Sager NP8651 / Clevo P650SE with GTX 970m First Look

Right, as simple as that. You should *technically* disconnect the battery, but I've replaced dozens if not hundreds of SSD's, HDD's, mSATA's, and even a few M.2's without doing so and nary an issue.

 

Not sure how are prices in US, but here in Europe Clevo isn't really that much cheaper. I was only able to find very similar priced or marginally cheaper P650SE compared to MSI GS60.

In my country there is only a single MSI GS60 model available so far, with 3K screen, 8 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD, 1 TB HDD, Windows 8.1 included, 2 years warranty, starting from ~1,606 EUR (VAT included).

Now for Clevo P650SE with the same/similar specs, I'm able to find in EU these prices (all are VAT included):

PC Specialist: 1,624 EUR with 3K screen, with slower HDD and worse warranty (or 1,705 EUR with slightly better warranty)
Schenker: 1,859 EUR with 4K screen (no 3K offered) or 1,599 EUR with IPS 1080p screen
Scan UK: 1,488 EUR but just TN 1080p screen (no 3K/4K or IPS offered)
Goldmax: 2,015 EUR with IPS 1080p screen or 2,190 EUR with 4K screen
Bluemobility: 1,571 EUR with 3K screen

So only one shop is >100 EUR cheaper, and it's the one with the screen I'm not interested in (I don't want to replace parts myself, also with extra 100 USD/EUR, price difference would basically disappear).

Other cheaper one is just 35 EUR difference, which is not worth the hassle of ordering from other country.

Is there some other cheaper EU shop I missed? Should have 3K screen option available and be trustworthy.

 

@aqnb - Scan offer 4K screen. I have preordered a P651SG with one from them.

edit: oh right, I see you're talking about the SE.

 

I've seen it, unfortunately they offer this option only with GTX 980M version

Anyways I would prefer 3K screen. 3K is just about possible to use for games natively with GTX 970M, if you drop some settings and are ok with 30 fps. 4K would be too much.

GTX 980M is tempting, though it would bump up price significantly, at least 450 EUR more. I will wait for the second attempt of our brave guinea pig, your sacrifices are not forgotten

 

Oh yeah, forgot that point.

Spoiler

Given the fact that M.2 slots are not staggered pins (different lengths) to ensure power and ground are not connected at the same time, and handle transients correctly and in a staged way, I would strongly recommend one disconnect one's battery when installing a M.2, Mini-PCIe/mSATA or SO-DIMM. In fact, the design/insertion at an angle probably doesn't cater to staggered pins anyway.

Confirmed, the Storage Network Industry Association (SNIA), one of the main standards organizations for networking and storage components and systems, confirms this in their M.2 introduction. Quotes ...
- 'Like mSATA, low insertion rating; not intended for hot-plug!'
- 'Connector contacts have extremely small pitch, making hot-plug “impossible”.'
- 'Ground pins are not extended, as on larger form factors.'

Spoiler

Traditional SATA 7-pin/15-pin data/power, along with USB, FireWire and many other connectors are staggered so they are always possible to hot-plug. They typically do a ground, pre-stage and then power/data, 3-part, physically driven (via the pin-stagger, ground first) handshake. I.e., that's just a good, default attitude to have if you don't see staggered pins.

Understand a connector does not require staggered pins to hot-plug, but it usually requires the board to be designed to take the connection hot-plug. I.e., unless it has a staggered pin-out, it's usually not universally a hot-plug device, and only special boards can hot-plug, requiring additional intelligence, such as firmware/software-driven enablement on pins in stage.

It doesn't mean you will have a transient that causes harm, whether temporary or premanent, if your device or board doesn't support hot-plug. But it's always best to remove all power from the board and let it sit a minute to remove any capacitance or other charge before adding or removing anything not designed for hot-plug.

In fact, the SNIA presentation suggests that the pitch and other things make M.2 very poor for even intelligent hot-plug on various boards.

 

Actually, I'd prefer a 2.5K (2560x1440) screen instead of a 2880x1620. Because 2560x1440 resizes perfectly 2:1 down to 1280x720 (1:2 upscale), and 2.5K is probably better for 15.6" diagonal. At 1280x720, you can really turn up the various FSAA options, along with other things, that can make it look good compared to even 1080p without them.

Otherwise, I prefer 3200x1800 as it is 2:1 down to 1600x900, although it is less supported than 1280x720 or 1920x1080, it is still more common than anything perfectly upscaled to 2880x1620. In fact, I'm going to start differentiating it as 3.2K, from someone just saying "3K".

 

Problem is 1280x720 is too low of a res to really scale up well, where 1920x1080 at 4k will look quite crisp.

 

My point was 2560x1440 against 2880x1620, not 4K.

1280x720 on 2560x1440 looks quite good! Of course, 1920x1080 on 3840x2160 will look better ... but, again, I wasn't talking about 4K, but 2880x1620.

Even a 1366x768 panel on 15.6" is around 100ppi. Not ideal for a desktop, but in a game, it looks just fine with Aliasing and other features turned on. That's why 1280x720 is good too, when 1920x1080 (let alone 2880x1620) is too much or doesn't allow all sorts of graphics quality to be enabled.

 

1280x720 will look ok as a "native" but that's still not very good

 

Compared to 2560x1440? Of course not! if your game runs fine at 2560x1440, with lots of aliasing, effects and other quality, then go for it!

But what happens when you get 2880x1620 and it doesn't run well? With 2560x1440, you have the option of going down to 1280x720, which virtually every game supports! And then you can crank up the effects too!

Again, please read the context ...
- If you have 2560x1440, and it runs on it well, great!
- If you have 3840x2160, so you can upscale 1920x1080 perfect 1:2, and your game runs at that resolution well, great!
- If you have 1920x1080, and your game runs at that resolution well, great!
- If you have 3840x2160, so you can upscale 1280x720 perfect 1:3, and your game should definitely run that in the "worst case," great!
- If you have 2560x1440, so you can upscale 1280x720 perfect 1:2, and your game should definitely run that in the "worst case," great!
- If you have 2880x1620 ... um, not all games support that, and ... resolution can you use if it doesn't run well that upscales perfectly?!?!?!

My point wasn't 1280x720 was best. My point was that I would rather have 2560x1440 than 2880x1620 in a notebook panel for the above reasons.

Or maybe I should flip that ...
- If your game runs native at 3840x2160, 3200x1600, 2560x1440 or some other, native resolution, great!
- If your game runs great at 1920x1080, then you are set if you have a 1920x1080 panel or even a 3840x2160 panel.
- If your game runs great at 1600x900, then you are set if you have a 3200x1800 panel.
- If your game only runs great at 1280x720, then you are set if you have a 3840x2160 or even a 2560x1440 panel.
- If you have a 2880x1620 panel, and your game doesn't run well at it, or even support that resolution ... what can you do to get a good upscale? You cannot!

That's why I continue to say ... get 4K, and if you cannot get 4K, consider only 3.2K (3200x1600) or 2.5K (2560x1440), but not 3K (2880x1620), because the last doesn't scale well.

BTW, I ordered a 3840x2160 panel because I can get 1920x1080 and, in the worst case, 1280x720 perfectly from it. That's why I prefer 4K the most in a 15.6" panel, around 300ppi, 150ppi and 100ppi at 4K, 2K and 1.3K, respectively.

 

I just lowered my 2560x1440 monitor to 1280x720 and it looks really really bad, lol. I'm using a 27 inch X-Star. Maybe it'll look sharper on a smaller screen?

 

What games did you run on it with what settings? Did you try to throw a game at it that didn't run well at 2560x1440 sans without turning AA and other things off?

Or were you just talking a Windows desktop? Because that's not what I'm talking about at all.

 

Just saw on MythLogic's site ...

'Pre Order: 970M w/ FHD in stock, 980M w/ FHD late November, 4K models until mid-december'
- https://www.mythlogic.com/2013_Models/dia1614.php

I'm going to ask to change my order to the P650SG, since the 4K panels are going to slip until mid-december.

 

Ah, true. I just checked with the Windows 7 desktop. I'll test it on TF2 in a sec. Should I change the res in game or through the OS's display resolution settings?

EDIT: Nah, my 980 owns any game I throw at it haha! I just wanted to see if it would look acceptable.

 

I've clarified in 3 different posts now that I was talking about gaming.

Let us review ... one more time ...
- For ultimate upscaling options, 4K (3840x2160) is most ideal
- It gives you both 1:2 (1080p) and 1:3 (720p) are available, which virtually every game supports
- 3.2K (3200x1800) is not bad, as it gives you 1:2 (1600x900), which many games are supporting these days
- 3K (2880x1620) has no perfect upscaling option at all

I not only recommend 4K, but I'm purchasing it myself!**
Why?
Because if 3.2K is not available, and 3K does not upscale perfectly from anything.

My point is that ...
- Given "maximum, tolerable PPI" for Windows 8 is under 200ppi**
- This is no more than 2.5K (2560x1440) at 15.6"
- Which makes it fine for Windows desktop
- If games can be driven at the full 2.5K, great!
- If not, then 720p (1280x720) is a fall-back option
- In games, with AA and other settings, 720p is fine when you eliminate the jaggies
- No, it's not 1080p ... but, my main point ...

If you cannot drive a game at 2.5K (2560x1440) ...

What are going to do with a 3K (2880x1620, an even higher resolution!) panel for upscaling when you need to drop resolution, because it cannot drive 3K?! What will games look like that don't even support the 3K resolution for that matter? I really don't like 3K for a gaming panel, and would prefer 3.2K or just dropping back to 2.5K. The best option is 2:3 upscaling from 1080p, which some might find "tolerable."

Then read what I said.

You're the 3rd person to not get what I was driving at. Of course a Windows desktop looks like crap at 720p, especially if you scaled up the fonts to 125% or 150% (really bad then). I mean, there are just too many programs in Windows that don't scale fonts and don't deal with graphics well when those values are set.**

Now that said ... in gaming ... if you want to do a "real" test, do this ...
- 3K (2880x1620) panel set to 1080p (2:3 upscale), increase effects until you get 60fps
- 1.5K (2560x1440) panel set to 720p (1:2 upscale), max out effects and you should still get 60fps (or better)

And compare how they look. On lower-end GPUs, they might be able to do 60fps at 1080p, and you'll lose AA and other improvements, plus there is the 2:3 upscale. On higher-end GPUs, it might be tolerable, although the 2:3 upscale might not look as good. That's the question.

Hence why I like 2.5K (2560x1440) the most. If the game can be driven at 2560x1440, great. If it cannot, 720p is such a reduced framebuffer that you can almost always get excellent 8-16x MSAA (or similar) with no jaggies (and it looks much better than things like FXAA).


**SIDE NOTE: I run Linux with the well regarded, long-standing Cairo presentation for fonts and other, vector-based scaling, plus the modern Clutter/Mutter (GNOME Shell) compositing framework and windows manager. I've already been testing the font options on a 28" 4K monitor and comparing to Windows 7 and 8. It destroys both in quality, and even most GTK+ v2 apps from 10 years ago scale well, because they were designed with Cairo presentation in mind. That said ...

 

thx for spelling this out BJ, ive also been wondering why so many people prefer to get a 3K to a 4K display....just doesnt make any sense whatsoever from an upscaling perspective!

 

Yikes, I feel like I just got scolded by a teacher. Lighten up just a bit!

 

I salivate over the thought of this 4K panel... higher ppi than my first smartphone (Galaxy SII) - it's going to look glorious.

1080p looked really good scaled up on my 3K panel by the way.

So if it'll look even better on my future 4K panel I'm going to be one happy fish.

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Or someone who wants to make sure he doesn't need to explain himself yet a 4th time.

Context is everything.

I was purposely short in my first post, which still caused you guys to miss the context, even though I said "gaming." I had to ask more than once to more than one person if they were looking at just a Windows desktop, when I explicitly stated not the desktop, but gaming, especially in subsequent follow-ups. Hence why I then added more verbage the subsequent 2 times, and it was still missed.

Hence the detailed spellout the 4th time. Yes, you will get "verbal diarrhea" when it comes to a 4th time. Deal with it.

 

For gaming, definitely so! I'd rather have 4K and upscale 1080p perfectly, maybe 3.2K and upscale 1600x900 perfectly or even 2.5K, which either works natively, or can "fall back" to 720p in the "worse case" (weaker GPU).

In reality, at only 15.6", the roughly 190ppi of 2.5K probably looks the "most tolerable" for a Windows desktop, especially Windows 7. But that's another discussion.

But 3K (2880x1620) doesn't upscale perfectly from anything.

Which makes me scratch my head why OEMs aren't putting in 3.2K or, if that's not available, 2.5K, instead of 3K. Because if the GPU can't drive 3K, what can you drop back to?

So that all said ...

If anyone with 3K wants to test 1080p, which is upscaled a non-perfect 2:3, with gaming, that would be interesting. It might be "just as good" as 2560x1440 upscaling 720p 1:2, especially if the card is powerful enough to drive anything with all sorts of AA at 1080p. It might not look "too bad," even with 2:3 upscaling.

That's the question I had. Not all this other non-sense of what people want to argue or disagree with that I never even brought up, and even explicitly stated was nothing related to what I was talking about.

I appreciate you seeing my context and question-point jaybee83, as always. I don't mind disagreement, just actually disagree with what I actually said, noting the context -- sometimes quite explicitly -- I stated. Correspondingly, when I misunderstand someone's point or look at it outside their context, I immediate apologize and recognize I was not disagreeing with what they stated, and was well off their point.

This is a forum, so people cannot walk over to someone's cubicle, or just pick up the phone or otherwise use vocal or even body language to express the point or interject a correction "in real time." So by the 4th time, yes, you will get "verbal overload" and even some bold. Does not mean someone has a personal problem or issues with people skills, it means the medium -- especially for detail -- is not ideal when 2 or even 3+ people start arguing with a point that was never made.

No one could survive for years as a consultant charging 3-figures/hour if they didn't have "soft skills."

 

An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

I'm perfectly familiar with theoretical arguments why 4K should be preferable, I've been making those in my head too .

Yet we have all those folks who already got notebooks with 3K screens in their hands and it seems they do 1080p just fine:

 

I am on the same boat. I prefer the 3K Panasonic screen to the 4K simply because the 980M "should" be able to drive more games at its native resolution than 4K. I have had 3K screens and never had any problems associated with scaling. Also, I would much rather use a 15" desktop at 3K than 4K. And did I mention the great reviews the Panasonic 3K screen is getting...

 

But do you mean ...

3K (2880x1620)?
or
3.2K (3200x1800)?

And what are you going to upscale from?
1080p?
900p?
Other?

E.g., 3.2K is a perfect 1:2 upscale from 900p, while 3K is a 2:3 upscale from 1080p. But if you're going to upscale from 1080p on 3.2K, then 3K will look better than it. And that's just one example.

That's the questions, and only side-by-side comparisons answer.

Furthermore, what are you going to use as a desktop too?

At 15.6", you're talking over 210ppi for 3K and even more for 3.2K. Windows, because of a lot of legacy WinForms applications still out there (even in Windows, although less so in v8+), look like crap. And while 150% helps, it looks like crap and still might not be "big enough" for some on 3K+.

For me ...

4K is the answer, because I can get 1080p at any time for desktop, gaming, etc... even game at 720p with lots of AA if it's a new title that doesn't run on my "old" 970/980m series in a few years.

Having seen 2.5K (2560x1440) at 15.6" on Windows, which is just under 190ppi, I honestly don't want to go 3K or even 3.2K. I plan on running 4K in Linux, and upscaling the desktop from 1080p in Windows.

I'll game at whatever resolution looks best, with all the AA and other effects maxed out. 4K gives me lots of options. That's my choice. I don't expect to make them for any others, but I do expect people to understand the focus.

