Test Setup
Hardware Comparison
| MODEL | Alienware Area-51 X-58 | AVADirect Custom Gaming PC | CyberPower Xtreme Gamer |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core i7 920, 2.67 GHz | Intel Core i7 920, 2.67 GHz (OC'd to 3.33 GHz) | Intel Core i7 940 2.93 GHz (OC'd to 3.61 GHz) |
| Motherboard | Asus Custom Socket 1366 | Asus P6T Deluxe | Asus P6T Deluxe |
| RAM | 6 GB DDR3 at 1,066 MT/s (Elipida) | 6 GB DDR3 at 1,333 MT/s (Corsair XMS3) | 6GB DDR3 at 1,600 MT/s (Kingston HyperX) |
| Chipset | Intel X58 | Intel X58 | Intel X58 |
| Video Card | Nvidia GeForce GTX 295 | EVGA GeForce GTX 260 (two cards in SLI) | Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 X2 |
| Audio | Analog Devices SoundMAX | Analog Devices SoundMAX | Analog Devices SoundMAX |
| Hard Drive | Two Seagate Barracuda ST3500620AS (500 GB) in RAID 0 | Fujitsu MBA3147RC SAS (147 GB) and Seagate Barracuda ST315003141AS (1.5 TB) | Two Hitachi Deskstar (500 GB) in RAID 0 and Western Digital WD10EACS (1 TB) |
| Optical | LG Electronics Super-Multi GH22NP20 | Two TSST CDDVDW SH-S223Q | Sony BR-5100S 20X Blu-ray, plus Sony 20x DVD-RW |
| CPU Cooling | Alienware custom heatsink/fan | CoolIT Domino ALC | Asetek LCLC |
| GPU Cooling | Stock heatsink/fan | Stock heatsink/fan | Stock heatsink/fan |
| LAN | Marvell Yukon 88E8056 (dual Gigabit) | Marvell Yukon 88E8056 (dual Gigabit) | Marvell Yukon 88E8056 (dual Gigabit) |
| Media Reader | None | 68-in-1 | 12-in-1 |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit) | Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit) | Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit) |
| Enclosure | Alienware Custom | Thermaltake V9 | Cooler Master Storm Sniper |
| Power Supply | Alienware Custom (750 watts) | Corsair TX750W (750 watts) | Thermaltake Toughpower (600 watts) |
Benchmarks and Settings
| 3D Games Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
| Benchmarks | Details |
| Far Cry | Version: 1.02, Video Mode: 1280x960, no AA, Overall Quality Very High and 1920x1200, 4x AA, Overall Quality Very High, Demo: Far Cry 2 benchmark tool, Ranch Mediu |
| Supreme Commander | Version: 1.5.359, Video Mode: 1920x1200 Fidelity Preset: Low and 1920x1200 Fidelity Preset: High, Demo: WallaceTX_006_00, Benchmark: Fraps 2.9.4 – Built 7037 |
| Unreal Tournament 3 | Version: 1.2, Video Mode: 1920x1200, Texture and Level Details 1; and 1920x1200, Texture and Level Details 5, Sound and DirectX 10; Window off, Demo: CTF-Reflection_fly, Time: 12/60 |
| World In Conflict | Version 1.0.0.9, Video mode: 1920x1200, Very Low Details and 1920x1200, Very High Detail, Demo: Game Benchmark |
| Media Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
| Benchmarks | Details |
| DivX | Version: 6.8.3,- Main Menu -, Default, - Codec Menu -, Encoding Mode: Insane Quality, Enhanced multi-threading, Enabled using SSE4, Quarter-pixel search, - Video Menu -, Quantization: MPEG-2 |
| iTunes | Version: 8.0.2 Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 min Default format to AAC |
| LAME MP3 | Version 3.98 Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 min WAV to MP3, 160Kbps |
MainConcept Reference Reference H.264 Plugin Pro | Version 1.5.1 MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264) MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2) Audio: MPEG2 (44.1KHz, 2 channel, 16-bit, 224Kbs) Codec: H.264Mode: PAL (25 FPS) Profile: Tom’s Hardware Settings for Qct-Core |
| Nero 8 Recode | Version: Nero Recode 3.1.4.0 Record entire DVD to DVD Default settings |
| Pinnacle Studio Ultimate | Version: 12.0.0.6163 Encoding and Transition Rendering DV camcorder movie Video: 720 x 576 Pixel, PAL, 25 fps, 6000 Kbits/sec Audio: MPEG Layer 2, 224 Kbits/sec 16 Bit, Stereo 44.1 KHz File Type: MPEG-2 (DVD Compatible) |
| TMPEGnc Xpress | Version: 4.5.1.254 Video: Terminator 2 SE DVD (720x576, 16:9) 5 Minutes Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-channel English Advanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160Kbs, 44.1KHz) |
| Xvid | Version: 1.1.3 - Other Options / Encoder Menu - Display encoding status = off |
| Applications Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
Benchmark | Details |
| 3ds Max 9 | Version: 9.0, Benchmark: Render Dragon image at 1920x1080 (HDTV) |
| Grisoft AVG Anti-virus | Version: 8.0.134, Virus base: 270.4.5/1533, Benchmark: Scan some compressed ZIP and RAR archives |
| WinRAR | Version 3.70 Beta 8, WinZIP Commandline Version 2.3, Compression = Best, Dictionary: 4096KB, Benchmark: THG-Workload |
| WinZIP | Version: 11.2, Compression = Best, Benchmark: THG-Workload |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
| 3DMark Vantage | Version: 1.02, GPU and CPU Scores obtained with Performance Preset |
| PCMark Vantage | Version 1.00, System, Memories, Productivity and Hard Drive Benchmarks |
| SiSoftware Sandra XII | Version: 2008.5.14.24, CPU Test=CPU Arithmetic/MultiMedia, Memory Test=Bandwidth Benchmark |
| A/C Power Consumption | |
|---|---|
| Kill-A-Watt P4400 | Each system’s A/C power draw measured at the wall in watts at idle and then while running the Far Cry 2 benchmark using a P3 Kill-A-Watt P4400 power meter |
Latest Desktops News
- 10/02 – Braben: No Raspberry Pi for Consumers Until 3Q12
- 03/02 – Apple is Now World's Largest PC Company (If Tablets Are...
- 27/01 – Ex-Palm Chief Rubinstein Has Resigned From HP
- 25/01 – Apple Breaks Tech Records in Q1; 37 Million iPhones Sold
- 19/01 – Apple Recycling Programme Extended to UK, France, Germany
Latest Desktops reviews
- 10/10 – Nettop Round-Up: Four Tiny PCs, Benchmarked And Reviewed
- 05/10 – Building A Liquid-Cooled MicroATX Gaming Monster
- 27/09 – Intel vPro: Three Generations Of Remote Management
- 26/09 – System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2011: System Value Compared
- 22/09 – System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2011: $500 Gaming PC
Nice to see a comparison that doesn't put Alienware on top all the time. Yes, they have a fantastic reputation and some truly slick kit, but when it comes down to the meat and potatos of it, Alienware's insides always seem to be a little underpowered or overpriced (depending on your viewpoint).
Comparing an i7 920 to an i7 940 is a little redundant though considering they were both overclocked and therefore the clock speed difference was maintained.
What I'd like to see (and this is beyond the scope of this article) is a 920 or 940 clocked to 3.2GHz and run against a 965 Extreme at stock - goes the increased QPI transfer rate of the Extreme make any tangible difference in real-world conditions?
The question remains: who will be stupid enough to pay $1200+ for the upcoming i7 975 when you can overclock a $270 920 to 3.4+GHz anyways..
@starmate:
That's always been the question since overclocking has been viable and commonplace. And this is why I posed the question.
Both the 920 and the 940 have a QPI rate of 4.8GT/s so I won't bother with the 940 - I'll just get a 920 and overclock it to match the 940 and save about £200.
The same goes for the 965 and 975. As the 975 is Extreme too, I'd assume it also has a QPI rate of 6.4 GT/s like the 965. If so, get a 965 and overclock it to match the 975 and save about £200.
However, what I want to know is how much of a difference does the QPI rate make? Does an extra 1.6 GT/s make a difference in single-CPU set ups, and therefore is worth getting an Extreme for maximum performance? Or will we see benefit in dual-CPU set ups like Xeon boards and Skulltrail 2?
And is it just me, or does "Gigatransfers per second" sound like a total, 3am bullshit decision "yeah, we'll rate the QPI in Gigatransfers - that'll do!"
I agree. No point in the 940 or 965 if you're willing to overclock the 920. I've read that the 965 isn't at all stable beyond 4ghz, and the 920 has been known to overclock beyond this,so where is the dilemma? 920 oc'ed, 6 gigs of 1600 DDR3 and a decent vid card and heatsink and you are laughing.
That's the route I'm going matt77 unless X58 Skulltrail proves to be something significant, hence me whittering on about the Extreme's higher QPI rate.
Am I the only one who notices that despite all other articles disabling the PhysX acceleration for 3DMark this particular article didn't?
Omitted the Graphics Score from this test suite as well, whilst showing all the other parts of the score breakdown. I suspect that the reviewer was giving all he could to help Alienware not look uncompetitive.
I also dislike that the prices weren't mentioned. All under $2500 but BY HOW MUCH? Alienware probably cost the most.
I have heard that alienware take exception to bad reviews and stop handing out the benchmarking samples if they are made to look bad.