<p>
I don’t know where you’re getting your fps benchmarks, but it seems like you may be skewing each in a direction that benefits your argument. To keep things uniform, I’ll take the ones from Notebookcheck, as I have done so in other threads. Oh, a little difference I see:
Crysis 2
670M - High ~82fps
560M - High ~60fps</p>
<p>[NVIDIA</a> GeForce GTX 670M - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-670M.72197.0.html]NVIDIA”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-670M.72197.0.html)</p>
<p>[NVIDIA</a> GeForce GTX 560M - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-560M.48313.0.html]NVIDIA”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-560M.48313.0.html)</p>
<p>No doubt the 670M is a superior card, I think that was included before (in each review above I state that you’ll be getting a lower GPU), but is the performance difference worth the cost difference? In other words, is it worth spending $2,3, or even close to 400 more for the higher end card included in the Clevo? I guess this will depend on which specific games the consumer will want to play, but heres the thing - anything 30fps and over is considered (by Notebookcheck and many other sites) to be a respectful benchmark where the game will run without sacrificing a much noticable amount in game play quality. Therefore, technically, each card will play each game you mentioned (and many many more) and a respectable to highly respectable rate. So why pay $300 more to get 20 more fps on Crysis 2 when it’ll play respectfully at 45? Who is really paying a “marketing cost”?</p>
<p>But, alas, this is where we get into the display.
Let me expand upon this. Not too long ago - like within the last couple (2) years - manufacturers didn’t even make television sets <21" with 1080p/i (the 1080 in 1920x1080). The main problem was fitting so much in a small screen and still having room for data compression to put out a high enough quality image to be “true” 1080 HD. A good example in this nifty article ( [The</a> Real Story of HDTV Standards—There Aren’t Any: Buzzword - Popular Mechanics](<a href=“http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/home-theater/4275063]The”>http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/home-theater/4275063) ) suggests that (while written a few years ago about TVs holds true for computer displays now) higher/faster motion images reguires higher compression of data to get every little (definition) detail onto the viewing screen. Therefore, if an olympic runner is being displayed on the screen it would be more of “can the compression catch everything to display it” rather than a “does my TV have HD so I can see all the detail in the runner’s motions”. Ever wonder why a bunch of TVs on display at Best Buy or Costco all say “1080p” on them, but the picture quality varies greatly? That 1080 won’t mean squat when you’re playing a run around hack-n-slash or shoot 'em up game on a 17.3" display. Hence, I suggest you get the optional BluRay drive with it so that you can have the possibility of experiencing something HD on the display. Also, I remember reading in a scientific magazine a couple years ago that for the human eye to even catch and process all of the compressed data that is being output onto the screen, the eye would need to be a certain distance from the screen. Being too far from or too close to a 17.3" HD (720 or 1080) screen can seriously affect the way you eyes take in the image being output, therfore negating the whole notion of experiencing HD. This is all withstanding going into technical details. Therefore, it is IMO and IME that that Clevo display will not, if rarely ever, perform to it’s stated specs and rating. I couldn’t even confirm if the 670M GPU natively supports 1080p, but I’ll assume it does since they’re offering that display and BluRay option.</p>
<p>If anyone wanted to look further into DPI, I found this little table handy too: [DPI</a> (Fineness) of Displays - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/DPI-Fineness-of-Displays.1310.0.html]DPI”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/DPI-Fineness-of-Displays.1310.0.html)</p>
<p>
Agreed, and apologetically this was my overlooking - on your link it shows the 2nd Gen i7 on top, but is not the selected CPU in the $1,400 (or $1,480 with OS) price. Not everyone will need that kind of power, so still I think it would have been better for them to offer a 3rd Gen i5 at a reduced overal model price to keep it even more competititive with like models. For all to see:
[Intel</a> Core i7 3610QM Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3610QM-Notebook-Processor.72681.0.html]Intel”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3610QM-Notebook-Processor.72681.0.html)</p>
<p>[Intel</a> Core i5 2450M Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech](<a href=“http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-2450M-Notebook-Processor.65510.0.html]Intel”>http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-2450M-Notebook-Processor.65510.0.html)</p>
<p>EDIT:
I’d still more seriously consider the Qosmio or XPS over the Clevo, especially with Ivy Bridge technology.</p>