• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Meet Stan Dmitriev of SurrogateTV on the Pi Cast TODAY! The show is live August 11th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Professional PC modder Mike Petereyns joins Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 13th at 3:00 pm ET (8:00 PM BST). Click here!

Review Alienware m15 R3 Review: Gotta Go Fast

roblittler77

Prominent
Aug 19, 2018
1
1
510
0
No it's not. Not until humans develop cybernetic eyes.
Actually yes it is, the higher the refresh rate the sooner information gets to your eyes and your brain can act on it, like with anything there are diminishing returns, but there is a measurable difference.
 
Reactions: scubaStan

LordConrad

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2007
860
13
19,165
54
I have a m15 R3, ordered it on release day. The RAID 0 drives are m.2 SATA, while the single "storage" drive is NVMe (x2 PCIe 3.0). First thing I did is change the boot drive to the single NVMe drive. What stupid company sets a RAID 0 array as a boot drive?
 

JarredWaltonGPU

Senior GPU Editor
Editor
Feb 21, 2020
338
274
560
0
Diminishing returns are true - within human physical capability. 300Hz is well beyond that.
Eh, I don't really think so (the part about 300Hz being "well beyond that" -- I definitely agree with the diminishing returns aspect). Like, watching a video at 144Hz vs. 240Hz vs. 300Hz (and an accompanying framerate), I don't think anyone would notice. That's because cameras and video capture and then replay things in a different fashion.

But playing a game, with the live feedback loop, there's certainly a difference between 60Hz and 144Hz, and even from 144Hz to 240Hz. I suspect for serious (ie, 'pro' gamers like Ninja), yes, 300Hz and 300 fps vs. 240Hz and 240 fps would actually yield a modest 3-5% improvement. It's fuzzy math for sure, and no pro gamer is actually going to use a 15-inch laptop for a competition. There's a reason pros have standardized on 24-inch (sometimes 21.5-inch) displays.
 

nofanneeded

Upstanding
Sep 29, 2019
314
48
220
1
Older Alienware keyboard was better. Heat was lower as well. I dont like their new Design at all.

The same can be said about the Desktops.
 

Jim90

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2013
384
18
18,965
54
Ah...the olde Hz discussion. Perhaps a nod to that other critical factor, FPS, would be in order? - a high Hz will be increasingly pointless if there's a significant FPS imbalance there! What's also hugely significant is that the drive for high Hz does, by definition, lock the gamer to a 'low' resolution experience in the vast majority of cases - unless you're happy to knock down eye candy also. Add to that the requirement to purchase a top end gfx card and CPU.
For the vast majority of us, operating outside the 'pro-gamer' scene, spending that money would be accompanied with higher resolution gaming as the primary goal. Of course, ultimately, every one of us (pro-gamer included) would like a combined experience of max res gaming, max FPS and max Hz, withing 'diminishing returns' reason. Tag a future VR experience to that for that final touch.
 

escksu

Prominent
Aug 8, 2019
89
26
560
0
Actually yes it is, the higher the refresh rate the sooner information gets to your eyes and your brain can act on it, like with anything there are diminishing returns, but there is a measurable difference.

Try this... See whats your reaction time. Your clicking reaction time is easily over 100ms. Way higher than even 60Hz refresh rate of ~17ms.

We also need to include lag.....haha.... internet connection speed. 20-30ms is considered very good.

Higher refresh rate is not about getting information to your eyes sooner, its about motion looking smooth and not jerky. Of course, your GPU has to be able to keep up. If your game is running at only 50fps, then having a 300Hz display isn't going to do anything.
 

dmylrea

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2003
14
1
18,510
0
Can you really notice the difference between 144hz and 240?
I've seen/used both 144hz and this m15 R3 w/300hz. Yes, you can see a difference. On the 300hz display, just moving windows around the screen is amazingly smooth, unlike anything you've seen. The difference is very noticeable.
 
Reactions: gg83

dmylrea

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2003
14
1
18,510
0
I have a m15 R3, ordered it on release day. The RAID 0 drives are m.2 SATA, while the single "storage" drive is NVMe (x2 PCIe 3.0). First thing I did is change the boot drive to the single NVMe drive. What stupid company sets a RAID 0 array as a boot drive?
Better yet, what stupid company uses SATA drives in an expensive gaming system? And that NVME? It's hampered by the x2 PCIe lanes. All three drives are losers.

I wondered why the file transfer test had the m15 with such a low transfer rate considering it was using RAID0?
Shame on the reviewer for not pointing out the terrible performance. In the test unit, it says they are using dual NVMe drives...if that's true, something is definitely WRONG with either the RAID software or the drives.
 

