Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) Notebook Review
For the original German review, see here.
While most notebook manufacturers rely on Nvidia for the graphics output, Alienware is more daring and uses a solution from AMD. The top-end version, the Radeon R9 M295X, we've only reviewed once so far - when we checked out Apple's iMac Retina 5K 27-inch. At this point in time, AMD's high-end solution faces rather stiff competition. From its price point and from a technical standpoint, the R9 M295X reminds us of the GeForce GTX 970M, which was able to show its worthiness in several different notebooks already. On Alienware's homepage, the latter is only offered with the dual-core processor Core i5-4210H, which we don't understand at all. Users wanting a quad-core CPU need to choose the GeForce GTX 980M, which costs 255 Euros (~$283) more than the R9 M295X.
Another inexplicable nuisance: users who purchase the review notebook online (A15-4075) won't get an SSD but will have to make do with an HDD. Spending 1600 Euros (~$1777) in 2015 should net the buyer a Solid State Drive - even if it's just a 128 GB model for the OS. For that reason, we recommend buying directly from the manufacturer, since SSDs are an option that way. Additional details about the various configurations can be found in our review of the AW15. Since the chassis is identical, we'll omit the case, input devices and speaker sections.
Update 14.06.15: Those who stumble upon the inconspicuous "continue" button in the configurator can order the GeForce GTX 970M with a quad-core CPU.
Display
Surprisingly enough, the version of the notebook with the R9-M295X does not make use of the same FHD panel as the GTX-970M version. Instead of a panel made by Samsung (SDC4C48, FYTXT_156HL), our review model is equipped with a display from LG (LGD046F, C3MWM_156WF6).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 314 cd/m²
Contrast: 952:1 (Black: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.14 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
85% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
56% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
62.4% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
85.4% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
65.5% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 3.19
No need to worry though: the display performance is nearly identical. Both versions feature an average brightness of 290 nits, which is more than enough for indoor use. Only in brightly-lit environments would a higher maximum brightness be an advantage. Although the contrast ratio is slightly different, the choice of the panel doesn't really matter for daily use: the model with R9 M295X features a contrast ratio of 950:1, the model with GTX 970M 1100:1. The same is true for the black value; again the previously reviewed model also did slightly better (0.33 vs. 0.28 cd/m²).
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) C3MWM_156WF6 (LGD046F) | Acer Aspire VN7-591G-727P Sharp LQ156D1JW04 | MSI GE62-2QEUi716H21BW Samsung SDC4852 | Alienware 15 FYTXT_156HL (Samsung SDC4C48) | Gigabyte P35X v3 Panasonic VVX16T028J00 (MEI96A2) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -5% | -17% | 5% | -2% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 65.5 | 64.9 -1% | 50.2 -23% | 65.1 -1% | 61.7 -6% |
| sRGB Coverage | 85.4 | 66.9 -22% | 75.6 -11% | 93.3 9% | 85.1 0% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 62.4 | 66.9 7% | 51.9 -17% | 66.2 6% | 61.7 -1% |
| Screen | -10% | -26% | -3% | -11% | |
| Brightness middle | 314 | 322 3% | 230 -27% | 308 -2% | 374 19% |
| Brightness | 294 | 325 11% | 202 -31% | 292 -1% | 350 19% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 90 3% | 63 -28% | 83 -5% | 90 3% |
| Black Level * | 0.33 | 0.37 -12% | 0.34 -3% | 0.28 15% | 0.45 -36% |
| Contrast | 952 | 870 -9% | 676 -29% | 1100 16% | 831 -13% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.14 | 3.77 9% | 4.59 -11% | 4.28 -3% | 4.25 -3% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.8 | 5.36 -91% | 4.62 -65% | 4.54 -62% | 4.9 -75% |
| Gamma | 3.19 69% | 2.39 92% | 2.48 89% | 2.81 78% | 2.36 93% |
| CCT | 6540 99% | 7163 91% | 6389 102% | 7497 87% | 6294 103% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 56 | 61 9% | 48 -14% | 60 7% | 56 0% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 85 | 92.9 9% | |||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -8% /
-8% | -22% /
-24% | 1% /
-1% | -7% /
-8% |
* ... smaller is better
According to the professional software CalMAN, neither panel has a significant advantage. The Samsung display has a higher color accuracy, better RGB balance and better saturation; the LG panel scores with better grayscale accuracy and a better Gamma value. Color-space coverage slightly favors the Samsung panel: the last Alienware 15 covered sRGB and AdobeRGB at 93% and 60%, respectively, while the current review notebook "only" managed 85% and 56%.
