Eurocom D90xC Phantom-X User Review

wrong!5k desktop(even from "brand") would totally destroy this laptop.with 5k you can get

fastest i7 CPU,2x 295,12gb of ram,3x raptor HDD,pair of 30" monitors etc.

 

Thank you all for your comments and feedback

I do have very detailed benchmarks - both synthetic and real world results with games at different resolutions - and I submitted these to NotebookReview.com as part of my review.

I also submitted some pictures which illustrate how easy it is to upgrade the components of the machine.

Unfortunately these have not been published as part of the review. Without the detailed benchmarks the review is "shallow" - I painstakingly collected them across different games.

It's also funny to have pictures of a Sager unit published for this Eurocom review

Dear editor - if you're reading this, can you please take the remaining materials live and publish the pictures I submitted? Thank you...

And once again, thank you very much all readers, I hope you have enjoyed the review.

 

Have you read the Clevo Guide?

those pics are of the same notebook... Clevo D901C.

stickers mean nothing.

 

Here's the recent email exchange between myself and the new editor in chief of notebookreview.com. I had emailed the editor inquiring as to why my detailed benchmarks were edited out of the review, and why the wrong brand was associated with the unit. Yes, the brand is important - Eurocom people have great service, I cannot say the same for Sager folks.

I provide both the editor's reply and my follow-up to that verbatim below. I leave it to notebookreview.com's readership to make whatever they like of this information.

Sinan,

We appreciate your feedback regarding the Eurocom Phantom-X. As you wisely determined, any review published on our homepage must be "accessible" to a broad audience of site visitors who have limited technical knowledge. In fact, as of this morning, the overwhelming majority of people who read the Eurocom review didn't come from our forums but were just visitor's to the homepage ... and the overwhelming majority of those visitors didn't go into the forums to discuss the review (as most homepage visitors don't).

We always welcome our forum members to post detailed benchmarks and photos in the forums, and I welcome you to post whatever relevant benchmarks or photos you'd like in the discussion thread for the Eurocom Phantom-X. As you stated, our forum members who have a strong technical knowledge will certainly appreciate detailed benchmarks in the forums.

We added a few photos of the Eurocom-branded Sager to the review this morning on the off change that anyone had trouble understanding that the Eurocom Phantom-X is a re-branded Sager.

Thank you,

Jerry Jackson
Site Editor in Chief
NotebookReview.com

Hi Jerry,

Thank you very much for your reply.

You fail to address, however, why none of the benchmarks I provided
have been published. Your site does not have a policy of omitting such
benchmarks, in fact, in every detail review I have seen on your
website, you always have had a link to a detailed benchmark page. Such
is also the case with the OCZ Whitebook review that you published
right after mine. You have always encouraged such detailed benchmarks.

As such, I cannot think of any editorial reason which would require
the exclusion of these painstakingly compiled benchmarks from my
review. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me. At best, this is
disrespect for my time, as I made it clear well in advance of the
review that I would be providing these real world gaming benchmarks.

Of course, as the new owner of this site, you are under no obligation
to publish these benchmarks, or even any review. However this says a
lot about the new direction notebookreview.com is taking under its new
owners, which is most unfortunate. I have enjoyed visiting this site
and contributing to it whenever I've had the chance, but it looks like
the site is well on its way to becoming a sponsor's mouthpiece. I
think this would only hurt the site in the long run - consumers aren't
stupid.

And as I'm sure you are well aware, the Sager itself is a re-branded
Clevo. So I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence either.

Good luck to you at your new site,
Sinan

 

Jerry doesn't own this site NBR belongs to TechTarget AFAIK,so...

 

Im thinking that the benchmarks that you did were to detailed to stick in the Review... Which is why they were not included with it.

 

Either way, they could have linked the benchmarks to a different page as they have done in the past instead of skipping them out all together. That way, the people who wants to read them can click on the link.

 

Since Sinan clearly would rather complain about the fact that we didn't publish the benchmarks rather than post them in the forums as I welcomed him to do, below is the complete list of benchmarks he provided. The editorial team here at NotebookReview.com recognizes the value and benefit of benchmarks, but ultimately we have to make some decisions about what we do or do not publish on the homepage. Benchmarks will ALWAYS be an important part of the content on NBR, but benchmarks alone are not the defining element that makes this site a valuable resource for visitors.

Of course, we don't expect everyone who visits NotebookReview.com to agree with every editorial decision we make, but that's the nature of life ... you can't please all the people all the time.

That said, here are those benchmarks:

Synthetic Benchmarks:
=====================

Graphics Subsystem:
-------------------

15569 3DMarks06: With SLI
11742 3DMarks06: NO SLI

Processing Subsystem:
---------------------

SuperPI: 37 sec (2M)
wPrime: 15.86 sec (32M)

Cinebench R10: 3289 CB-CPU (1 processor)
Cinebench R10: 11669 CB-CPU (4 processors) 3.55x multi-core speed up factor

Storage Subsystem:
------------------

HDTach: Graphic attached
HDTune: Graphic attached

Overall Performance:
--------------------

11823 PCMarks05: With SLI


Real World Gaming Benchmarks:
=============================

Crysis GPU Benchmark 2560x1600:
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 2560x1600, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality:
Custom Quality Values:
VolumetricEffects=
Texture=
ObjectDetail=
Sound=
Shadows=
Water=
Physics=
Particles=
Shading=
PostProcessing=
GameEffects=
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 164.80s, Average FPS: 12.14
Min FPS: 7.68 at frame 144, Max FPS: 13.81 at frame 997
Average Tri/Sec: -4775646, Tri/Frame: -393521
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.33
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 161.78s, Average FPS: 12.36
Min FPS: 7.68 at frame 144, Max FPS: 13.95 at frame 991
Average Tri/Sec: -4770369, Tri/Frame: -385868
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.38
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 170.07s, Average FPS: 11.76
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 13.66 at frame 980
Average Tri/Sec: -1657445, Tri/Frame: -140937
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.50
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 144.57s, Average FPS: 13.83
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 17.75 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -1861860, Tri/Frame: -134587
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.81
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 134.77s, Average FPS: 14.84
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 17.75 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -2000483, Tri/Frame: -134805
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.80
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 132.94s, Average FPS: 15.04
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 17.75 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -2042746, Tri/Frame: -135778
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.75
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Crysis CPU Benchmark 1:
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 204.03s, Average FPS: 7.35
Min FPS: 3.72 at frame 1453, Max FPS: 9.48 at frame 91
Average Tri/Sec: -7430165, Tri/Frame: -1010651
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.71
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 136.81s, Average FPS: 10.96
Min FPS: 6.44 at frame 1087, Max FPS: 17.69 at frame 98
Average Tri/Sec: -11037570, Tri/Frame: -1006704
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.71
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 128.65s, Average FPS: 11.66
Min FPS: 6.44 at frame 1087, Max FPS: 18.09 at frame 91
Average Tri/Sec: -11642700, Tri/Frame: -998541
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.72
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 127.83s, Average FPS: 11.73
Min FPS: 6.18 at frame 1455, Max FPS: 18.24 at frame 106
Average Tri/Sec: -11602048, Tri/Frame: -988730
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.73
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 128.55s, Average FPS: 11.67
Min FPS: 6.18 at frame 1455, Max FPS: 18.24 at frame 106
Average Tri/Sec: -11664636, Tri/Frame: -999658
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.72
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Crysis CPU Benchmark 2:
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 127.52s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 195.30s, Average FPS: 7.68
Min FPS: 4.29 at frame 645, Max FPS: 11.29 at frame 102
Average Tri/Sec: 722897, Tri/Frame: 94118
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -8.88
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 127.52s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 184.94s, Average FPS: 8.11
Min FPS: 3.19 at frame 469, Max FPS: 11.11 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: 698468, Tri/Frame: 86114
