Thinking of ordering an alienware 15

Hi everyone,
1st time posting so hello to all!
I've been thinking of getting a 15 for some time and think I'm going to order one tonight but i have a few questions having done some last minute research on this forum, and to ask some questions to actual users!

Firstly some hardware/software questions:
1. Are there still issues with the laptop selecting the integrated intel graphics rather than the dedicated nvidea? and are there still issues with downloading new nvidea drivers? via geforce experience?
2. Is there any thermal throttling of the gpu/cpu? is the cooling up to the job?

And now a couple of performance ones!
i'm looking at getting the i7 4710HQ, 970M, 1080p screen, 8gb ram, 256gb sad boot & 1TB Hdd.
what sort of performance should i expect playing the following games? i'd like to be playing at high-max settings if possible?
1. Wow - I assume ill get very good fps whilst soloing but what about in raids and highly populated areas?
2. I would like to play battlefield hardline on the laptop but id mainly be playing online, were there can be up to 32 players.. will i be able to run this smoothly?
3. other games like farcry 4, arma, Day z, etc?

Thank you for reading!

 

I'm thinking of buying one myself, but it's a little bit bulky for my liking.
With the 970M you will be able to play all these games smoothly, yes. Arma is a little badly optimized though.

 

they are quite thick but it will mainly be on a desk whilst playing and when i move from place to place it'll be in a rucksack so hopefully it won't be a problem!
thats great to hear! even in online multiplayer? i figured arma3 and day z will be a tad sketchy due to poor optimisation!

 

Also, it depends on your definition of smooth. On ARMA 3 I get around 15-20 FPS on my GTX 560M. So yeah, I think the 970m will do just fine

 

id say for smooth id like to average 30 in demanding games, but id like to get much higher obviously.. as long as things are not stuttering all over the place and the detail settings are high enough to give me pleasing visuals....

 

Thick? In comparison to what?

This isn't an ultrabook with ULV processors and integrated graphics. It also isn't a Aorus or Razer Blade that can cook your breakfast while playing games (not to mention wake up the neighbours).

You want high-end performance that stays cool and quiet? This is the thickness required. The Clevo P650SE is thinner and lighter, but it also is a bit louder and hotter.

I really don't get all this move towards thin and light. You either want a genuine gaming laptop or you want an ultrabook.

 

I don't understand this navigation towards thin and light either. Honestly if people consider something less than like 9 lbs to be heavy, they need to get themselves to a gym to stop being so weak.

 

This wasn't a complaint more an observation, theres no need to jump down peoples throats. id much prefer adequate cooling and slightly increased thickness than poor cooling and a slim design. also I'm aware that these laptops are thinner than aw's previous generation.

 

Fun fact. The original Alienware m15x weighed about 9 lbs with the default battery.
(It's also a laptop I found a bit too big. It's been a while since I owned it, but I don't think I found it too heavy. Maybe a bit.)
I think for 14" gaming laptops and smaller, anything over 6 lbs ( + 0.5 lbs) would considered too heavy. For 15" laptops, 8 to 9 pounds.

 

From my point of view, a "gaming laptop" will be as thick and as heavy as it needs to be to properly cool its components, while maintaining noise at a minimum.

Any time you sacrifice noise and heat to make it thinner/lighter, you fail. You're then trying to make an ultrabook, not a gaming laptop.

 

Well, what if you want both? Then you would pick a compromise, which is why we're getting these thin and light "gaming" laptops. That's good imho, if you can live with the potential noise, why not?

 

Honestly, if a laptop can be thick but light, then it can be a good gaming laptop. I'm sure that is possible, but if it's too thin and too light (like the Blade), then there's a problem.
There should be a balance, not an either or.

 

The supposed excessive heat put out by Systems like the Blade, the Aorus and the P650SE simply has to stop being true at some point. I feel like some people have to keep telling themselves that to justify getting bigger machines. The new AWs have no reason for being as thick as they are. They do not have exceptional cooling and neither are they as modular as they used to be. The Aorus and the Blade have GPU temps below the 80s and even with an overlock the highest temperature I have reached is 82. The P650SE does not even break 70 while gaming. Even the bigger AW 17 is within 10 degrees of those temperature. Haswell CPUs run hot everywhere and Maxwell GPUs stay incredibly cool. I will admit that the Razer Blade can get quite loud but it's nothing headphones can't fix. You do NOT need thick machines for high performance anymore.
As for weight 9 pounds isn't too bad but 9 pounds + a 2 pound tablet + giant calc and physics books + power brick add up.

 

Almost all thin and light "gaming" laptops are, as @Mr. Fox would call them, "thermal abortions". They simply cannot adequately cool their internal components, and usually end up throttling them to prevent them from over-heating. There are exceptions, of course.

When part of your thermal solution involves throttling components to prevent them from shutting down due to having breached their operating parameters, I think its safe to say the machine in question is a failure.

Hopefully progress will be made in the future in terms of laptop cooling, and we can get thin machines with top-end components that don't throttle. I'm not stupid - given the choice between two machines that perform exactly the same (including heat and noise), I'll take the thinner and lighter one. Hey, perhaps the new ASUS G501 will make radical breakthroughs due to new cooling technology.

 

It is still true. Surface and component temps are still quite hot. People don't tell themselves these things to justify purchasing larger machines - the reviewers are more than happy to tell them.

Surface temps above 50C, GPU temps hovering around 80C.

These temps are high. It isn't some lie people tell themselves. Those are actual temps.

They're getting better mind you, and kudos to Razer for trying. But the ASUS G751JY has a max keyboard temp of 34C, and the GPU barely touches 70C during most gaming sessions. And that GPU is a 980M, not a 970M.

Yes and no. They're MUCH quieter than your Razer Blade. They're also much cooler. That being said, there is wasted potential there. They could have added more expansion options and an optical drive without really sacrificing much noise or cooling.

Somewhat true. There are a select few thin machines that manage to almost match beefier laptops in terms of raw performance. And, as an added benefit, they will also cook your breakfast and make enough noise that you won't hear your annoying neighbours yelling at each other.

I guess different people have different standards/expectations. When I think "high performance", I factor in things such as noise and heat. But to each his own.

That being said, the Razer Blade is a sexy-looking device.

 

Yes, I do hope it does. My old Asus runs quite cool and quiet even under heavy load, so if anyone is going to make it, it's them!

 

I've been there and done that with my G73SW plus my textbooks, honestly I don't find it to be as bad as people make it. Maybe if you have to walk for an hour or two but if you have to walk around campus or whatever it's not a big deal IMO.

But I guess if people want to game on a thin light overheating laptop, it's their perogative, not mine.

 

I'm all about choice, so it's good to have companies like Razer sacrificing noise and heat to achieve a thinner and lighter frame. But I place these "gaming laptops" in a category of their own. It's ridiculous to compare a Razer Blade to a ROG G751JY. Beyond size, one is whisper quiet and cool to the touch under full load. The other, well...

 

I'd like to see more innovation besides forcing smaller laptops on everyone. Apple started this whole "thin is great" and made everything smaller. So much is sacrificed by smaller thinner designs. It disappoints me because I feel it's limiting the hardware we have from developing to become even better because they focus on making it smaller rather than more powerful IMO.

 

Well, maybe the focus on thinner and lighter will force someone to come up with a better/newer thermal solution.

Chicken and egg?

 

Well, let's provide some data on the noise. This might be a long post. Data is from notebookcheck and only from 14" and 15.6" laptops with 970m or 980m. These are also laptops that have a chassis temperature somewhere on/below the laptop > 50 C.
Noise Level of Gigabyte P35X v3 (0.83 inches thick)
Idle 29.4 / 30.9 / 36 dB(A)
HDD 32.2 dB(A)
DVD 38.7 dB(A)
Load 54.3 / 54.6 dB(A)

Noise Level of Clevo P651SG (1.14 inches thick)
Idle 30.4 / 33.6 / 36.6 dB(A)
HDD 34.8 dB(A)
Load 43.4 / 47.8 dB(A)

Noise Level of Blade 2015 (0.7 inches thick)
Idle 29.7 / 29.9 / 30 dB(A)
Load 42.1 / 59 dB(A)

Noise Level of AW15 (1.34 inches thick)
Idle 29.4 / 30.7 / 34 dB(A)
HDD 30.9 dB(A)
Load 46.2 / 53 dB(A)

Noise Level of MSI GS60 (0.79" thick)
Idle 32.6 / 34.8 / 38 dB(A)
HDD 34.6 dB(A)
Load 43.4 / 52 dB(A)

Noise Level of Clevo P651SE (0.98" thick)
Idle 30.2 / 34.4 / 38.2 dB(A)
HDD 33.6 dB(A)
Load 46.6 / 50.6 dB(A)

Conclusion? Well the P651SG was the quietest, the only one that did not penetrate the 50dB line, had a 980m, and was not the thickest. Obviously, for all of these laptops, the CPU during notebookcheck's stress test hit 90 C (I glimpsed over the stress test, and the AW15, of course with its thickness, only had 1 core hit 90 C. The rest were below 90). The Blade, of course, was the loudest by a good margin of 4.4 dB above the P35x.
In idle, the Blade was quiet (and when looking at its surface temps at idle, they were pretty good), but the GS60 and P651SE were not. Lesser extent to the P35x and P651SG.
What was bad, though, was the surface temps at load, especially for the GS60 and P651SE. However, the P35x had its high temps concentrated on the top-middle to middle-middle of the keyboard and did not reach 50 C on the keyboard. The AW15 and Blade has its temps scattered through the surface, with an area going above 50 C, so that's a no-no.
Honestly, if these companies can just use some high-profile thermal paste, then there I would think the noise level would be lower (an the temps as well, and then we wouldn't be debating about the whole temperature issue at all).
*Might be updating during your posts because I forgot to proofread. Oops.*

 

Surface Temps at 50 around the power button, an area that you never touch. The palm rest and keys remain cool (low to mid 30s http://www.anandtech.com/show/8971/the-2015-razer-blade-review/6) . You also need to keep screen size in mind. 900p at 14" will likely look as good as 1080p at 15.6". This makes the 970M vs 980M irrelevant. But even the P650SG cools just as well as the AW 17 while being smaller. The only AW 17 2015 review I've been able to find is this one : http://www.trustedreviews.com/alien...mance-heat-noise-and-page-2#tr-review-summary . Temps for CPU and GPU are 79 and 82 respectively. That's not that much cooler than the Blade. I'll give you noise. It's a compromise people have to make, just like you sacrifice battery life and portability with bigger machines. Besides this review ( http://www.notebookcheck.net/Alienware-15-Notebook-Review.136667.0.html )shows the load noise of the AW15 to be 53 db. Anadtech says that the Blade gets to 55 db so it is definitely not much quieter. You are gravely exaggerating when using terms such as "cooking your breakfast" or "you won't hear your neighbours yelling at each other". If I can cook breakfast on the blade, you can at least use your Alienware to keep it hot and if I can't hear my fighting neighbours, neither can you.

 

Lol I guess you're that much stronger than the rest of us. My books are heavy and barely fit in my backpack anyway. And "thin light overheating laptop" ? really?

 

I guess, but right now I have no problems with the size of modern laptops, I'd love to see more power in them though for the size they are, rather than scale down things slightly smaller each year.

I guess so? I don't really think it's that heavy, but I'm not really a small guy I guess.

 

That isn't the Alienware 17 R2 review - that's the AW17 R1 with the GTX 880M. That card did indeed run hot and loud, much like the version of the AW17 with the R9 M290x. That being said, the surface temps of the AW17 with those cards still remained quite cool to the touch overall.

Here's my review of the AW17 R2: http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/alienware-17-r2-quick-review.771355/

Here's my take of the Clevo P650SE: http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/quick-review-eurocom-m5-pro-clevo-p650se.769973/

You can find temps for the new machines on there.

And I think you're confusing component temps with surface temps. While the Razer Blade's internal component temps aren't much worse than the AW17 R1 running a GTX 880M (a card known to be ridiculously hot and loud), the surface temps are a whole other story. When I say such cheeky things as "cooking your breakfast", I'm referring to the surface temps.

Keep in mind, my AW17 R1 w/GTX 980M had a max surface temp of 34C, GPU of 70C or so and CPU around the low 70C. Also was very quiet while under load.

And I agree the Clevo P650SE is a pretty impressive machine overall, and I've ordered another one for funsies. Alienware could learn a thing or two from it.

 

Oh I apologize, I read wrong. Those temps are still very similar to the Blade, within 5-10 degrees. As for the surface temps, I reiterate what I said earlier, it is cool where you touch it and that is what matters.

 

I have this : http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-Notebook-Polyester-Backpack-Black/dp/B001586UI2. If I put an AW15 in there, I wouldn't be able to fit anything else. I'm only 5'10 too so that may be a factor.

 

I also believe I had a bad CPU with that machine. Many others with the AW17 R2 reported max temps under XTU of at most low-80s, while I hit a high of 93C at one point. Hence why I've also ordered another AW17 R2 - I want to see if it was a bad chip, or just a failure on Alienware's part.

I guess "cool" is a matter of personal perspective. For me, anything above 34C is hot. Machines like the Clevo P650SE have keyboard temps of low to mid 40C. Comes down to personal tolerance. And in terms of longevity, I don't know if I'd agree that it's ok as long as where you put your hands doesn't get too hot. Heat is the enemy of machines such as these, especially the plastic components.

Also, don't forget that cost is a factor in comparison.

 

That makes sense. I'm 5'11", 185 lbs, but I do lift weights and I used to kickbox and grapple until the MMA gym here shut down earlier this month, so maybe I am stronger since I'm more active I guess

Good point though on backpack size. I have a large backpack that could fit an Alienware 17R2 and a textbook, PSU and a binder. Tight fit but it worked.

Yea, I don't think I ever saw anything over 83 or so with my CPU in my R2 when I had it while benchmarking. Hope the new machine you get is a good one.

 

I am not, that's why I linked the Anandtech review.

I have never found my palmrest or keyboard to be too hot but I agree that it is subjective. Unfortunately we can't judge longevity now, that's what warranties are for.

 

Cost is where it starts to get even more subjective. What do you value more? battery life, high res screen and ultimate portability or just power?

I only weigh 140 and I don't lift at the gym, just dumbell exercises and sports like soccer etc so I am probably weaker than an MMA/wrestler/kickboxer lol.

 

Parts of the keyboard hit close to 50C according to my interpretation of that heat chart, thought it appears the WASD area is indeed tolerable.

It's good Razer moved the hot components to somewhere where it wouldn't be too troublesome (unlike the Lenovo Y50, where they placed the CPU directly under the WASD area). My opinion is that it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter where the components are placed (much like the G751 or AW17 R1), since no noticeable surface heat should be detected anywhere.

This is turning into one of those endless, circular debates. You say "I don't mind surface heat as long as the WASD area remains relatively cool".

I'm saying "any time the keyboard has areas reaching 50C or more is a sign of a design flaw - that's just too hot, and no properly designed laptop should have surface temps that high".

Subjective to a certain point. Given how absurdly expensive the Razer Blade is considering its specs, it means you place a massive premium on portability. Which, I admit, is entirely a matter of personal preference.

 

Double post.

 

Point taken about weight since you're a lot lighter than I am so it does make a difference to you.

I'm curious what the temp is for the AW17R2's keyboard. I do agree on 50C being way too hot.
I was a bit surprised on the price of the razer blade here...it's a lot more expensive just for the portability. Maybe if it came down they'd have more adopters but who knows. Hopefully I'm happy with my 17R2 this time around and won't have sell it and explore other options.

 

The only reason I sold my last AW17 R2 was because of keyboard temps - they just got too hot under load. I personally don't tolerate surface heat on my machines, as stated numerous times above.

If this next unit has surface temps comparable to the R1, I'll probably keep it. Otherwise, I'll probably keep the Eurocom M5. Unless that has surface temps issues too, in which case I'll just buy another R1.

 

You're right the temp argument is becoming pointless. As for cost, absurdly expensive? AW 17 with 1080p touch, 16 GB or RAM, 980M and 256 SSD + 1 TB 5400 RPM is 2500. Blade with 1800p touch, 16 GB RAM, 970M and 256 SSD is 2400. The Blade is half the size of the 17, has a higher res display and a 256 SSD, a slightly faster processor and full metal body. The AW 17 has superior cooling, a 980M that would be equivalent to the Razer blade at a similar PPI and a 1 TB 5400 RPM HDD and more ports. It is expensive, but certainly not absurdly expensive, especially when compared to the AW 17.

 

Why are you putting a 980M in the AW17? Comparing specs for specs (those that can be matched, anyway) means putting a 970M in there. Which comes out to around $2050. This is ignoring the fact Dell pretty much always has a 10% - 20% coupon out there, meaning you can easily get that system for $1700 or so at pretty much anytime. Though I agree the display panel is hard to value, since Dell doesn't offer a comparable option. Putting a 980M in there would completely obliterate your argument - you then have a cheaper machine that is 20%-30% more powerful, and even then only if you downscale your resolution on the Blade when gaming. A 970M running a QFHD display vs a 980M running a 1080p? Especially a 980M machine that is several hundred dollars cheaper (most of the time)?

I'm also not only comparing the price of the Blade vs the AW17, but vs anything else out there. The Clevo P650SE configured with similar specs to the Blade comes out to around $1700 (including a QFHD display).

Viewed in this light, I stand by my statement the Blade commands a very high premium for the portability it offers vs the AW17, and for...whatever it is it offers vs a Clevo P650SE with virtually identical specs (build quality and slightly thinner/lighter?).

 

If we can back up and view the box from the outside for a moment, maybe we can ask ourselves that, "Why are we comparing a 14" laptop to a 17" laptop?" Wouldn't it be better to compare the prices of the Blade, AW15, and whatever 14"/15" gaming laptop out there? Wouldn't it be a given that the Blade has more of a premium compared to the AW17 R2 because its smaller in the gaming laptop realm?

 

Yes, was just thinking this. Hence why the Clevo P650SE is probably more appropriate.

In that light, as I mentioned, the Clevo with the exact same configuration is around $1700.

Put in a 980M, and it is still around $2100 for roughly the same specs (this is then the Clevo P650SG).

Though that's where the quality argument comes into play, and how much you're willing to pay for it. And given I'm a fan of past Alienware machines and their superior quality/warranty compared to other machines, I'm inclined to allocate a few hundred dollars to a more premium and higher-quality machine (in this case the Razer Blade). I just don't know if I'd give that quality $700.

 

Plus the great thing is at least with Alienware you can at least haggle with the price. I mean I got the laptop I'm waiting on now for a fair lot less than the price of a Razer Blade.

 

I'm putting a 980M because that's when performance is comparable. Resolution means nothing. What matters is PPI. 1080p at 17 inches does not look as good as 1080p at 14 inches. It's a fact that you have to take into account. Then we go into the whole 970M can't game at 3K. You can change the resolution for a reason. No one buys a 3K panel to mainly game on it. It has other non gaming advantages. I am comparing the 17 to the RB because that's what we've been talking about all this time. A P650SE is a whole other argument. And please let's not put coupons into this, they're not always there. We're comparing base prices and haggling does not always work.

 

Haggling with Alienware always works to some extent at least in North America. You can get usually 5% easily at LEAST.

 

I'm really not getting your argument for putting a 980M in the AW17. Nobody will compensate for anything - you match specs for specs, as close as you can (which is easy, for the most part). When we get to the display, you can't exactly match it, since Dell doesn't offer anything above a 1080p display. When comparing machines, you compare them as is - you don't start doing what-ifs and performance per PPI. You spec them the same, run some benchmarks, and compare. If one company is at a disadvantage due to the components they chose to put in, that's their problem, and they have to live with it. Benchmarks and performance are absolute numbers - nobody talks about "FPS per PPI" or "3DMARK11 per PPI". Your machine either performs better or worse.

And I don't know why you'd want to put a 980M in the AW17, because then the performance of the AW17 would completely destroy your Razer Blade. At which point your argument falls apart. With a 970M, the AW performs the same in benchmarks but is cheaper. With a 980M it is about the same price but performs better.

I don't know, maybe it's because it's late and I'm tired, but your rationale for putting a 980M in the AW17 to somehow compensate for the Blades higher-resolution just doesn't make sense to me, especially since it works against you. Maybe somebody else can explain it to me.

And why not talk about the Clevo P650SE? I never directly tied the statement of pricing to the AW17 - it was a general statement (the Blade is absurdly expensive given its specs).

 

I'll try to put this as simply as I can. Firstly, Benchmarking does not mean better machine because you can't benchmark portability, you can't benchmark build quality and you can't benchmark screen resolution. Secondly " performance per PPI'" as you put it is simple logic, the blade is a smaller machine with a smaller screen therefore you can afford to lower the resolution further than with the AW 17 and still keep the same image quality. The benchmark may give different results but the gaming experience is identical. Maybe you buy gaming laptops to benchmark but I buy them to game. 900p on a Razer Blade = 1080p on AW17 in terms of gaming experience. You can't ignore the cost that went into making the blade this powerful into such a small form factor and you certainly cannot benchmark that factor either. Let's talk about the P650SE, for a similar configuration to the blade it comes down to $1800. It is much inferior in terms of build quality, has less battery life and is not as portable as the blade. It i certainly better value for your money than the Blade and is $600 cheaper. It comes down to how much you value the aforementioned factors.I had the P650SE and ended up returning it because I valued those factors. It is however still a great machine.

Well the Blade has quite a few sales for "insiders" such as the appreciation sale. Razor also has a 5% discount for students while Microsoft has a 10% discount for students on the Blade so there is ways to get it for cheaper.