King_V

Distinguished
I've seen/used both 144hz and this m15 R3 w/300hz. Yes, you can see a difference. On the 300hz display, just moving windows around the screen is amazingly smooth, unlike anything you've seen. The difference is very noticeable.
A friend tried to explain this to me, and used the "window moving" test. So, we got on my son's monitor, and tried it.

Once we hit 100, he couldn't tell the difference between 100 and 120, 100 and 144. He seemed genuinely surprised that he could not tell.


Eh, I don't really think so (the part about 300Hz being "well beyond that" -- I definitely agree with the diminishing returns aspect). Like, watching a video at 144Hz vs. 240Hz vs. 300Hz (and an accompanying framerate), I don't think anyone would notice. That's because cameras and video capture and then replay things in a different fashion.

But playing a game, with the live feedback loop, there's certainly a difference between 60Hz and 144Hz, and even from 144Hz to 240Hz. I suspect for serious (ie, 'pro' gamers like Ninja), yes, 300Hz and 300 fps vs. 240Hz and 240 fps would actually yield a modest 3-5% improvement. It's fuzzy math for sure, and no pro gamer is actually going to use a 15-inch laptop for a competition. There's a reason pros have standardized on 24-inch (sometimes 21.5-inch) displays.
Oh, I absolutely agree, watching a video of it is completely useless. As for playing a game, I keep repeating my mantra of the pointlessness of higher and higher refresh rates, and pointing out that the fastest recorded human reaction time was on the order of 12 ms - that puts it at about 84 fps.

However, I have also always said that, should an actual, scientifically documented double-blind study be done, where many users can actually the user can consistently tell what the frame rate is without being told, then I would have to reconsider my position.

I think the only response I've ever gotten was a half-hour video from Linus Tech Tips... and an insistence that it meets the standards of scientific rigor.
 
Reactions: JarredWaltonGPU

JarredWaltonGPU

Senior GPU Editor
Editor
Feb 21, 2020
338
274
560
0
Oh, I absolutely agree, watching a video of it is completely useless. As for playing a game, I keep repeating my mantra of the pointlessness of higher and higher refresh rates, and pointing out that the fastest recorded human reaction time was on the order of 12 ms - that puts it at about 84 fps.

However, I have also always said that, should an actual, scientifically documented double-blind study be done, where many users can actually the user can consistently tell what the frame rate is without being told, then I would have to reconsider my position.

I think the only response I've ever gotten was a half-hour video from Linus Tech Tips... and an insistence that it meets the standards of scientific rigor.
Yeah, Nvidia had demos of 300Hz vs. 60Hz at CES this past January (RIP, CES!) It wasn't double blind, but having personally tried it, there was an obvious difference in feel and response. Nvidia claims pros saw a boost of 3~5% in K/D ratio by moving to 300Hz vs. 240Hz. However, IIRC we weren't given the option of trying the tests at anything other than 60 vs 300 -- there was one test where you could view 60/120/144/240/300 Hz (and fps) content from League of Legends map panning, but that's not quite the same as hands on tests. I definitely did better on the 300Hz vs. 60Hz display, but would be very curious how much of a change I'd see with 144Hz vs. 300Hz.

There are also other factors, like AFAICR the 240Hz and 300Hz displays are all TN panels. I'd give up the higher refresh rate for a high quality IPS/MVA in a heartbeat personally. And I say that as someone who still does most of my testing on a 60Hz 4K TN monitor. :'(
 
Reactions: King_V

King_V

Distinguished
I imagine only offering the comparison of 60 vs 300 is intentional. As much of a naysayer as I am, I absolutely agree that if your starting point is 60Hz, going up to even 100, or maybe even 75, would offer a noticeable improvement.

Likewise, I'd be very curious as to how much of a change 240 to 300, or 144 to 240, would offer. As for Nvidia's claim of K/D improvement of 3-5% going from 240 to 300, well, they're trying to sell their highest end cards, so, I don't trust their claims, given their obvious motivation.
 
Reactions: JarredWaltonGPU
Aug 3, 2020
1
0
10
0
Please test the new HP Envy 15!!! I want to see how it compares with the M15. Please! Thanks

Get the Costco version and you'll have 90 days to review it. ;) It should be the best, unreviewed laptop out there.
 
Last edited:

yronnen

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2010
47
0
18,530
0
I have the i9/2080 Super Max-Q config, and I did not notice any significant heat issues using the keyboard.

Comparing to the older model I have, this model doesn't have a 2.5" SSD/HDD slot, so the only options are nvme, which is a bit of a bummer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS