Tuesday, April 19th 2011

Alienware Redefines Mobile Gaming with Three New Gaming Laptops

Alienware is redefining mobile gaming – again – with three new, all-powerful laptops, including the soon to be released M18x, which lays claim to the title of "most powerful 18-inch gaming laptop in the universe;" the M14x, which delivers unprecedented performance and portability; and an enhanced M11x, already a favorite among gaming enthusiasts, and the most-powerful sub-14-inch notebook in the universe.

The two new faces in the Alienware laptop family, the upcoming M18x and the M14x, along with the new M11x, deliver unprecedented power to the gamer on the go. All three platforms offer the latest in gaming technology, and feature second-generation Intel Core i processors to deliver the most immersive high-performance gaming experience imaginable.
In particular:
  • The M18x will offer dual-graphics technology and an the industry's only Intel Core i7 Extreme CPU option factory overclocked to 4GHz;
  • The M18x and the M14x offer optional wireless HD audio and video for latency-free streaming to larger screens; and
  • All three laptops also offer HDMI 1.4 for connection to 3D-capable HDTVs for incredible, lifelike 3D gaming and SuperSpeed USB 3.0 ports for up to 10x the speed of USB 2.0 connections for a new level in data transfer.
Alienware has a rich history of innovation and delivering solutions that delight gamers and performance enthusiasts around the world. These laptops, along with the m17x announced and launched in January, represent the most-significant expansion in Alienware's portfolio in several years and arrive as the company celebrates its five-year anniversary as part of the Dell family. Since its acquisition by Dell, Alienware has expanded to provide award-winning gaming systems to a global fan base. The brand is also available at major retailers worldwide and has spawned a community site, Alienware Arena (www.alienwarearena.com), where gamers everywhere can interact socially and compete with one another.

"If you're a gamer, you're going to love our new family of laptops, which deliver on the features gamers care most about – uncompromised graphics performance, latency-free wireless HD streaming to HDTVs, and lifelike 3D gaming," said Arthur Lewis, general manager of Alienware. "We are committed to delivering the best gaming systems for enthusiasts everywhere and we take great pride in helping them 'pwn', no matter where they are in the world."

As Alienware's flagship laptop, the M18x – which is also dubbed the "Most Powerful 18-inch Gaming Laptop in the Universe" – will be a true desktop replacement. It is perfect for gamers who want to compromise nothing for blistering frame rates and full immersion in the gaming experience. With Wireless HD and 3D options, as well as HDMI-in, the M18x allows gamers a no-holds-barred gaming machine capable of meeting even the most grueling demands of today's gamer, delivering gaming content when and where gamers need it.

For gamers seeking a mobile HD gaming experience who want a balance of performance and mobility, the new 14-inch M14x offers the best of both worlds. Weighing in at less than 6.5lbs, the M14x features full-voltage Second-generation four- and two-core Intel Core i CPUs, discrete graphics and an optical disk drive. For the gaming enthusiast or anyone who needs mobile computing performance, the M14x is a mobile yet powerful option. The M14x offers updated graphics featuring the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M with up to 3GB of graphics memory, and for the gamer on the go, optional Intel WiMAX technology to enable internet connectivity virtually anywhere.

For the truly mobile gamer, the M11x has long been a favorite, but now it's even better! New improvements to the popular M11x include second-generation Intel Core i processors with Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0, updated graphics featuring the NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M, and like the larger M14x, optional Intel WiMAX technology. The latest M11x also features a soft touch finish with a new Nebula Red option.

Blistering Performance
The M18x, M14x and M11x each offer blistering performance on the go. Highlights of the new M18x include:
  • An 18.4-inch FHD WLED 1080p display for the best visuals possible
  • Powerful Dual GPU options with the fastest graphics memory (GDDR5) on all graphics options
  • Both AMD and NVIDIA graphics options, in Crossfire X and SLI, respectively
  • New Intel "Huron River" Architecture with a new factoryoverclocked Intel Core i7 Extreme Quad Core processor up to 4GHz
  • Upgradeable to up to 32GB 1333MHz memory
  • HDMI/Display Port output & HDMI-in
  • Wireless HD & 3D output options, delivering low-latency high-def content wirelessly or output to 3D displays
Highlights of the new M14x include:
  • 14-inch WLED HD (720p) display standard (1366x768) or optional 14-inch WLED HD+ (900p) display (1600x900)
  • Second-generation Overclockable Intel Core i CPUs with Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0
  • Updated graphics featuring the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M with up to 3GB of VRAM
  • NVIDIA Optimus technology to extend battery life
  • Up to 8GB of 1600MHz Extreme-Performance system memory
  • HDMI 1.4 to support connectivity on HDTVs and 7.1 digital audio
  • Audio powered by Klipsch (onboard speakers)
  • Optional Intel WiMAX technology
And the refreshed M11x includes:
  • An 11.6-inch WLED HD (720p) display (WXGA 1366x768)
  • Second-generation Overclockable Intel Core i CPUs with Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0
  • Updated graphics featuring the NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
  • Up to 16GB of 1333MHz high-performance system memory
  • HDMI 1.4 to support connectivity on HDTVs and 7.1 digital audio
  • Audio powered by Klipsch (onboard speakers)
  • Optional Intel WiMAX technology
Add your own comment

75 Comments on Alienware Redefines Mobile Gaming with Three New Gaming Laptops

#1
kiss4luna
pr0n Inspector said:
Is this dell's idea of social advertisement?
definately not :p
Posted on Reply
#2
Fourstaff
kiss4luna said:
definately not :p
Unfortunately its a bad case of fanboyism then :toast:
Posted on Reply
#3
kiss4luna
Fourstaff said:
Unfortunately its a bad case of fanboyism then :toast:
lol:p
Posted on Reply
#4
digibucc
Wile E said:
No, it IS better, because it does everything 1080 does and more. 1080p media plays on it pixel perfect with no scaling.

So, if 1920x1200 does everything 1920x1080 does plus more, how is it not the better resolution?

The industry hasn't accepted it only because there is a bigger profit margin on 1080p screens, not because of type of inferiority.
pr0n Inspector said:
You mean like movies in 2.4:1 AR? Even HDTV broadcasters sometimes add black bars instead of cropping(raping) the picture.
most movies are not 2:4:1, though some big name dramas are, for the most part you see them released on 16:9 widescreen or fullscreen.

1200px does not do everything 1080p does, because it is not 1080p. Game consoles and dvd players are much more likely to have problems outputting to a 1200p monitor than a 1080. maybe that's not a common use, but it's what i use it for very often.

You mention price but fail to consider it. I didn't even mention it as I assumed it was OBVIOUS, but OBVIOUSLY not. look at newegg or your choice of site. if there ARE any 1200px monitors they are at least $150-$200 USD more. they are more expensive to make and more expensive to replace. price is a large factor for most people. and when $150 nets you a 23" 1080p monitor, you need at least $300 to do the same with 1200p...

and then you fail still to recognize personal preference. some people simply don't want a 1200p monitor. so your stance is they are wrong, and they are choosing a lesser product.

why is the determination yours? I not only disagree with your premise, but I like my 1080p monitors and will keep at that rather than going to 1200p. regardless of what you may think of me at this point, that doesn't make me wrong. it's a personal preference.

you prefer 1200p, fine. that doesn't make 1200p objectively better. and note: I never said 1080p was superior. I never said 1200 was inferior. I am trying to stay away from that argument as it is simply juvenile and fails to grasp the point - neither is better.
Posted on Reply
#5
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
I think this is kinda cool actually, and 32GB RAM in a laptop is totally sweet. Yes, they will be hot and have a 10 minute battery life but ... duh. No shit. That's why laptop coolers exists, and you don't buy these things for watching movies on the bus.

And I totally agree with WileE on the 1080 vs 1200 thing.
Posted on Reply
#6
Fourstaff
digibucc said:
neither is better
If neither is better, why not use the cheapest option? After all, TV screens are made with the 1080p in mind, why not share production with monitors? Surely its cheaper? As much as I don't like widescreen format, I do appreciate their price/perf due to economies of scale. Of course, there are people who prefer 1200, but on the other hand, its a standard which is dying due to low usage. Reminds me of imperial vs metric system, any scientist worth their salt will tell you metric is the way to go, but the dumb public still insist on using imperial due to its convenience. But in this case, the 1200 does not have a saving grace.
Posted on Reply
#7
digibucc
Fourstaff said:
If neither is better, why not use the cheapest option? After all, TV screens are made with the 1080p in mind, why not share production with monitors? Surely its cheaper? As much as I don't like widescreen format, I do appreciate their price/perf due to economies of scale. Of course, there are people who prefer 1200, but on the other hand, its a standard which is dying due to low usage. Reminds me of imperial vs metric system, any scientist worth their salt will tell you metric is the way to go, but the dumb public still insist on using imperial due to its convenience. But in this case, the 1200 does not have a saving grace.
if i were to choose, and i have, i choose 1080. for the reason of price alone. but i don't think that makes it a "better" monitor. cheapness isn't necessarily a positive, so let's go with in-expensiveness. i like the metric/imperial comparison - but to be honest , though im a dumb american, i recognize metric as being easier to use and more accurate, so i see it as objectively better. as you said though, i see no saving grace for either ratio - but price. so go with the least expensive quality made option, that fits your needs.

pr0n Inspector said:
Movies ARE 2.4:1(some are 1.85:1), only cheap made-for-tv movies are 16:9. Ever noticed how blu-rays have black bars encoded in the video so the final resolution is 1920x1080?
again , not all. higher budget, big name ones I see as 2:4:1 , but more often than not most are 16:9 on disc. maybe not the original, but on the released discs.

Frick said:
And I totally agree with WileE on the 1080 vs 1200 thing.
as many people can agree as want to - and i will leave it at this as I have things i should be spending my time on vs this.

but simply try to recognize that just because you like something MORE, that does not mean it is inherently better.

all i am trying to say is that neither is inherently better. better suited to different tasks, for different people - sure. but OBJECTIVELY, BETTER - no.

I'm being very specific in regards to the language, because i am portraying an idea most people fail to recognize clearly. your subjective opinions are not the best base to determine objective fact. It can be better for you , but that does not make it OBJECTIVELY BETTER.
Posted on Reply
#8
pr0n Inspector
Movies ARE 2.4:1(some are 1.85:1), only cheap made-for-tv movies are 16:9. Ever noticed how blu-rays have black bars encoded in the video so the final resolution is 1920x1080?
Posted on Reply
#9
Fourstaff
pr0n Inspector said:
Movies ARE 2.4:1(some are 1.85:1), only cheap made-for-tv movies are 16:9. Ever noticed how blu-rays have black bars encoded in the video so the final resolution is 1920x1080?
Never came across that before, except for poorly made BluRays. 2.4:1 is good for cinema, and when people get lazy they just keep the same format and just code it straight to BR, rather than do some changes to get rid of the black bars they know will happen. 1.85:1 is more or less 16:9, in case your maths failed you. I don't watch much films nowadays anyway (since that most of them suck), so I should not be the one to seek any guidance from.
Posted on Reply
#10
pr0n Inspector
1920/1.85=1037. like watching 16:9 on 16:10 eh?

It's not being lazy it's an artistic choice. When you expect a certain aspect ratio you compose/frame the picture for that aspect ratio. Pan&scan(cropping) destroys this. Even in open matte(shooting at a less-wide AR, crop later) ones the director would be framing for theaters not home video.
Posted on Reply
#11
Fourstaff
pr0n Inspector said:
1920/1.85=1037. like watching 16:9 on 16:10 eh?

It's not being lazy it's an artistic choice. When you expect a certain aspect ratio you compose/frame the picture for that aspect ratio. Pan&scan(cropping) destroys this. Even in open matte(shooting at a less-wide AR, crop later) ones the director would be framing for theaters not home video.
Perhaps you are right, but having 16:10 will exacerbate the problem, not improve it.
Posted on Reply
#12
kiss4luna
digibucc said:
most movies are not 2:4:1, though some big name dramas are, for the most part you see them released on 16:9 widescreen or fullscreen.

1200px does not do everything 1080p does, because it is not 1080p. Game consoles and dvd players are much more likely to have problems outputting to a 1200p monitor than a 1080. maybe that's not a common use, but it's what i use it for very often.

You mention price but fail to consider it. I didn't even mention it as I assumed it was OBVIOUS, but OBVIOUSLY not. look at newegg or your choice of site. if there ARE any 1200px monitors they are at least $150-$200 USD more. they are more expensive to make and more expensive to replace. price is a large factor for most people. and when $150 nets you a 23" 1080p monitor, you need at least $300 to do the same with 1200p...

and then you fail still to recognize personal preference. some people simply don't want a 1200p monitor. so your stance is they are wrong, and they are choosing a lesser product.

why is the determination yours? I not only disagree with your premise, but I like my 1080p monitors and will keep at that rather than going to 1200p. regardless of what you may think of me at this point, that doesn't make me wrong. it's a personal preference.

you prefer 1200p, fine. that doesn't make 1200p objectively better. and note: I never said 1080p was superior. I never said 1200 was inferior. I am trying to stay away from that argument as it is simply juvenile and fails to grasp the point - neither is better.
i totally agree with you, different people have different specification that suits them better than one another.
Posted on Reply
#13
kiss4luna
Frick said:
I think this is kinda cool actually, and 32GB RAM in a laptop is totally sweet. Yes, they will be hot and have a 10 minute battery life but ... duh. No shit. That's why laptop coolers exists, and you don't buy these things for watching movies on the bus.

And I totally agree with WileE on the 1080 vs 1200 thing.
check this
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Alienware-M17x-R3-GTX-460M-i7-2630QM-Notebook.46187.0.html
even the m17x can handle a 266 minutes duration for watching a DVD
Posted on Reply
#15
kiss4luna
pr0n Inspector said:
No shit Sherlock. It has a big 9-cell, 90 Wh battery pack.
so?
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
digibucc said:
most movies are not 2:4:1, though some big name dramas are, for the most part you see them released on 16:9 widescreen or fullscreen.

1200px does not do everything 1080p does, because it is not 1080p. Game consoles and dvd players are much more likely to have problems outputting to a 1200p monitor than a 1080. maybe that's not a common use, but it's what i use it for very often.

You mention price but fail to consider it. I didn't even mention it as I assumed it was OBVIOUS, but OBVIOUSLY not. look at newegg or your choice of site. if there ARE any 1200px monitors they are at least $150-$200 USD more. they are more expensive to make and more expensive to replace. price is a large factor for most people. and when $150 nets you a 23" 1080p monitor, you need at least $300 to do the same with 1200p...

and then you fail still to recognize personal preference. some people simply don't want a 1200p monitor. so your stance is they are wrong, and they are choosing a lesser product.

why is the determination yours? I not only disagree with your premise, but I like my 1080p monitors and will keep at that rather than going to 1200p. regardless of what you may think of me at this point, that doesn't make me wrong. it's a personal preference.

you prefer 1200p, fine. that doesn't make 1200p objectively better. and note: I never said 1080p was superior. I never said 1200 was inferior. I am trying to stay away from that argument as it is simply juvenile and fails to grasp the point - neither is better.
There are no issues outputting 1080p to a 1200p monitor. It just shows the 1080p image, pixel perfect 1:1 on the screen.

And all movies shot on film are wider than 16:9. The vast majority of my 60+ BD's are wider than 16:9.

The only way 1080p is better is in price. They are still inferior in capabilities.

Personal preference may have you buying a panasonic or samsung (or insert other budget setup here) surround setup instead of something like a Polk setup, and that's your right, but they are still inferior in capabilities, regardless of your opinion of them.
Posted on Reply
#17
digibucc
Wile E said:

The only way 1080p is better is in price. They are still inferior in capabilities.
i think you may have an inferiority complex.

price then, is not a characteristic worth considering? I wish I had your cash flow. yet you still skip right over my point.

you obviously have a lot invested in this debate, and take it very seriously - neither of which i can claim for myself.
so i'll just leave you with your superior screen, to go play with yourself.
Posted on Reply
#18
D007
Alien ware... the surefire way to buy something that underperforms and outcosts anything else in the universe..
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
digibucc said:
i think you may have an inferiority complex.

price then, is not a characteristic worth considering? I wish I had your cash flow. yet you still skip right over my point.

you obviously have a lot invested in this debate, and take it very seriously - neither of which i can claim for myself.
so i'll just leave you with your superior screen, to go play with yourself.
I don't have an inferiority complex, but I think you may have a comprehension problem.

The fact of the matter is, the first comment on this topic was that 1920x1200 is the better resolution (which it is), not that it's necessarily better for everyone to buy a 1920x1200 monitor.

As for me personally, price is only considered after the item I am buying meets all of my performance criteria. If nothing exists in the price range I can afford that meets my criteria, I just save longer to get what I want. It took me a year to save enough for my monitor, and I'm very happy I did. I made no compromises on my picture quality. I can't afford to just go out and drop $600 on something on a whim. I have to save up.
Posted on Reply
#21
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
What res are you running that monitor at?

pr0n Inspector said:
No shit Sherlock. It has a big 9-cell, 90 Wh battery pack.
kiss4luna said:
so?
Of course it is going to have a 9-cell, 90 wh battery pack. If you want to choose to just browse the internet then buy a lappy that consumes less power, but if you want to buy a good gaming laptop then what else would you expect than a lappy that will suck some juice:)
Posted on Reply
#22
kiss4luna
HammerON said:
What res are you running that monitor at?




Of course it is going to have a 9-cell, 90 wh battery pack. If you want to choose to just browse the internet then buy a lappy that consumes less power, but if you want to buy a good gaming laptop then what else would you expect than a lappy that will suck some juice:)
it's a samsung 46" 3DTV and i use 3DTV Play software to stream 3D contents to the 3DTV via HDMI 1.4 connector. this 3DTV does not support 3D gaming @ 1920x1080 from the notebook so i use 1280x720 instead. Crysis 2 setting is the low one because when enabling 3D mode the framerate will be cut in half
Posted on Reply
#23
Fatal
It's still a Dell enough said.. Alienware is pointless like many have stated cheaper lappy's that will do the same.
Posted on Reply
#24
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
I have a Dell XPS lappy and love it!!!
But then again I wouldn't know anything about hardware:p
Posted on Reply
#25
Fatal
HammerON said:
I have a Dell XPS lappy and love it!!!
But then again I wouldn't know anything about hardware:p
You know how to take care of it. Most people that have these Alienwares give two shits about taking care of it. Hell most laptops I have worked on the owners are like "Hmm I didnt know that it would overheat" WTF!!! :laugh: its a waste of money to buy these since most dont take care of them. Whomever posted the picture with the nuke is right.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment