Dell releases Alienware 13inch laptop - First gaming laptop with OLED Display - w/ 100% Adobe RGB - Quad Core CPU - GTX 1060

[Castdeath97]

3 hours ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

Better then the New Mac Book Pro and cheaper.

It targets a different type of user.

[Doobeedoo]

Hmmm 13" for gaming laptop, that would be odd to me. 

Nice it haves OLED option though. Awesome.

 

Still wish to see OLED monitors!

[Clanscorpia]

760p 0.0 

3 hours ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

Better then the New Mac Book Pro and cheaper.

They are made for different things

[Clanscorpia]

38 minutes ago, awesomeness10120 said:

This looks awesome, especially with the OLED screen. But man I am worried about thermals.

It doesnt look that bad looking at all the heatsinks

[Space Reptile]

7 hours ago, Suika said:

"The laptop is indeed heavy"

"5lbs"

 

Yea... I guess it is...

 

*puts away ASUS ROG*

Christ my 21" flat-screen CRT and full steel fulltower filled w/ DVD drives and IDE harddrives that I took to lanparties is heavy , not some puny 2kg netbook , my psu or even my (sadly broken) 780 weighs more

[Space Reptile]

3 hours ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

Better then the New Mac Book Pro and cheaper.

that one starts at 1699 and also has much worse specs

[BuckGup]

So your saying we are going to get the affordable OLED screen now? Compared to the one Dell already released awhile ago at $5000 I think this might be better

[-BirdiE-]

10 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Aaaand still no desktop OLED displays.

Fml.

Pretty sure Dell came out with one for $5,000.

A bargain!

[razor767]

Dave2D's review:

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

mmmmh...

I'm at the store... picked the 15 and configured it. 2300$, not bad, not bad at all, cheaper that what i initially expected... 

mmmh...

Do you think, if i tried to buy it by phone calling a sale rep, i could somehow manage to get it for cheaper by convincing the rep to sell it to me without an OS?

Frankly, i have no use for Windows, and sadly, the store configurator doesn't let you pick Ubuntu like they do with the XPS

[crystal6tak]

YEEESSS, IT'S STARTING.

 

13 INCH WITH QUAD CORE INTEL??!?!?! FU**. YES. (AND A TOP TIER DGPU?!?!?!)

 

THANK YOU DELL.

[Zodiark1593]

16 hours ago, Suika said:

"The laptop is indeed heavy"

"5lbs"

 

Yea... I guess it is...

 

*puts away ASUS ROG*

Pfft, your razor thin laptop has nothing on my HP ZD8000. 

[Suika]

11 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Pfft, your razor thin laptop has nothing on my HP ZD8000. 

Is that even considered a laptop by today's standards tho? That thing looks to be larger than most small desktops.

[killertek78]

Nice rig, But if you wanna sell me one, drop a 1050Ti 4GB in there and an IPS 1080p, 256GB SSD(I'd settle for SATA3 honestly). Much better pairing with the CPU's offered(the i5 SKU) I think. Oh, and bring it to Canada under $1500. Would be a perfect replacement for my m11x!

 

One can dream..

[Belgarathian]

17 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

It has ths same problem as many Clevo/Sager laptops (and others) do imo. Pairing a 1060 with a 6700HQ or even worse, a 6300HQ. It will bottleneck. At least put a 6700. A laptop of that size should be able to keep it cool. It's not an R17, but should be able. 

But ignoring the OLED, that's 1440p. Haven't seen that in a long time on a laptop. We need more of those. 

Any reason why it doesn't have 3.1 ports and has only a DP 1.2? 

A 6300HQ wouldn't bottleneck a 1060, what are you on about? 

 

Agree about the 1440p though... My ideal laptop at the moment would be something like the Razer Blade 14 with a 1440p G-Sync IPS or OLED panel. Right now everything goes from 1080p to 2160p (4K)

[Inkz]

Make the 17 have an OLED option and I will probably buy it. It's a shame we don't have the large laptops with OLED, from my experience a larger screen is needed for gaming.