This is again an argument that will not end so I will leave it now. You can buy what you want but people have different needs that make them buy different things. If you think the Blade is overpriced, you will not buy it. I will. Just like you bought the AW 17 and I would not. Also people that buy the P650SE will think that the AW is overpriced. You know why you bought your machine so enjoy it.

 

Yeah but to haggle with Dell, you don't have to be an insider, you just have to talk to sales. If we want to talk about "insider" benefits then we can include dell's program that gives you the cashback giftcard...but that's open to anyone too, but I don't necessarily count it.

 

I haggled with Dell UK and I got 11% off in the end so it is worth having a Haggle.

To be honest its a non upgradable laptop get as much as you can afford! I have a 1080p 15" with a 980m. Why? cos actually I don't see the point of 4k unless your a photo editor in a laptop.

I don't want to scale everything and 15" at 1080p looks fine to me plus I can game at native resolution which always helps as your only generating what you need over what you don't need.
4k is still generating that many pixels even if you set the resolution at 1080p

 

Yeah, bought and sold that machine. Like plenty of other machines I've had. This isn't about trying to "justify" any purchase I've made, as I'll get rid of a machine on a moment's notice. I have no inherent need to justify anything, as I am not attached to any of these.

And I'm done here. Trying to relate performance/PPI is just silly. Nobody does it, and for a reason. Performance is an absolute number. EVERYBODY compares benchmarks/gaming performance at the same resolution. You don't "lower the resolution" on a machine to 900p because "it's the same PPI as the other machine". Send an email to one of the review sites and suggest they start ranking machines and adjusting the resolution they compare them at to take into account PPI. They'll laugh at you.

Pretty sure I'm not the only one scratching my head at this weird attempt of yours to bring PPI into a performance comparison.

Hey, while we're at it, let's also start adjusting this comparison in terms of performance/surface temps. Or how about performance/component temp.

Maybe even performance/dBA of system emission noise? Those all make about as much sense as your PPI angle.

You know what, I like that. We'll downclock the CPU/GPU on the Blade til its component temps, surface temps and emission/system noise match that of the AW17, then see what its performance is like in benchmarks and games. I think that's an entirely logical course of action.

Peace out.

 

I went 4K as am expecting the quality of the panel to be better than that of the 1080p panel. Cant tell for sure as never will be able to compare the two. Also I am one of the few people that likes touchscreen, which to me is just another form of input device.

 

Alienware made a mistake by jumping the gun and switching things up too soon. They wanted to get the Graphics Amplifier out there in order to dominate that market for a while, at the cost of the rest of their lineup, which is idiocy. With Skylake and Pascal around the corner, heat will be a thing of the past.

Shrink (components) = less heat = more power.

Imagine if Alienware waited, and only introduced the Alienware 13 with the Graphics Amplifier (replacing the 14) "filling the gap" with the Amplifier until 2016. They would have still accomplished dominating the eGPU market (for the time being), and also kept their current customers happy while slowly transitioning into the hell they call "padding the bottom line." And to make things even brighter, waiting would have also kept support for MORE THAN A YEAR for previous products. (Not providing support is just absurd.) Now, let's assume they did wait and now finally toss the 17 R1/R2 and 18 R1/R2 and present the 15 R1 and 17 R 3 (it would have to be R3 because they waited), except now they have Skylake and Pascal - cooler, more powerful, and ultimately better. Waiting would have also allowed them to better prepare the BIOS and stuff for the new systems. Seems like strategically waiting is a win-win for them.

Want to write more but I'm tired. My point is: Yes, they're hotter than they need be because they rushed into the eGPU market. Alienware is investing too much in the eGPU market at the sacrifice of their other products.

 

Eh I don't think we'll be seeing skylake until the end of the year to be honest, which is right around time for Alienware to refresh their lineup.

As for the whole less heat thing, it's slightly misleading. The processors will still generate similar amounts of heat, just with a lot more power. But to be brutally honest? I'm really not expecting some giant performance gain. Intel no longer gives a **** about the high end market. I mean when they had competition we saw huge leaps and gains in terms of their CPU performance, but now its like HAI GUIZE LOOK AT THIS 2% PERFORMANCE INCREASE, GUIZE ITS SO GOOD. Intel nowadays cares far more about the low/mid end where they have competition from ARM and AMD.

I really really hope the rumors about Samsung purchasing AMD end up being true. AMD is in desperate need for cash, and Samsung is probably one of the few companies in the world who has the resources and knowledge to compete with Intel. If AMD dies out, then we have a sad future ahead.