POST A COMMENT

22 Comments

Back to Article

  • tviceman - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    It's a shame that is being stuck with such a low resolution screen. 1600x900 would have been perfect for it's capabilities and size. Reply
  • hansfilipelo - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I bet it has a better resolution (pixels density) than the screen you are using now. Unless it's a mobile device.

    I am so tired of people thinking that the number of pixels equals resolution.
    Reply
  • Kumouri - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    It's still only (approximately) 141 PPI, which really isn't that good. If it were 1600x900 it would be able 165, which is better (a lot closer to the maximum resolution of the eye at the average distance from your eyes a laptop is used at). Reply
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - link

    Oh jeez, not all this again.

    I think we can all agree that 1366x768 on a 15.6" or larger laptop is a joke. On a 13.3" or 14.0" laptop, it's acceptable for entry-level machines or for people whose vision is not as strong. On an 11.6" Windows laptop, it's pretty much perfect. /endofdebate

    Sitting back at a position that allows for ergonomic typing on my 11.6" laptop, looking through a month-old glasses prescription which correct both eyes to 20/20 or better, I really cannot resolve alternating black and white lines, horizontal or vertical, as anything but a gray field. Can I see them if I hunch over the keyboard? Sure. That couple of inches does make a difference. But back straight, shoulders down, elbows at 90", they're not resolvable.

    There are no Windows 7 UI elements that I wish were any smaller than they are. Menu text at default settings is just about the minimum size that I would want. So I don't have to worry about Windows scaling stuff properly, and I can use the computer comfortably.

    And if this were a gaming laptop, the graphics card could take the power it would waste powering 37% more pixels--pixels that aren't going to make a difference to image quality--and apply it to AA or whatever else in order to make the overall image better. You don't have to worry about cramming more powerful graphics circuitry into a small device, and you might actually get some meaningful battery life out of it, even while gaming.
    Reply
  • Insurgence - Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - link

    I found that I prefer higher resolutions to AA as I can get a pretty decent quality improvement with less of a performance hit. Reply
  • jeremyshaw - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Asus ux31 is better, along with Sony vaio sa, and both variants of the vaio Z.

    Though, of the three, only the vaio SA is has a decent gpu (6630m).

    All ~13" laptops, strangely. Though all would be argueably more portable :p

    Strangely, its the least powerful of the three, the ux31, that also uses an ULV chip, vs the dGPU+full power CPUs Sony put into the two vaios.
    Reply
  • bunnyfubbles - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    for gaming 1366x768 is perfectly fine, heck I might even prefer it considering laptop specs

    I have a 1080p screen on my 15.5" Sony VAIO S and there's hardly any games I'd ever consider running at such a resolution, even with the fastest mobile GPUs available to notebooks period, let alone the GPUs that are possible in these non-DTR laptops

    I already crank games down to 1366x768 or 1280x720 with settings cranked down almost all the way, and even tho pixel density is high, the ugly interpolated resolution does not help the fact that I'm already running the game on greatly lowered settings

    granted, for anything other than gaming 1080p is amazing

    but for a gaming oriented laptop I'd much rather the focus be placed on speed than resolution, ie very good pixel response times and very low input lag
    Reply
  • bennyg - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    If I agreed I wouldn't have spent about aud$800 more for a GTX580M in my P150HM over a W150 model with a 540M. Pixellation is very visible at HD/720p res on 15 inch. Aliasing ruins fluidity even at 60hz. Experience what a decent GPU can do, and you will probably not think the same.

    Plus, scaling on a high DPI panel is not such an issue. On my old laptop to run GTA4 acceptably I had to scale to 720p - and could barely see any fuzz.

    There is simply no sane reason to choose a low res panel over a hi res one unless you are buying a fleet of workstations where cost is an issue.
    Reply
  • Freakie - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Thank you, Jarred, for including a more complete list of OEM's selling this Clevo barebone :) Helps spread the information out that people are not limited to only one or two companies! Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    If I missed any others you're aware of, let me know and I can add them to the pile... er... list. Reply
  • Freakie - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Lol, pile indeed, these rebadgers can be numerous at times.