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -9.70
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 161.61s, Average FPS: 9.28
Min FPS: 3.19 at frame 469, Max FPS: 11.97 at frame 1370
Average Tri/Sec: 593241, Tri/Frame: 63917
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -13.07
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 163.01s, Average FPS: 9.20
Min FPS: 3.19 at frame 469, Max FPS: 11.97 at frame 1370
Average Tri/Sec: 597866, Tri/Frame: 64971
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -12.86
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 162.18s, Average FPS: 9.25
Min FPS: 3.19 at frame 469, Max FPS: 12.23 at frame 1354
Average Tri/Sec: 604766, Tri/Frame: 65386
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -12.78
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Crysis GPU Benchmark 1920x1200:
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1920x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality:
Custom Quality Values:
VolumetricEffects=
Texture=
ObjectDetail=
Sound=
Shadows=
Water=
Physics=
Particles=
Shading=
PostProcessing=
GameEffects=
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 164.80s, Average FPS: 12.14
Min FPS: 7.68 at frame 144, Max FPS: 13.81 at frame 997
Average Tri/Sec: -4775646, Tri/Frame: -393521
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.33
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 161.78s, Average FPS: 12.36
Min FPS: 7.68 at frame 144, Max FPS: 13.95 at frame 991
Average Tri/Sec: -4770369, Tri/Frame: -385868
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.38
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 170.07s, Average FPS: 11.76
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 13.66 at frame 980
Average Tri/Sec: -1657445, Tri/Frame: -140937
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.50
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 144.57s, Average FPS: 13.83
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 17.75 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -1861860, Tri/Frame: -134587
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.81
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 134.77s, Average FPS: 14.84
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 17.75 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -2000483, Tri/Frame: -134805
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.80
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 132.94s, Average FPS: 15.04
Min FPS: 6.49 at frame 143, Max FPS: 17.75 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -2042746, Tri/Frame: -135778
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -6.75
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 89.90s, Average FPS: 22.25
Min FPS: 12.77 at frame 151, Max FPS: 26.50 at frame 976
Average Tri/Sec: -6741999, Tri/Frame: -303066
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.02
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 83.97s, Average FPS: 23.82
Min FPS: 12.77 at frame 151, Max FPS: 27.48 at frame 967
Average Tri/Sec: -7015494, Tri/Frame: -294540
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.11
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 83.74s, Average FPS: 23.88
Min FPS: 12.77 at frame 151, Max FPS: 27.65 at frame 982
Average Tri/Sec: -7054658, Tri/Frame: -295375
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.10
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 83.86s, Average FPS: 23.85
Min FPS: 12.77 at frame 151, Max FPS: 28.25 at frame 1004
Average Tri/Sec: -7061487, Tri/Frame: -296084
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.10
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Crysis with FRAPS:

2560x1600:
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
662 60000 7 14 11.033

1920x1200:
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
1433 60000 18 28 23.883

Far Cry 2 with FRAPS:

2560x1600:
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
2349 60000 27 71 39.15

Call of Duty 4 with FRAPS:

2560x1600:
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
4404 60000 56 101 73.4

World in Conflict with Built-In Benchmarking Tool:

2560x1600:
Avg: 33 Min: 14 Max: 78

Lost Planet with FRAPS:
2560x1600:
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
1964 60000 18 38 32.733

Grand Theft Auto IV:

2560x1600:
Built-in benchmark: 16.68 FPS avg
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
911 60000 12 20 15.183

1920x1200:
Built-in benchmark: 25.92 FPS avg
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
1281 60000 17 26 21.35

 

12,000 bucks huh....
that's not a bad price for a portable file server computer.. but very bad for a laptop/desktop replacement computer for the better than average high end user. so...put normal 7200 rpm drives in and it becomes the better than average end user laptop at around 5k.


so can we check out these benchmarks that notebookreview removed from the review?

edit: ok, nevermind nothing personal, but i wouldn't have posted them benchmarks either!

7 to 14 fps who the hell is going to sit for that?????
23 frames in crysis with an sli rig????????????????? hell to the no!..lol
dx9???? where are the dx10 test???

man, take them benchmarks down jerry. or do i have to post my own to make sure folks under stand that this laptop is far better than them numbers posted.

let me explain a little better..for the 2 people who actually have that high of a res screen, might be cool for them, but most aren't carrying around 30 inch monitors around with them.
nee more 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 res test. since this is 100 percent of the high end laptop community. last time i checked there was no 2560x1600 laptops sitting around? nice to see some benchies of this, don't get me wrong...but should have had more focus on what the majority are running.... great to know it can show on a 2560x1200 screen.

still, a great review non the less..

 

Those benchmarks are quite 'odd'.
Mimarsinan, are you planning on doing some further 1920*1200 runs?
Those would give NBR members really something to compare with.
Thanks for the review btw.
It's a beast, waaaaay too pricey imo but still, a beast.
It was weird seeing pictures from a Sager rebranded Clevo though.
Curious if pictures of a XXOD would ever be posted in a Sager review.

 

wow, never seen this much whining over benchmarks

 

whining? isn't that why you purchased a q9300 instead of staying with your original processor?

too funny.

 

lol, where did that come from?

No, I got the QX9300 because it was going for $550. Wanted to get 2 SSDs in RAID with Windows 7 beta, but couldn't pass up a great deal.

Anyways, back on topic: There was a complaint about not posting benchmarks pertaining to this notebook, and when the benchmarks come, more complaints? From running DX9 to running 1600p...I mean, what's the big deal about running benchmarks at 2560x1600? After all, it IS a DTR (and the most powerful one at that) and a good number of DTRs are hooked up to an external monitor.

 

thought you we're saying we we're complaining about something.

think your a bit mistaken. the op complained about it not being posted. we just asked. and if your going to post benchmarks. post ones that 95 percent of the world can relate to, not 2 percent. just not realistic. sorry.

a dual 9800m gtx... you spend 1100 on video cards to play at dx9 levels??( the key is to play maxed out on your laptops config)and most people do not own a 2560x1600p screen and this laptop. that's a pretty broad statement you made there buddy... and the part about where they say (notebookreview) people look and keep going and don't post in this thread should have been pretty clear. meaning, it was not useful to them since most people aren't spending 12,000 dollars on a laptop.

do you own a 2560x1200p screen? you have a desktop replacement. would you be interested in your whitebook doing 4 fps a second at 2560x1200p?? seriously?

now i do remember you saying the whitebook was more powerful a while back...*LOL*

and i gave him his props for running them at that high of res, but like i mentioned before..just not enough people doing that at this time...it's nothing personal, just a reality of sorts.

 

Aside from the fact that there's no significant visual difference between Crysis DX9 and DX10, Anyone see the contradiction there? You talk about buying the GPUs to max out your laptop, yet you complain about 2560x1600, when that is in fact being maxxed out. I mean, ok, fine. If you don't like 2560x1600, why not run every benchmark at 1920x1200 with 8xAA and 16xAF.

To your other points:

95% of people can't relate to having a notebook with dual 9800M GTXs and a desktop processor. Your point?

Yes, I'll probably be interested to see what a Whitebook can do at 2560x1600

Show me where I said that the Whitebook was "more powerful."

I'll end this friendly debate here before things get more heated.

 

not heated

debate on my brother.
again, after you see 12,000k for a laptop..most people keep moving or read to see this thing doing 200 fps at 2650x1200 not 7fps.

 

actually the jump from 2560 from 1920 is huge. 2560 drops frame rates like your parents dropped you on your head