1x3870, P9500 - 9100
1x3870, X9100 - 9150

2x3870, P9500 - 12800 marks
2x3870, T9600 - 13000 marks
2x3870, X9100 OCd to 3.33ghz - 14600 to 15100
2x3870, Q9200 OCd to 2.93ghz - 15000
2x3870, QX9300 OCd to 3.3ghz - 15000 to 15300

E-Wrecked (X9100 OCd) and mhooper (Q9200 OCd) have applied massive overclocks to the GPU and have achieve scores of 15800+.

K|N have managed to get this over 16000.

Remember, the scores will way different with the m17, as overclocking the CPU, GPU voids the warranty and the bios are locked. The 2.93Ghz and 3.33Ghz are factory overclocked by KillerNotebooks.

Also, this ATI Drivers suck - 3dmark performance is good but gaming is bad Bull**** is wrong. This is based off nothing, just one person starts it and everyone believes it.

 

I would agree unless u prefer to watch a synthetic benchmark perform rather than play actual games, which the Ocz cant do too good

 

see the difference in performance between np9262 and OCZ WB.
SAGER:



AND

WB:
9/17/2008 7:15:48 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
1900x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=5, Time Of Day=12
Global Game Quality: Very High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 72.14s, Average FPS: 27.72
Min FPS: 20.22 at frame 184, Max FPS: 35.98 at frame 981
Average Tri/Sec: -19921940, Tri/Frame: -718591
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.28
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 64.83s, Average FPS: 30.85
Min FPS: 20.22 at frame 184, Max FPS: 35.98 at frame 981
Average Tri/Sec: -22162772, Tri/Frame: -718406
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.28
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 64.80s, Average FPS: 30.86
Min FPS: 20.22 at frame 184, Max FPS: 35.98 at frame 981
Average Tri/Sec: -22178292, Tri/Frame: -718620
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.28
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 65.08s, Average FPS: 30.73
Min FPS: 18.70 at frame 1293, Max FPS: 35.98 at frame 981
Average Tri/Sec: -22107968, Tri/Frame: -719385
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.27
!TimeDemo Run 4 Finished.
Play Time: 64.84s, Average FPS: 30.85
Min FPS: 18.70 at frame 1293, Max FPS: 35.98 at frame 981
Average Tri/Sec: -22172408, Tri/Frame: -718787
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.28
TimeDemo Play Ended, (5 Runs Performed)

The latter was by Mark at K|N, with little to no tweaking.

 

Sager what? Also Mark from KN has the OCz overclocked which is something u wont be able to do with m17.

Oh apparently its the 9262 which in that cast the score u posted is rubbish. The minimum I was on Crysis with 9262 was 22fps and that was with a slow 9550.

 

well, since the crysis scores from K|N were done like 2 days after he got his hands on one, i decided to get scores from a guy with a np9262 without too many OCs.

 

Nice research qaz, +rep.

 

no problemo steve, right back at ya +rep

 

If you could crack facial recognition with a photo, could you train it on another body part that there shouldn't be photos of?

And anyone bringing up Sager, that 9262 is a freak, get a desktop already. You've already bought the CPU of one.

 

no, because the software specifically recognizes facial features (size of head, eye placement, mouth, nose, etc).

 

But if drivers improve will the m17 be better than the m17x for gaming? I really want to buy a new laptop from alienware, but I want a laptop that will give me the best performance now and later on.

 

Ha - well I'm pretty sure someone has one - perhaps not someone who is on this board.

Morgotth -- order one and when you get it do some benchmarks and let us know Seriously this appears to be the platform that Dell (yes Dell) is going to push the top technology towards so I'd think if you buy a m17 now you will have an option to upgrade to the next vid system (Hoping Nvidia).

 

Hi All!

This is my first post on this board so please forgive me any newbie-from-Poland mistakes

I`m about to buy Alienware m17 with this config:

Graphics Processor : Dual 512MB ATI® Mobility Radeon™ HD 3870 – CrossFireX™ Enabled!
Processor: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8400 2.26GHz (3MB Cache 1066MHz FSB)
Memory: 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SO-DIMM at 1067MHz - 2 x 2048MB
System Drive: Single Drive Configuration - 160GB 7200 RPM SATA with Free Fall Protection
Operating System: Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium 64-bit - English

And I have a question with ma last doubt in configuration of this maschine: screen. They offer it two ways 1440 x 900 and full hd 1900x1200.

I`m gaming a lot. Most of free time when using a laptop. I have one laptop for work, another I want for games. No way of buying desktop, I`m moving too often. And no way of getting rid of my work-lap, because I can`t work on non-corporate-secured hardware - company`s policy.

So i wonder about this screen. Full HD sounds nice but I don`t need to have so big workspace. I`m going to have this laptop operational for me 2-3 years and I wonder with two ATI`s 3870 how will it look on both screens in 2 years form now. Lower resolution = better performance so I assume that in 1440 x 900 in 2 years I can play at least in medium details, but I doubt that new games in 2 zears will go on this cards med-high in 1900x1200. I know I can lower the resolution in games but will scalling decrease quality when resolution won`t be native?

I`m having now Toshiba old laptop with 7600Go and in new games like Mass Efect I can play on lower than native (1280x800), e.g. lower panoramic but even if game looks not so bad (but worse) the menu looks very, very bad...

Since I`m gamming most of the time I don`t want to end up two years form now with FullHD and games played 1900x1200 with min. details or scaled and bad-looking for lower res.

Thanks in advance for any kind of help and comments. If you see some lacks in my chosen configuration other than screen, please also let me know

 

I used to use 1920 in my m1710 and when i go gaming, I go 1680 or less to have acceptable performance in COMPETITIVE level of playing. I can't afford lag.

