Awful SVZ13 Review

I was really surprised and disappointed by this review that was just published in notebookcheck.net, normally a very well respected source. Overall, there were two things that caused them to put the value of this model in question, but I don't recall users (or other reviewers) citing either of them:

1) Quad core cpu wouldn't clock over 1.6 Ghz, killing its performance and that of the HD4000 IGP The performance scores were comparable to an Arrandale Core i3 with a GMA-HD IGP!!

2) Screen brightness (FHD) measured average of only 199 nit, with lowest quadrant below 185 compared to 240 in their Z23 review and up to 280 in their Z1 review, same screen. They even pointed out that it is the same mfr and #. I've always liked the 900p screen better because it was a good bit brighter but we're talking 280 nit vs. 240, nothing like 199, which is now about average for all laptop LCDs, the majority of which are garbage. At least they measured the same overall color profile - 100% of sRGB and in the 90s of Adobe.

3) While they didn't "ding" it for this,their SSD speed measurements seemed off too: 900 MB/s sequential read, but 350-400 sequential write. (I get a850/650 in my Z22, 256GB). I don't think anyone would notice the write speed as "slow" at 350 MB/s, but it adds to my overall suspicion: they got a bad sample.

I can understand why the reviewer would be less than impressed by the truly mediocre performance they measured in this machine. Other examples include PC Mark Vantage: 8,545; 3DMark06 w/HD400: 2701 - @ the very low end of SB/HD300 scores whereas IvB 4000D should be over 5,000 ; 3DMark 11: 1328; PC Mark7 - wouldn't run it!!

Clearly, they got a bad sample, and they mentioned that possibility once or twice. But frankly I was very disappointed that such a high quality review source would take the test results at face value and publish the report as if the SVZ is a huge step down from the Z2. They've tested so many Zs over the past 3 years that you would think they would have picked out another unit to review and not published this report at all if the other unit ran as expected and in line with the many other published reports.

This weird outlier review should no difference whatsoever to owners
of the SVZ who know their machine runs circles around this oddball review unit. Still, I find it quite irritating that NBCReview would publish this obviously wrong test as if it was reflective of the product. (Surprisingly, they still rated it an 84; if you read the review you would have predicted 79!

Now, tell me I'm not hopelessly misinformed and that these results are often experienced by owners of the SVZ

 

I don't see how you can complain about the review being unfair. The machine they got had a dim screen and poor performance. They expressly raised the possibility that it was just a bad machine, they're asking for another, and they're making the evaluation "reserved" until they can get another. And the score they gave it (84%) wasn't even all that bad...it's still above average for them, despite the problems they had with the test model. I don't see how they could be more fair.

What would you have them do...not publish a review at all if a machine did really poorly, because that one might have been a lemon?

 

Thanks for pasting that full quote from the review. I guess I skimmed it and missed their commitment to get another unit and revise the review. But as to holding off publication pending acquisition of a second machine to see if the first was a fluke/"lemon" or if Sony has goofed the engineering and is delivering C2D performance from a Quad Core Ivy Bridge cpu and if their QC is so poor that they have been getting increasingly poor screens from the same vendor and either don't notice or don't care....yes, I would definitely have them hold off publishing this review. They do no service to readers to publish a review that has a high probability of not representing the underlying product's performance and, absent any other evidence or information suggesting that Sony is severely gimping the current iteration of the "legendary" flagship Z, then yes, I believe they should just hold the review.

Let's not turn this into a big discussion about what a publisher's responsibility is because that's not why I opened the thread. I really just wanted to give everyone a heads-up because we-all are often sought out by friends, colleagues, etc. as Sony "experts" and though NBC is not a mainstream tech publication, this review could easily sway a buyer to whom this review is quoted in NBR's What Notebook..Buy? forum yet there are so many other reviews, none of which had their experience or benchmark results and we have an owners lounge full of people who have not reported such problems.

 

their sample is being heavily throttled.They got 9fps on BF3 at 1024x768 w/IGP. I avg around 30 @ 1366x768.

 

It was probably set to power saver mode with a fixed low brightness. The advanced settings can be hard to find if you don't look for it, but it's rather weak of them to fail.

I stopped reading at "The casing creaks no matter if it is being held on one corner of the main unit or the screen."!

Who in their right mind holds a laptop by the corner of the screen???

Also, the only sounds I hear when I hold mine by the corner is the sound of my hands grabbing it. They must have gotten a badly refurbished unit, perhaps forgot half of the screws or something

 

A reviewer's job is to publish what they experienced, good or bad. Their duty is to the consumer to report what they saw, good or bad (and if they think it was a one-time fluke and not a design defect, to say so, which they did here), not to keep the results hidden if the review won't be positive. I have seen reviews of models where they said "there appears to be a defect with the device they sent us" from everyone from Malibal to Dell. Not to mention car and motorcycle manufacturers. Why should Sony get any special treatment? If they'll say "we had a problem with the device they sent us" about a Dell XPS, isn't it only fair that they say the same thing about a Vaio Z?

 

This is after 10min using intel burn test. Max mem/8 threads. No down clocking.

 

Yeah, I suppose, but as with most of life, some judgment should be applied. If the LCD was completely shot, should they have observed "we were deeply disappointed by the poor quality of the monitor" or should they have held it up and gotten another sample to review? As SVZ owners' posts here make clear, they had a totally gimped sample, the review of which should not have been published. If it was only the 40 nit delta on the screen alone, I could see handling it as they did - the OEM's quality may indeed be falling off - but they knew damn well thew were wasting readers' time, misleading potential buyers and - not a position I'm normally sympathetic to - did a real disservice to Sony. If Car and Driver tested a BMW 3 series and it sounded like hell and only managed a 0-60 time of 14 seconds, do you honestly think they would leave it at that and remark how slow these new BMWs have gotten?

There's "standard editorial procedure" and there's just plain stupid. I know you consider the publication decision to be a case of the former, Mitlov; I just happen to ascribe it to the latter.

My work is done here. It's clear to anyone who follows the model on NBR that the review is to be ignored in its entirety.

 

I share my sympathy with you since I feel exactly the same way. If the reviewer was reviewing a s*h*i*t*t*y Macbook instead, you would see him making a bunch of excuses or even doesn't publish the review at all (I have seen this cult-like behavior on major news outlet such as the The Verge or Engadget).

I think the reviewer just review it for the sake of reviewing without caring much about whether he's doing it right or not. It might be that he didn't adjust the settings correctly so that the machine throttles since I have the Vaio Z2 and if you don't know the way around the Vaio Control Panel, some settings might be very well mis-adjusted.