Cnet review of the IFL90 6.5/10 "Merely adequate 3D performance" WTF?

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/micro-express-ifl90/4505-3121_7-32495078.html

What do you guys think? I think they've overlooked some things when reviewing it, we all know it deserves a better score than 6.5. C'mon!

 

It's CNet, what do you expect

Again they compared it to the 17" m9750 notebook, the G1s was compared to it as well and proclaimed 'weak'

 

Its because compal doesnt advertise on their website.

 

I think the proof is in this line:

the Micro Express IFL90's discrete graphics card even provided decent enough frame rates for casual gamers--though it certainly doesn't pack the graphics punch needed to compete against the best gaming rigs, such as the Alienware Area-51 m9750.

Well, hand me 1300 dollars and the IFL 90 and you can keep the Alienware. They are basically saying anymore than a casual gamer doesnt buy any laptop under $2400. I wouldnt expect any better review from c-net anyway, I suppose.

 

BOO!! CNET!!
Can't wait to order my IFL90
Lynn

 

One of the many fine examples of why (1) I do not read that site any more (2) they lost their place in my bookmarks and (3) why I repeated call for NBR users to start an anti-CNet campaign to destroy their credibility.

 

tee hee....Cnet never ceases to amaze me...

 

Yeah its pretty bad that they were comparing it to the Macbook Pro and the Alienware. Of course the Macbook Pro out performs and is lighter than the IFL90, and of course the Alienware has higher benchmarks, THEY COST AT LEAST A THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE. I used to think Cnet was a great place to look for reviews, but now its obvious that they don't rate on the performance/value for the price system that they once claimed they based ratings on.

 

That's like comparing a relatively inexpensive but fast car to something like an F1 car of sorts, and then telling people that "if you want speed, go buy an F1 racer".

 

I wonder if Micro Express has them in stock.

 

I've sent an email to the author of this review: michelle.thatcher-at-cnet.com

Dan Ackerman had this to say:

 

What's a 10/10, then? Not only are they being very tough with their grades, which I do appreciate, but that seems to me that they're stating that other publications' ratings are inflated, biased, and inferior?

 

This is sad. I couldn't believe how badly the Asus G1 scored before. They compared that to high end notebooks which cost hundreds more. Now, they did it again.

Um, what I don't get about this is why other notebooks scored really high. For example, the Dell XPS M1710 ( http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/dell-xps-m1710-geforce/4505-3121_7-32126750.html?ar=o&tag=pdtl-list) scored an 8.3/10. The IFL90 is clearly one of the best in it's class, with a great price tag. I can't really say the same for the XPS in terms of price. If a 7/10 is a 9/10; then wouldn't an 8.3/10 be above a 10?

These all scored higher than the IFL90.

It definitely deserves a higher score. They missed out on so many points. I was annoyed by MANY of the reviews Cnet has made; but the Asus G1 review was the last straw. Since then, I quit reading Cnet's reviews.

 

This makes me laugh so hard:

"We were only slightly annoyed by the minor reflections on its glossy finish; there is no matte finish option. "

and

"The display features the 1,280x800 native resolution that is typical for its size. We would have appreciated a sharper resolution (similar to the MacBook Pro's 1,440x900 screen) while watching movies, but at least the IFL90's existing resolution ensures text and icons are easy to read."

haha...ha..ha...hahahahha

 

They haven't been on top of things lately, have they?

 

someone needs to call them out on this bs...

 

At least it got a better score then the PC Club Enpower ENP68(Compal HEL80 w/ glossy WXGA)

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/pc-club-enpower-enp680/4505-3121_7-32036697.html?tag=sub

 

I guess it has to have the Dell, Apple, HP, Gateway, or any big brand name to get a good score, huh. I'm guessing CNet doesn't know about ODMs and how Compal very likely made a lot of the notebooks that got good scores with a Dell logo on it.

Also on another note, if they weigh the pros and the cons for the notebook to calculate a score, why does a "reflective screen" (get a matte, then) or a slightly flexing keyboard lower the score so much? I never would've thought that good cheap price with decent battery life and good specs were overruled by the fact that they weren't too thrilled with the HEL80's design.

 

Nope the D620 received a 6.9. CNET gives random reviews regardless of the manufacturer. I cannot explain why.

 

Or maybe Michelle Thatcher is just a horrible reviewer...

 

Everyone should post user reviews on Cnet, 10 out of 10. And say something like the Cnet review doesn't do it justice.

 

.... They got thiers at micro express...