Now, I am using x300 with 1440 resol, it's much much more sharp at native resol compare to when I was using non-native resol with m1710. So that concludes, if you are buying this for gaming, you don't want 1920.

On the other hand, i do work on my laptop too. With Windows explorer , excel, word, msn live bar taking a lot of space, i found myself need to search for windows. My bro tells me i can customize those bars to be smaller and smaller font. I will try that.

 

Yeah but I dont want to spend money on something unless I know its going to be the best you can get right now with the most upgradability.

 

Morgotth - That's always the issue is it not? One must either sit on the side line or get into the race. Only thing you can be sure of is as soon as you buy there will be something better for less - that's the way it is.

SithFrog - Go 19X12 - your ATI SLI should be able to run it fine.

 

Hands down, this is the best bang 4 buck out of any system out there, incredible system, very nice, and if you don't mind size, you would be foolish to pass this one up. To own an AW, and in this model, it is a GREAT deal. like I said, HANDS DOWN!

I would of easily kept it if it wasn't so freiggin enormous, but it just didn't work for me since I am a student.

PS, I already had this laptop for about 3 days, I bought it from Killernotebooks.com under the name Nagamaki. If it being an AW doesn't matter, you might try killernotebooks, Mark is better than those other guys.

 

will the m17 be able to recognise the full 8ram later on ?

Also will it be upgradble to 4870 cards ?

thxs

 

I am strongly leaning towards an M17 with 1440x900 resolution for the following reasons:

#1. My daughter uses a gateway with 1440x900 on a 17" Panel that I previously used and I find it much easier to work with than my current 7800fx 1920x1200 on a 17". I LOVE everything else about the 7800 (specs down below), but the resolution is just not for me. Pity because this unit is running flawlessly, modded with a x9100 and flawless LCD and runs WoW @ 1920x1200 with max details. :-( It will probably be on eBay or I'll sell it here (or give it to my brother which would make his year) sans the 320gb with the native 200gb. Resolution wise, I like 17 = 1440x900, 18+ 1680x1050 (as was my M-ALX). Outside the numerous unit/customer service issues (sans Christian who was awesome and took care of my elevated issues promptly, personally and professionally), it was pretty much what I was looking for in a unit but a smidge under powered for encoding/decoding.

#2. I don't watch nor use blu-ray items on my laptop(s). Any HD available in 1080p is available in 720p for any HD content I want to watch and use. If I'm going to watch Blu-Ray, it is going to be on the home theatre (btw, HDMI on the 7800 was great for putting stuff on the 60" ).

#3. Gaming wise, as was previously stated, 1440x900 is much more future proofed for native use than higher resolutions

#4. Size doesn't matter. I'm 6'4, 250lbs and an active weight lifter and lover of cardio. I used to lug around 20lb laptops (25-30lbs carrying weight) no problem all over Philly walking in a shoulder case. The weight isn't even a point and 15" screen is too small. I lugged the M-ALX around no problems.

Honestly, if AW came out with a M-ALX form factor system with modern tech on that lovely 19" 1680x1050, I'd be all over it. I was contemplating the HP 18t, as 1920x1080 was a possibility on a 18.4 but the 9600 was a deal breaker for me. I was thinking of the Whitebook, but the only option I found was 1920x1200 and pricing wise, it is on par with what AW is offering.

 

hi all


there is a new review for the M17 on trusted review.com

 

Can you provide any link to it?

 

http://www.trustedreviews.com/notebooks/review/2008/11/13/Alienware-M17---Hands-On-Preview/p1

 

so smaller resolution (The cheaper option) is better for gaming right?

 

yeah, but it'll look like sh*t otherwise, so do yourself a favor and get WUXGA.

 

Before I ordered M17 for me I`ve gone to shops and tried how 1920x1200 looks on 17" screen and how it is with 1440x900. I`ve chosen 1440x900 for gaming, cause scalling to lower resolutions in 1920x1200 looks far more worse than when it`s native...

 

why cant you just play at native 1200 then? Too small i take it?

 

You can ofcourse, but with this speed of performance-eating effects in new games it can happen that in 1,5-2 years 2x3870 won`t handle this res with high details.

 

and then downscaling the res to improve the fps of the new games destroys quality? Meh i hate decisions lol!

 

please, Kev, do yourself a favor and get WUXGA. really, WXGA+ will not look good on 17" screens.

 

hey, i ordered and using 1440 resol on 17" now.
and I had been using a 1920 resol on 17" for more than 2 years.

1440 looks way better at native in gaming.
1920 is more useful for organizing stuff in windows explorer

 

I took 1920x1200 over the 1400x900 mainly because i generally need as much space as possible for working with images and 3D. Generally dropping down in resolution might not be the best thing for gaming but it doesn't ruin the game that much.

 

If you need it for real work, then 1920 is really needed.

 

Woot IT finally left today with Overnight

 

i should have it in few hrs.

 

suspense levels are off the charts, huh? i know the feeling

 

Lets see some pics when you get it -- Same for you too Fusion....

 

go read my review, it's up long time ago.

 

I'm about to purchase a near fully-loaded M17.

Debating whether I should include the ATSC tuner option, mainly for doing things like piping the output from my various Playstation consoles (PS1, 2 and 3) for game screen recording, etc.

Could anyone advise on the viability of such application? The laptop is powerful, but would it be able to handle intense HD output from my PS3 in realtime or near realtime?

Please advise, thanks.

- F

 

Gotcha - did not realize several folks had these already and had reviews up -- nice.

 

Its just I dont want to buy the m17 and figure out that ati sucks vs nvidia or buy the m17x and figure out ati is really good

 

Ati does not suck I am a big Nvidea Fan Boy and Ati is good on my m17 I am running crysis and Farcry 2 with no sweat on my system.