    But um... if you really want then the only other company that I've seen put it out, that you haven't listed, is OriginPC: http://www.originpc.com/eon11-s-gaming-laptop-feat...

    Other than that, it seems like it's mostly the big guys getting it at first. And thanks again for the completeness :) Even without it for this one little thing, you guys are still my favorite PC site! Not that me as one person matters too much but yeah... just wanted to let ya know you guys do a great job!
    Reply
  • Baenwort - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    There is Mythlogic: http://www.mythlogiccorp.com/ they were the first ones to offer Matte screens for this model. They also have accidental warranty coverage, which is unusual for Clevo builders. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Added, thanks! Reply
  • Jigglypuff11 - Monday, May 07, 2012 - link

    In Europe I found www.pwnpcs.co.uk I've emailed the staff there and they've been very helpful so far! Planning to order one with the 3610QM next week! Reply
  • QChronoD - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Even if it was for a day or two, I'd love to see you guys at least test the screens to see if they are any good, or more of the same washed out crap.
    Other than the screen test, a "quick" battery test would be the next best thing, just to see if that 410min is accurate under actual usage.
    Reply
  • QChronoD - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Did a quick configuration on each site and tried to get them as close to the same as possible.
    Ivy Bridge, 8GB ram, W7HP, 750GB Momentus XT, and Intel WiFi/Bluetooth
    (skipped all the stuff like fancy thermal compound and screen calibration, etc)
    Prostar: $1105
    XoticPC: $1105
    Sager: $1139
    Eurocom: $1234
    AVADirect: $1271
    Origin: $1454
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I actually told AVADirect that the one thing I'm most curious about is the two LCD options (matte and glossy). If they're both crappy, I'll be very disappointed, but considering the pricing I'd hope that if nothing else, the matte LCD will be high quality. We'll see what we can do; I believe a Monster 1.0 is already on the way over for review, but I'm not sure what specs are in that unit. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Interestingly, the matte LCD option is now missing from most places. Hmmmm....

    I did my own price checking. i7-3610QM, 750GB Momentus XT, 2x4GB DDR3-1600, WHP7, 3-year warranty (some places provide this standard), and Intel Advanced-N 6230 (similar to your config). I came up with the following, in alphabetical order:

    AVADirect: $1541 ($1330 with 1-year warranty)
    Eurocom: $1530 ($1261 with 1-year)
    Origin: $1723 ($1454 with 1-year; also note that Momentus XT and DDR3-1600 aren't listed at Origin, plus they have a custom colored chassis and i7-3612QM)
    ProStar: $1288 ($1139 with 1-year; no DDR3-1600)
    Sager: $1288 ($1139 with 1-year; add 3-year shipping for $70)
    Xotic: $1488 ($1139 with 1-year)

    So, it seems like prices are still fluctuating, but I'm not sure anyone is actually shipping just yet. All the Sager-branded builds are quite a bit cheaper than the Clevo and custom-branded builds as well; I don't know if that's because Sager warranties are cheaper (maybe not as good either), or if there's some other reason for the discrepancy.

    It would be great if we could actually do a true review of all the companies (e.g. order "anonymously" the same system from all the companies and then test their time to deliver, service, and support); unfortunately, that's pretty much out of scope for what we do -- unless someone wants to spot me about $10K to use for purchases and then we deal with the hassle of returning review samples. (Honestly, though, that sounds like a major chore -- and $10K might not be enough if we have multiple reviewers involved.)
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    And add Mythlogic to the list:

    $1506 ($1356 with 1-year warranty). They still offer the matte LCD as a $100 upgrade, which many others don't list right now.
    Reply
  • skytophall - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    Sales@eurocom told me they have a 14 day money back guarantee. Sager has a 30 day posted on their web site. Reply
  • Jigglypuff11 - Monday, May 07, 2012 - link

    Check out notebook review forums, EuroCom are pretty dodgy! Reply
  • AT0MSK - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Hi! This is my first post but I wanted to add another company and configuration

    I priced this with the specs you posted at MALIBAL

    Malibal: $935
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now