They should have gotten one from sager themselves, reviewing it with the 1280x800 res is unfair too since it goes to 1680x1050.

And is that even the same notebook? MY old Z96Js got better than that on Quake 4 on those settings...

Thier review looks like they're using the 8600GS and not the 8600GT..

-_-

 

Interesting. As far as I know, the Velocity Micro Notemagix L80 is also a HEL80. But, it scored a 7.2/10.

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/vel...-l80/4505-3121_7-32081792.html?tag=prod.txt.2

Hmm...

 

All I can say is that the review you linked is from a time before there were to many choices with anything better then the 7600... that might have something to do with the review..

 

For the verdicts, I must say, I agree with the dull design and slightly heavy. But with the best graphics card out there for a 15.4" notebook, the gaming performance cannot be faulted.

As expected from Cnet though, another crappy review with glaring faults.

 

Perhaps...but the Velocity Micro and the PC Club were reviewed within a few days of each other. The Velocity Micro was configured higher than the PC Club, but should that really make a difference of 1.4 points? (5.8 vs. 7.2). That seems way too significant of a difference considering it's basically the same notebook.

 

except the 8600 in the ifl90 performs more like an 8600gs because of the crappy ddr2 memory

 

well the dell 1520 and the asus c90s also has ddr2. the only two that are gddr3 is the apple macbook pro and asus G1s and both of those have quite steep price tags.

 

That's not true, a lot of the resellers that have the 8600GT 256mb in their IFL90 models have GDDR3, so they aren't all gddr2.




Also, CNET sucks. And they have for a long time, I don't evne like downloading from then anymore.

 

Which ones? I've not seen any thus far, I might be interested.

 

Cnet ended up reviewing about a dozen HEL80 and EL81 models with slightly varied prices and configurations, and rated them all radically differently. One of them complimented the design as being original, and the next panned it as being bland and ugly. However, its the same notebook, with the same styling.

Cnet sucks, end of story.

 

The 8600 GS is different from the GT due to the architecture of the design, it's not the memory.

 

I didn't say they were the same, I said they performed alike

 

No they don't. Check benchmarks. That DDR2/3 thing makes like a 4 frame difference. Aka unnoticeable. The G1S will perform better because the card isn't underclocked like it is in the IFL90.

 

Cnet. HA!. Nuff said...

 

Would you please post benchmarks to back this up?

 

Yea, uh no. The difference between the underclocked DDR2 version and the 'normal' GDDR3 version is quite substantial.

 

He is right. If a version of DDR2 and DDR3 were clocked the same, the REAL world performance would be about the same (no, 3dmark doesn't matter). However, the IFL90's card is way underclocked for better battery life and less heat. Please check your facts before you spout off information.

 

Are you talking to me? If so, then I am correct. The fact that there are no DDR2 versions of the 8600m GT clocked at the reference 700MHz makes listing only DDR2 as acceptable when describing the crappy 8600m GT. And here are the benchmarks for you:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2235601&postcount=1

The difference is substantial, and that's only CS:S. Imagine Doom 3 benchmarks, or Oblivion benchmarks. Please go away.

Also, please read my post before opening your mouth (or typing, this is the internet X_X).

 

Almost died of laughter right there.

 

Geez, read some benchmarks. The 8600gs with its gddr2 are the only benchmarks I've seen on these forums, and it scores stock around 2300. The 8600gt with gddr2 scores around 2900-3100 depending on build, no overclocking.

 

But it comes factory underclocked. You can OC it and sacrifice some battery life and you get pretty close. The DDR3 is a bit higher of course, but only in 3DMark scores if you OC the DDR2 version.

 

If speaking hypothetically, I doubt there's much difference if the GDDR2 and GDDR3 8600m GTs were operating on the same memory clock speeds.

Didn't we have this discussion already in some other thread which was like a billion pages long?

 

yes, i believe it was in the G1s Benchmarks thread that Ken posted.

Im new to this forum, ive been reading up quite a bit on the G1s, the C90s, and the IFL90 and will probably be buying one of the 3.

The biggest question i have is this:

Could you get the same performance out of an OCed 8600m GT GDDR2 as you would a stock GDDR3? (i apologize if this has already been asked-and-anwsered)

Based on the performance benchmarks ive been seeing, im leaning toward the G1s, despite the fact that the chassis design is a little too flashy for my tastes.

Both the C90s and the IFL90 seem configurable to match the G1s in every area except GPU. Although i prefer the more simple design of the IFL90, ultimately performance is more important to me.