[Inkz]

20 hours ago, mrchow19910319 said:

I think the only people who will buy those laptops are either "hardcore gamer" or video game developer (who uses unreal engine cry engine all the time)..

Still I haven't even met a gamer who will go that far to buy a machine like that......

I would, there is nothing wrong with buying from them. I am even considering trading in my Clevo laptop to get some experience with them. But I want OLED and 17 inch, I love it so much for gaming. Also if you go to college and game on a machine you learn to love them.

[CyberneticTitan]

Minimum spec 1366 x 768 for over $1000 US? Unacceptable and disappointing.

[Bouzoo]

7 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

A 6300HQ wouldn't bottleneck a 1060, what are you on about? 

I had to go out in the middle of my response, so I'm on phone atm, I'll respond properly when I get back home, but there are tests on notebookcheck that when compared to let's say Anandtech tests show 10-20 FPS drops in games with no throttling mind you. And that's on games like Crysis 3, RoTR. And that's with a 670HQ which is more powerful than a 6300HQ. And Anandtech used 4960X which should give few FPS more than a 6700 (non K). Mind you there are tests that show less difference, but games weren't maxed so can't compare it properly.

If you find anything to dispute my claim please do, because I wuld like to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a 6300HQ which has really low clocks can't drive a 1060 to it's full potential. I'm positive that a 6700HQ can't as well. But as I've said, I'll give a proper response a bit later. 

[Bouzoo]

14 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

A 6300HQ wouldn't bottleneck a 1060, what are you on about? 

Just for the sake of this argument, I'll go to straight to 6700HQ since there are more tests (there are none with 6300HQ and 1060) and it's the more powerful CPU (lower clocks and all). All laptops have the 6700HQ and the desktop has a 6700K (except Anandtech which I'll mention down, ans has a 4960X which should be worse in gaming than a 6700K), nothing is OC'd.

You may notice that the Desktop version is clocked 100 MHz lower or 9.3%.

Mobile 1060

Desktop 1060

 

I took all 1080 max settings tests.

In some games there is not such big difference:

Deus Ex: MD, there is 26.9 vs 28.7 FPS or 10% (arguably big)

RoTR there is 60 vs 67 or 11% even though Anandtech puts it at huge 20 FPS difference and Guru3D puts it at 18 FPS as well

XCOM 2 is at 29.1 vs 30.7 or 6%

 

But there are games where the difference is bigger: 

Doom at 85 vs 99.7 which is 17%

Crysis 3 which has a 51.7 vs 67.2 or 24%

DA:I it's 59.6 vs 66.9 at 12% 

Witcher 3 puts is at 38 vs 44.4 or 15%

 

Huge disclaimer, those results are not for all laptops. They are average, but FPS differ by a huge margin, for instance this is RoTR/Overwatch/Doom (look at spoiler below since they are broken and in advance sorry for the bad formatting).

You can see that there are huge improvements with drivers (there are anomalies), which I'm sure the FE got as well which is only tested on the old driver. If you wan't to compare results with "same" drivers, look at older ones listed on notebookcheck.

 

When looking at benchmarks and gaming all together, right here, the difference is 13%-15% respectfully. Now you may say yes, but it has a 100 MHz lower clock and you'd be right, but remember that a FE has clocks of 1506/1709 and Anandtech managed to OC it to 1706/1909 or ~200 MHz and they got from 5-12% better results unless I missed something. How does it scale from 1400 to 1500? I do not know, but if we took half just for the sake of argument, we are looking at 6% better results in best scenario, which with mentioned driver improvement that I can't really find and really can't be bothered to look at this point since this took a huge amount of time to write, can't say are enough to say that it wouldn't bottleneck. This especially goes for the 6300HQ, which is the best i5 for laptops without arguing, but it needs higher clocks [I know clocks are not everything, but you can take the 6700HQ results and deduct a part if we're to believe benchmarks and few game tests (can't really say how much since there are very few of them and can't compare some games like Crysis 3 benchmark, but 10% should be a good amount, in my subjective mind)]. Is it that huge of a bottleneck? Not that huge that it's unusable, far from that, it's a good CPU, but pairing it with a 6820HK would me much better since it can be OC'd and most of the laptops with 1060 are made for 1070 so there is the heat argument. 

Also as s far as I saw, there was no throttling in any of tested laptops. 

If you have something to add or to contradict me please do. 

 

 

 

 

 

Rise of the Tomb Raider

 2016

high 1920x1080

65.3 67.7 70.1 72.4 ~ 69 fps    + Compare

ultra 1920x1080

52

[X] GE62VR 6RF-001US 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz 
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) (1404 MHz), 6144 MB (8008 MHz) GDDR5, 369.09
32 GB RAM

55.5 58.5 59.1 61.4 63.5

[X] GT72VR 6RD-063US 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz 
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) (1404 MHz), 6144 MB (8008 MHz) GDDR5, 372.70
32 GB RAM

66.8

[X] GS43VR 6RE-006US 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz 
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) (1404 MHz), 6144 MB (8008 MHz) GDDR5, 368.79
32 GB RAM

~ 60 fps    + Compare

 

Overwatch

 2016

high 1920x1080

169  fps    + Compare

ultra 1920x1080

102.1

[X] GS73VR 6RF 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz 
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) (1404 MHz), 6144 MB (8008 MHz) GDDR5, 368.79
32 GB RAM

103 105 106.3 106.7 108.5

[X] GE62VR 6RF-001US 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz 
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) (1404 MHz), 6144 MB (8008 MHz) GDDR5, 369.09
32 GB RAM

~ 105 fps    + Compare

3840x2160

54.8  fps    + Compare

» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.

Doom

 2016

high 1920x1080

84.1 98 ~ 91 fps    + Compare

ultra 1920x1080

76.3 77.8 82.1

[X] GE62VR 6RF-001US 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz 
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) (1404 MHz), 6144 MB (8008 MHz) GDDR5, 369.09
32 GB RAM

91.5 96.5

[X] GT72VR 6RD-063US 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz 
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) (1404 MHz), 6144 MB (8008 MHz) GDDR5, 372.70
32 GB RAM

~ 85 fps    + Compare

[That Norwegian Guy]

HDR capable monitor + HDR incapable GPU = Genius

[PlayStation 2]

I found some motivation to get a job.

Hell, I could easily live with a crap 1366x768 display.

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

HDR capable monitor + HDR incapable GPU = Genius

Well games aren't made in HDR or any wide gamut. They assume sRGB, as this is what most people have for their TVs and computers monitors

The day true 8-bit panels with color processor will hit, what I think is the sweet spot of $300-350, this is where you'll HDR growing... assuming no push by the gaming industry, to make people wanting to spend more on a monitor fir such support.

 

[That Norwegian Guy]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

Well games aren't made in HDR or any wide gamut. They assume sRGB, as this is what most people have for their TVs and computers monitors

The day true 8-bit panels with color processor will hit, what I think is the sweet spot of $300-350, this is where you'll HDR growing... assuming no push by the gaming industry, to make people wanting to spend more on a monitor fir such support.

 

Considering every basic AMD Polaris consumer card now supports HDR, it's not unreasonable to demand Dell to choose the more appropriate component to pair with the monitor they chose, gaming availability of HDR aside. The point is that the only reason the OLED display is there is to be wow-factor and marketing buzz, and the GTX 1060 is there to sabotage.

[GoodBytes]

9 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Considering every basic AMD Polaris consumer card now supports HDR, it's not unreasonable to demand Dell to choose the more appropriate component to pair with the monitor they chose, gaming availability of HDR aside. The point is that the only reason the OLED display is there is to be wow-factor and marketing buzz, and the GTX 1060 is there to sabotage.

You have to consider GPU power consumption, performance, and what most consumers look for.

Sadly, Nvidia sales more than AMD. Heck, the simple fact that the Nintendo Switch has "Nvidia" something inside, got people excited... it could have been a a GeForce 2 MX for all we all know back in the rumor days. When people see: "Nvidia", they think "Great gaming experience", and "best visuals possible for the price", despite not being necessarily true, let alone price part. But it is what it is. Then again.. AMD had such a great image a couple years ago... and I think it will switch again.