The most powerful Mobile 16:10

[Medessec]

I understand this isn't a Thinkpad, so many may not share their interest... but about a year ago, I fell for Clevo D900Ts of any sort(I now call them "Big Berthas") and after my Toshbia Qosmio X775 failed, I was on the hunt for a machine more closer to my taste. I wanted a 17" machine, and of course many will know to default to the W700/W701 Thinkpads of 2008-2009. Unfortunately, I found something better.

I simply trailed the D900T's descendants to the most powerful one I could afford, and that led me to the D900F. After getting my hands on one, I instantly fell in love with it, and even better- it turned out to be where the old 16:10-format with Clevo's Porta-Note ran cold, and the next one(X7200) used a 16:9 screen. Of course, the Clevo Porta-Note, regardless of whatever generation you're looking at, you're looking at the most powerful "laptop" of it's time, period. Which makes the D900F the most powerful 16:10 production laptop, as far as I'm concerned. Can anyone correct me on that...?

It was made from 2009-2010, which makes it pretty old... so you'd think age is starting to catch up with it. But I've recently upgraded the really dated GeForce GTX 285M in it to a GeForce GTX 680M, so now this *dated* 3-year old lumbering leviathan can now tap the advantages of 2012 GPU technology. That- and this computer runs X58 chipset, so it can run the Server & Enthusiast-grade equivalent of First-gen Core i-series and Sandy Bridge. Even nowadays-that hardware has very good market value and is insanely powerful by today's standards... and because it's desktop hardware, I don't have to deal with the gripe of throttling. I do have to worry about dusting though. I guarantee you that.

Here's some pics:
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... 900F-1.JPG
http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... Fsides.jpg

And this is a video demonstrating the fan noise, as well as showing multiple shot angles of the laptop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2JMwG1X0RY

[ajkula66]

Interesting machine, no questions asked. Monster-grade unit.

My pick as the "ultimate" 16:10 would still be EliteBook 8740W, due to its vastly superior LCD.

Obviously, to each their own.

[kony]

Amazing and powerful machine. The number of fans surprises me though, I've never seen a laptop with more than two fans before!

[ilakast]

Amazing piece of equipment. I've never seen an inbuilt tv-tuner on a laptop

[Medessec]

My pick as the "ultimate" 16:10 would still be EliteBook 8740W, due to its vastly superior LCD.

I've always wanted to see one... but I can only keep so much on my table... and we're constantly firing off suggestions to nab the beautiful screen from this thing. I honestly believe the design of the rest of it suits it pretty nicely, but it looks more "medical center" fancy than the "business executive" fancy I appreciate with the Thinkpad.

The D900F does have a cheap plastic glossy finish rather than the solid textured plastics or metals of the HP Elitebook and the Thinkpad, but it has magnesium sides... so it actually is pretty tough. It is a bit too heavy for it's own good(as you'd expect) but in the couple of times I've dropped it, and the abuse I've given it, it's turned out ok. The only problem I've had is that since the GPU heatsink actually secures itself only to the GPU card(which in turn, is secured only to the mainboard with three screws), when dropped on it's side, the weight of the copper actually deseats the card from the MXM slot, causing it to black-screen when powered on.

The number of fans surprises me though, I've never seen a laptop with more than two fans before!

I bet you've also never seen a laptop with a desktop processor before up until now... because that's what most of those fans have to cool. Although-when the fans aren't maxed for cooling, it's a bit quieter than one would expect. The fan on the far right in the video is a very deep, large, slow-spinning fan... it's pretty quiet, and I'm pretty sure handles most of the much needed CPU cooling.

I've never seen an inbuilt tv-tuner on a laptop

Unfortunately... mine doesn't have the option. But Clevo had to manufacture the CATV antenna port on every motherboard... It does mean all I have to do is find an exceedingly rare and very specific Mini PCI-E Tuner TV card

[Temetka]

Nice looking unit you got there. Looks heavy.

What are the specs of your machine? You said you can use i-series CPU's and other than the GPU you didn't detail your specs. Probably not a concern since a machine like that is meant to be used on AC 99% of the time, but just out of curiosity - what's your battery life? 75 minutes?

[Medessec]

Looks heavy.

Good guess. It's 12 lbs.

What are the specs of your machine? You said you can use i-series CPU's and other than the GPU you didn't detail your specs.

As I mentioned, it uses the X58 Chipset with LGA 1366 socket, which is sort of the server-grade/enthusiast-grade desktop processor chipset of the time. When ordered brand new, Sager usually had them pre-installed with a Core i7-920(2.66 GHz), up to an i7-960(3.2 GHz). It's possible to use Xeon processors, and I currently use a Xeon W3570 which is mostly similar to the i7-960, but has a higher QPI speed and supports higher-speed RAM(which I have taken advantage of.) It is however possible to fit an i7-980 or 990X, which are Sandy-bridge architecture, and they're Hex-Core Intels. I'm hoping to upgrade to one at some point.

The standard equipped GPUs are the GTX 280M and 285M, mine had a 285M leaving Taiwan. Right before they ended this laptop, they offered it with the GTX 480M, but very few with D900Fs exist with a 480 in there as standard. A month ago, I started pulling strings to get the video card upgraded to a GeForce GTX 680M. I had to find a different heatsink assembly that biases more cooling to the GPU, get better fans with beefier motors and different blades, and of course... I had to find a good GTX 680M. Since finishing the upgrade, I can tell you that this machine is absolutely crazy powerful, more so than most of my friends and classmates big gaming rigs.

just out of curiosity - what's your battery life? 75 minutes?

lol! I get about an hour at best. Gaming on battery staggers the performance and brings your go-time closer to half an hour. This machine really isn't meant to be used away from the plug- the battery should be treated more as a backup UPS rather than a battery. Also-sitting and trying to use this as a "laptop", results in your thighs blocking the fans, so... yeah.

[Temetka]

lol! I get about an hour at best. Gaming on battery staggers the performance and brings your go-time closer to half an hour. This machine really isn't meant to be used away from the plug- the battery should be treated more as a backup UPS rather than a battery. Also-sitting and trying to use this as a "laptop", results in your thighs blocking the fans, so... yeah.

I figured your battery time wouldn't be all that great. Sounds like a very powerful machine though. I wouldn't want to use it on my lap. But, and just follow me here, since the machine really isn't portable per se, why not just use a tower and a nice big monitor?

That being said my laptop has a quad core i7 that show as 8 thanks to HT. Plus dedicated GPU, so it's no slouch either. Actually it's pretty much the fastest, snappiest machine I have ever use. Even beats my quad core tower in terms of CPU speed. Loses in graphics as I have a 570TI OC Edition in there. That card is very powerful. Love it. Anyway, I degress.

[Medessec]

since the machine really isn't portable per se, why not just use a tower and a nice big monitor?

Well-you can't take a desktop to your classes, or to a friends house to collaborate on a project or do some gaming. Plus, you CAN power it up on the go, not that you will very often... but you have the option. I've always appreciated the ability to have all my data, games, and software(basically my do-things kit) with me wherever I go, and this laptop really pushes the envelope, but I make it work. And it returns the favor.

Even beats my quad core tower in terms of CPU speed. Loses in graphics as I have a 570TI OC Edition in there. That card is very powerful. Love it. Anyway, I degress.

Most of the time, Desktop hardware always trumps laptop hardware... because laptop hardware is made to operate on a much smaller thermal profile, and on lower amounts of power. Laptops have to watch what they do, for the sake of mobility and lifespan... where desktop hardware just sits there and assumes that whoever built it did a good enough job, so it doesn't have to worry.

Off topic briefly- The GeForce 560 and 570 are probably the best graphics cards in my opinion. Loads of my friends who own desktops have them, my British friend in particular had a GTS 250 that had been warranty-repaired twice, and after it failed the third time he gave up and used Intel graphics until he got a 560 Ti. He hasn't bothered to move on from it since.

[A31]

Wow. That's a noisy old machine but obviously you need all those fans to cool down that hardware.

Still pretty powerful considering it's (mostly) running on hardware from 3 generations ago.

The GTX 560s and 570s were great in their day (about 3 years ago now) and if you're still running on those cards then they should be powerful enough for most games (I still use my Radeon HD 5870 from 2009 which is still powerful enough for me), but I would never buy one now unless you get a good deal second hand. You can get 560 (Tis) and 570s for less than £100 used these days and that is pretty good value. But if you want to build a new rig, then I'd recommend something like the Radeon R9 270X or GeForce GTX 760 over both of them. The 1GB of RAM on the 560s and 1.25GB RAM on the 570s can be a limitation if you're gaming on resolutions higher than about 1080p. I think you could get 2GB 560 Tis though, but they're scarce compared to the amount of 1GB units sold.

[Medessec]

Still pretty powerful considering it's (mostly) running on hardware from 3 generations ago.

I always bring up X58 chipset with my friends who repair computer hardware, and they always scoff at how old it is. But really- X58 processors pack a ridiculous punch that even the absolute newest hardware have a hard time keeping up with. My processor, a Xeon W3570(ridiculously cheap Quad-Core with HT) trumps most mobile Haswells, and the absolute fastest X58 processor, an i7-990X, pretty much brazes the newest Haswell desktop CPUs. X58 provides a wide variety of CPUs just like LGA 1150 does... you can get low-power dual-cores, and beastly hex-cores, and there's even a really rare Xeon that has 4 of it's 6 cores turned off-but a clock speed of 4.4 GHz(I want it ) and all of them work in the D900F.

A classmate I had the chance to talk to has recently built a Radeon R9 290X, and he absolutely loves all the power... but he's had driver troubles and incompatibility issues with his monitors and audio issues. He said some forum posts blame his particular motherboard, but he might return the AMD card if the problem persists. I'm personally waiting on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture... as anything with a GK110 chip(GTX Titan, GTX 780) will decimate anything that has to do with PC gaming.

[A31]

an i7-990X, pretty much brazes the newest Haswell desktop CPUs.

Except that the i7 4770K is actually a little faster than the 990X in most situations: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/444?vs=836 (lower is better for a lot of these benchmarks).

I'm not denying that the 990X and the other X58 processors are still quick, but they're certainly not particularly faster than the newest Haswell CPUs. The 990X is not even particularly faster than the i5 4670K, and the i5 retails for about $240 new whereas the 990X was $1000 or so? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/444?vs=837

Just goes to show what 2 years difference can make. A $240 'bread and butter' quad-core with 4 threads not being particularly slower than a $1000 extreme-end hex-core with 12 threads is a real sign that technology moves along quickly.

Personally, I always thought that LGA 1366 and LGA 2011 were a bit of a rip off when LGA 1156, 1155 and 1150 were perfectly adequate, even for those who do video editing and a lot of CPU-heavy stuff.

[Medessec]

Personally, I always thought that LGA 1366 and LGA 2011 were a bit of a rip off when LGA 1156, 1155 and 1150 were perfectly adequate, even for those who do video editing and a lot of CPU-heavy stuff.

Well, I think that's just the usual marketing ploy... "You can have what we'll mostly make for insanely good value, or you can have the absolute best we make for 400% of that value."

But I understand that Haswell, regardless of the circumstance, is going to be all-round better than any X58 CPU. It'll run cooler, consume less go-juice, and chug a CPU load more effectively. And yeah, it's definitely crazy to see that in three or so years, and three generations of CPUs, Intel made an i7-990X's worth of power, a mere $240.

The Extreme Intel vs. Standard socket Intel has always been a hot issue between me and my British friend. I believe in buying the Extreme hardware where possible, instead of the peasant stuff. Like Thinkpads, they're made from the get-go to be state-of-the-art, and have as much tech that Intel can pack into it. It'll be far more tolerable to run for longer, and you'll find yourself upgrading your other hardware, but leaving your mainboard and CPU alone most of the time.

and LGA 2011 were a bit of a rip off

Speaking of rip offs, how 'bout that i7-4960X?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu ... Hz&id=2026

And even crazier- there is a Clevo Porta-Note that packs this thing: The P570WM. But it has a squelchy 16:9 1920x1080 screen... and that's another reason I was holding the i7-990X so high... because there's crazies on this forum putting T61 motherboards into T60ps, and X60T SXGA displays into X32s, we want to make a certain unit the best it can be at any cost, because it's the last of this, the best of that. The i7-990X is one of those ingredients... unless a P570WM motherboard swap was even remotely possible. But I highly doubt that. Or do I? I'm biting my teeth over the speculation now.

[A31]

Well another British guy agrees with your friend. Buying the Extreme-end hardware is pointless because it is very expensive for what it is and the lower-end stuff is still very powerful and barely any slower. As I've proven, over time (usually a few years) the Extreme-end hardware ends up being as fast or even slower than the 'peasant' stuff. Even the i7 4770K is overkill for what most people do.

You won't find yourself upgrading any more if you buy the lower-end stuff. I bought my i5 2500K 2 years ago. It's still perfectly adequate and I'm not replacing it any time. I could have also bought the i7 990X 2 years ago. I would not have upgraded from that either. By the time you need to replace your lower-end setup, you would also need to replace a Extreme-end CPU too. So I say that the time that you use them will be the same.

People only buy this Extreme-end stuff if they have money to burn or are desperate to have some kind of 'bragging rights'.

[Medessec]

People only buy this Extreme-end stuff if they have money to burn or are desperate to have some kind of 'bragging rights'.

I would partially agree with this. And it might be important to point out that the "Extreme" processors are simply rebranded from Intel's server & workstation grade technology... so it is the best of what Intel makes, but they're branding it so gamers can have those bragging rights.

I guess it really depends on how long you can go on whatever setup... or how you update your machines. I don't really update my setup unless I really feel like I'm down on power. That's why I updated to my GTX 680M, because the 285M was very clearly the problem whenever I was using my machine for rigorous tasks. As for the CPU-I have no reason to update that right now- it burns CPU load pretty ridiculous, and it runs pretty clean. Plus- it's not like trying to run Windows 7 on a T43, where the CPU is handling an OS that it wasn't made for. X58 has a long ways to go before it becomes completely useless... where LGA 775 is going out quite badly already, and first-gen Core-series behind it.

Unless I do get that sort of a job... I don't see myself buying any Intel Extreme hardware brand-new, unless I get my hands on a P570WM. But I doubt it. I don't plan on ever getting a desktop unless I really needed one, and if I did, I'd probably be looking for a Haswell board, or a good X79 board secondhand if I can find one for good value.

[Cigarguy]

Well another British guy agrees with your friend. Buying the Extreme-end hardware is pointless because it is very expensive for what it is and the lower-end stuff is still very powerful and barely any slower. As I've proven, over time (usually a few years) the Extreme-end hardware ends up being as fast or even slower than the 'peasant' stuff. Even the i7 4770K is overkill for what most people do.

You won't find yourself upgrading any more if you buy the lower-end stuff. I bought my i5 2500K 2 years ago. It's still perfectly adequate and I'm not replacing it any time. I could have also bought the i7 990X 2 years ago. I would not have upgraded from that either. By the time you need to replace your lower-end setup, you would also need to replace a Extreme-end CPU too. So I say that the time that you use them will be the same.

People only buy this Extreme-end stuff if they have money to burn or are desperate to have some kind of 'bragging rights'.

100% agree.

[A31]

You just need to buy what you need. Overspending for the sake of 'bragging rights' is ridiculous.