We're all free to differ ... as long as we're all on the same page. Otherwise it is just differing for differing's sake. I know that's popular in forums and in the new age of social media. But in general it's nice to have an understanding to always consider the context.

 

XOTICPC SAGER NP8651 Video Review

 

Yay watching now! Thanks

 

Wow, that TN panel looks horrible while he swiveled it from side to side. I shuttered every time...

 

Ya it looked as brutal as my acer. It is painful to look at from the side.. But he did say it looked way worse on the camera then in person

 

It really is a substandard LCD panel, I just hope they come up with a suitable 1080p IPS replacement soon. This is the laptop I want, but not having a good IPS is what's keeping me from using it. I did order the IPS screen though, and hopefully it will be here in the next couple of days.

 

I watched a few replacement how-to videos on YouTube earlier today and it looks simple enough. Most of them were with the Lenovo Y50, though. Do you plan on doing any kind of video?

I never asked you to explain all that for a "4th" time. In fact, the only question I actually asked you was never even answered.


EDIT:

Alright, I finally got some time to test my 2560x1440 monitor in TF2 in both 1280x720 desktop resolution and game resolution. It looks very fuzzy and blurry still. To me, the best way to game on a 3K or 4K monitor that doesn't have the graphics processing power to run certain games at native resolution is in windowed mode. Running games that way is no issue to me, but I can see how it might bother other people.

 

When I get my LCD I will definitely do a "how to" video.

 

Perfect thanks again.

 

Never said you did. But when 1, then 2 and even then 3 people miss the context, and start responding and differing into a whole thread that I didn't even prompt, it ends up being 2, 3 and even 4 different responses to get them back "in context."

When peers differ, it's just differing, but the context of the discussion is understood and stays relevant.
When people differ, failing to maintain context, often because they want to argue just to differ, it becomes something else ... rhetoric.

When "rhetoric" starts, even if unintentional, I try to bring people back to being peers, and respecting the context.
By the 3rd time, 4th response total, I will definitely regurgitate everything so nothing is overlooked.
And, judging by the result, I was correct to do so.

It's not "getting upset" or "being difficult," it's "waving a hand" and saying, "guys, I'm over here, come talk to me" and "stop talking to someone who isn't there."

Which is? If it's the question I think it is, it was irrelevant to my point. I.e., why would I answer a question, made from the standpoint of assuming I'm disagreeing (because you missed my original context), when I actually agree with you?

Of course, always use a desktop at a much higher resolution than 720p, it's not even 100ppi on 15.6"! That's horrendous!
Furthermore, if your game can drive 1080p, 2.5K or even 3K+, yes, of course, use it!

Of course you're going to lose fidelity compared to 1080p and 2.5K, let alone 3K+!
Why would I ever run in 720p if I can get 2.5K or even 3K?!

This is key ... if you can get 1080p perfectly, why not use it?
All the more reason to get 4K, at least that's my view.

I like no more than 190ppi in a mobile display for Windows.
For 15.6", that means 2.5K is better than 3K+.

On a 15.6" display, dropping down to 720p when I cannot drive a game at 2.5K, would not look bad.
Of course, on a 27-32"+ display, yes, it probably would.

Wait?! Did you just suggest running in a windowed mode? You do realize the massive performance hit that causes, correct?

I.e., in many cases, it's better to run full screen at full resolution than try to run in a windowed mode, because -- especially in Windows (even more so with Aero) -- the hit in performance is massive. I fact, I can go into a whole dissertation on how the NT Graphical Display Interface (GDI) was only designed for OpenGL overlay, and never DirectX.

Furthermore, you still lose the same fidelity -- regardless of full screen v. windowed mode -- if you run at the same resolution. So I don't understand that point at all.

 

I knew I could rely on you

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Hey Splintah what do you think of the stock TN panel, I know viewing angles are not that great but head on it looks OK.
Is there any color shift when moving around a little bit or do you have to sit straight ahead to get the best picture quality?

 

You pretty much have to sit straight on to get the best picture and like ht said its pretty dark and the contrast is not the greatest. I could live with it if it was my only option its not horrible but it could be greatly improved

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Have you tried recalibrating the screen colors? Any improvement if you tried?

 

I have a problem paying $2,000 for a laptop where I have to keep my head perfectly straight to avoid color shifts. This 6 Bit panel is like my old Acer from 2005. I really want this Sager but don't feel like spending the time for a panel swap. Think I might go with the MSI, will cost a little more but at least their displays are current with the rest of the machine specs.

 

This is because this CLEVO uses a new type of signal for the screen the eDP signal, you don't have the same stock of panels as you had for LVDS screens ( past clevo models). They must be restricted in their choice regarding their manufacturing volume and the cost of the computer, a LTN156 costs more than the stock screen that's for sure. The best thing to do is to change the screen yourself : i paid 60 bucks for one of the best ips eDP panel so 2000 -> 2060 $ . (i paid less than 2000 for my 980M p650 btw ^^).

You can go with MSI but you do know that they don't have 980M 15" and a well-cooled, easy to modify 970m 15" ^^ , and i'm not talking of the price difference. You cannot make your choice based on something that costs RELATIVELY nothing compared to the laptop and that takes 5 minutes to install...

 

I'm sure you prolly linked it prior, but could you please link me to the screen again? I'll save it to my spreadsheet (well... actually notepad ) this time, I promise!

 

delete

Verstuurd vanaf mijn HTC One met Tapatalk

 

I've pretty much had my heart set on the 980M P650SG version, but there was an "incident" with a fork earlier that damaged one of my Infinity IL10 speakers. Now it is humming and buzzing. So between the $160 it cost me to replace my blown tire from earlier this week and the $300 I just spent on a pair of Emotiva Airmotiv 5s powered speakers, all signs point towards the more rational (for me) P650SE. From the looks of it, temps have been excellent. XoticPC's temp review seemed a lot higher than what we're seeing here, though. Hopefully theirs was just a bad paste job.

 

Screw the speakers! Turn off the stereo and drive on the donut, but get the 980! Lol jk I'm just waiting to see the sager SG release price and I may even still get the SE myself... I am really having a hard time between reality of what I need and what I want... I'm confident the 970 will play all games that I play perfectly fine anyhow.. Its just I always want the best so I will kick myself and wish I got the 980m right after even tho I don't need it..

 

Plus if I get the 970m now I'll be pist i didn't order it way back since I could have it already... I might as well wait another week or two for the sg

 

I'm right there with you, bro. I do the same damn thing. The only game I really play is TF2. The other 20% of the time are the demanding games, lol. I don't NEED the 980M, but I want to have the BESTTTTTT.

 

I'm kinda facing the same thing between 980M 4GB and 980M 8GB lol. For the 4GB one, I can go with the SG, but I can't resist the 8GB one and I'm waiting for Batman to show up. GAH!!

 

I was also very concerned about having 8gb vs 4gb too but I really don't think it will make any difference at all especially running only 1080p. I also can't wait any longer then I already have to so no batman and I can't justify needing a desktop CPU in a laptop...

 

I don't think it will make much difference to be honest. I really was concerned before, but after using the machine for a while, everything has been so smooth, even Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor with High textures that says requires minimum 4GB vRAM.

 

Yes a lot of people show pictures of ram use without understanding the architecture of the drivers or even the game engine and how it manages the vram.

 

I think it's just one of those things where you have to tell people to give you requirements (e.g., list of games, ideal and secondary video resolutions, expectations of image quality, AA and other settings, etc...) and take the system(s) under consideration and unit test each one of them against that full rubric. It's the only way to be sure ...

... other than nuking it from orbit, of course.

E.g., for myself, with a 4K panel ...

I don't expect a 980m w/4GiB VRAM, let alone 970m w/3GiB VRAM, to do 4K (sub-300ppi at 15.6") and AA in a lot of recent titles. But 1080p? It'll probably do just fine. If not, then I'll debate 1080p (sub-150ppi, 1:2 upscale to 4K) with reduced features v. 720p (sub-100ppi, 1:3 upscale to 4K) with all of the features on. I will go through those when I get my system.