Dell Precision M6700 Notebook Review: The Enterprise Split
by Dustin Sklavos on December 12, 2012 7:43 PM ESTWorkstation Performance
Here's the one place where the Clevo notebook will be unable to keep up: workstation performance. The Dell Precision M6700's i7-3920XM and Quadro K5000M can finally stretch their legs here, as these are the benchmarks the M6700 was really designed for. Since I only have results for a couple of mobile workstations, I'm including the desktop workstations I've reviewed as reference points.
The sheer brute force of the Quadro K5000M, despite its substantially weakened FP64 performance, is enough to get it to score consistently better than the last generation GF100-based Quadro 5010M. Unless you need a high end desktop workstation GPU and a chip with more than four cores, Dell's Precision M6700 is capable of being a very potent workhorse. Remember that a Quadro 5000 desktop card costs almost $2,000 on its own; that puts the M6700's steep workstation price tag into a bit of perspective.
The M6700's CPU unfortunately gets hit harder in SPECapc Lightwave. Faster CPUs with higher core counts are the order of the day here, and though the i7-3920XM may be able to keep pace with a top-of-the-line Ivy Bridge CPU in short bursts, eventually its turbo speed settles down. Switching to a desktop workstation can still shave 33% off of Lightwave's render time, but you'll pay through the nose for it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
125 Comments
View All Comments
critical_ - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
It is necessary. My M6700 has a Core I7-3940XM, Quadro K5000M, 3 7200RPM HDDs and a mSATA SSD. When everything is going full blast there is quite a bit of power draw.The Lenovo W530 (another workstation) comes with a 170 watt power supply. It only has the K2000M which has a 55W TDP versus the 100W TDP of the K5000M. Remember, these are workhorses not aesthetic queens.
Gunbuster - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
You sure do a lot of complaining about aesthetics in this review yet fail to mention Dell offers a Covet edition in red with edge to edge glass screen...As for your HP obsession the M6700 demolishes it in nearly every one of your tests and cost 30% less (before any discounts that dell is well known for) Did HP give you the 8760W to keep or was it a really nice steak dinner? I don't understand at all.
cknobman - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
My company bought me a Dell m4600 which is a very similar model to the one reviewed just slightly smaller at 15.6 inches, has a i7-2720qm, and only a Quadro 1000M.I have been working with the laptop for a year now and it is by far the best workstation laptop I have ever used (of course most of the companies I've worked for are cheapskates and bought crap).
I love the design, 1080p screen, and portability is pretty decent. The unit is screaming fast (I am a .Net developer and it tears through anything I have thrown at it) and even plays games like BF3 (at 1600x900) and Diablo 3 (full 1080p) with no problem.
My only knock against the unit is the bottom access panel. It is held on with two cheap plastic tabs secured by screws and they break easily. If I am not careful I can accidentally slide the access panel open when carrying the unit around.
My favorite aspect of the system is even with a Quadro 1000M I can flawlessly run 4 1080p screens (counting the laptops own LCD) with no problems giving me tons of workspace.
hrrmph - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
The QM77 chipset only supports SATA 6.0Gbs on 2 ports.Both the Dell and HP mobile workstations have 4 drive bays. Which bays are SATA 6.0Gbs and which are SATA 3.0Gbs?
Or did Dell and / or HP add a third-party controller chip to bump up the number of 6.0Gbs capable drive bays?
-
critical_ - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
That is a limitation due to Intel's chipset. The primary and secondary hard drive bays are SATA 6.0Gbps. The mSATA slot, optical bay, and eSATA port are SATA 3.0Gbps.hrrmph - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
Thanks for the precision in your reply. Very helpful :)hrrmph - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
1920 x 1080 is a step backwards.I already have a 17" 1920 x 1200 laptop (albeit an ancient HP ZD8000).
Asus, Dell, HP, and Lenovo all need to pony up and try something new. How about an 18" 2550 x 1440 mobile display?
-
hrrmph - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
Where's the USB 3.0?Really! More than a decade later, both Dell and HP have USB 2.0 ports on their most exclusive machines?
And they b*tch about not being able to sell PCs.
Innovate da**it!
-
critical_ - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
There are 2 USB 3.0 ports on the right side of the laptop itself and 2 USB 2.0 ports. I'm glad USB 2.0 is included because not every rescue disc and OSs have drivers built-in to handle USB 3.0. On multiple occassions having USB 2.0 ports has saved me. Lenovo's ThinkPad workstation does this as well.hrrmph - Thursday, December 13, 2012 - link
Okay, let me restate it another way: There aren't enough USB 3.0 ports.This is regardless of how many USB 2.0 legacy ports they want to tack on it for disaster recovery.
Dell, HP, Lenovo, and most others cheap out here.
The exceptions are a few models of Asus and Toshiba. I have an all-USB 3.0 Asus machine with USB 3.0 x 3 ports and Toshiba offers USB 3.0 x 4 ports on some machines. But, those 'lesser' machines aren't in this lofty class of machines populated, really, only by Dell and HP.
Technically its possible to do the deed. If I understand it correctly, the Intel chipsets are able to handle USB 3.0 x 4, PLUS an additional USB 2.0 ports x 2, or more.
So there is no need to give up anything. But, the manufacturer's are stuck on offering Firewire and eSATA, at the expense of more USB 3.0.
The subject Dell and the HP machines are supposed to be the 'best of the best' desktop replacements / mobile workstations. So 6 x USB should be considered standard in keeping with the "we charge you more, but you get more" philosophy for these computers.
So manufacturers: Wire up those 4 ports of USB 3.0! Already!
2007 is calling and people want to know where their long awaited USB 3.0 ports are.
-