Overall, both panels do their job well. Viewing-angle stability is - typical for IPS displays - quite good. Very positive: we didn't notice any issues with backlight bleeding.
Performance
The Alienware 15 generally ranks in the upper gaming-echelon - save for its storage. 8 GB DDR3 RAM is plenty even for demanding games, although many manufacturers slowly but surely move to 16 GB instead. We'll take a look at the CPU and the GPU in the following sections.
Processor
The Core i7-4710HQ is a quad-core Haswell-CPU (22 nm), which can handle up to eight threads in parallel thanks to Hyper-Threading. 6 MB of L3 cache also hints at the fact that this is quite a powerful processor. Intel reports - as for most mobile quad-core products - a TDP of 47 watts. Since the Alienware 15 supports graphics switching, simple tasks will make use of the processor-integrated GPU. For normal workloads like word processing, videos, or Internet, the HD Graphics 4600 is easily sufficient.
Let's talk about the Turbo Boost, which can overclock the Core i7-4710HQ from its nominal 2.5 GHz to 3.5 GHz. During the Cinebench R11.5 benchmark, we observed 3.3 - 3.5 GHz for the single-core and 3.3 GHz during the multi-core portion, which means that the Turbo operates near its maximum. Under load, the CPU doesn't behave quite as well: during the stress test with Furmark and Prime, the individual cores drop to 800 MHz at times. We also noticed that behavior when running the Unigine Heaven 4.0 benchmark.
The benchmark scores don't indicate the occurrence of throttling during day-to-day (gaming) life, however. With a result of 661 points for the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Alienware 15 is about as fast as the gaming competition; the single-core result of 135 points is also no different. This is not really surprising since the notebooks listed in the table below use comparable CPUs.
System Performance
System performance is a mixed bag because the notebook lacks an SSD. Both booting and installations take a bit longer. For gamers, the long load times are especially annoying - a Solid State Drive would allow much faster access to the various levels. Synopsis: the review model suffers from a storage-related bottleneck. High-end notebooks should come with SSDs in our opinion. Of course, it's possible to retrofit the notebook as such (2x M.2 & 1x 2.5-inch).
| PCMark 7 Score | 3571 points | |
Help | ||
Storage Devices
The hard drive is from Western Digital (Scorpio Blue WD10JPVX-75JC3T0) and has a capacity of 1000 GB. According to both HDTune and CrystalDiskMark, the drive performance isn't really top-notch. Unlike some other 5400 RPM drives, the Scorpio Blue can't exceed a sequential transfer speed of 100 MB. Part of the reason might be that the drive also has to run the OS in the background.
GPU Performance
At least on paper, the Radeon R9 M295X looks very compelling. Equipped with 2048 shader units, the performance should be significantly higher than the performance of the Radeon R9 M290X, which has 1280 shader units and isn't based on GCN 3 (codename Tonga), but GCN (Neptune) architecture. As our benchmark scores show, the advantage isn't that substantial, since the R9 M295X tops out at 723 MHz in the Alienware notebook. According to our information, 850 MHz plus Turbo should be theoretically possible. The graphics memory also only runs at 1250 MHz instead of 1362 MHz as we've seen during our review of the iMac Retina 5K. In some cases, the performance drops to below that of the Radeon R9 M290X, although the drivers can be the culprit as well.
The fact that the Enduro technology (AMD's counterpart to Nvidia's Optimus) doesn't recognize games easily and because of other inconsistencies, we expect that Alienware is using a very outdated driver. Even though we checked "maximum performance" (see screenshot #4) in the global settings of the Catalyst Control Center, 60% of the games started with the Intel GPU at first. The consequence: in order to use the AMD GPU, we had to activate the "high performance" profile individually for each game (screenshot #5).
The outdated driver might also explain our other issues. In addition to GRID Autosport and Dirt Rally, Dragon Age Inquisition refused to run in full-screen mode. Both Thief and BioShock: Infinite showed an entirely black screen when in full-screen mode (although the benchmarks still ran anyways). Call of Duty Advanced Warfare (DirectX error messages and crashes when loading) and F1 2014 (graphics bugs when using the medium preset) also had their share of problems. At this point, we can't wholeheartedly recommend the Radeon R9 M295X. Even with the newest drivers installed, Nvidia's CPUs are generally superior - at least as far as their reliability is concerned.
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 7943 points | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 72832 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 17182 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 5727 points | |
Help | ||
Another potential point of criticism could be the amount of RAM. Although 4 GB of GDDR5 VRAM is sufficient for most games, the current trend is for 6 to 8 GB. 5000 million transistors and a 256-bit interface are pretty impressive though: the R9 M290X only has 2800 million transistors.
Although the iMac Retina 5k outperforms the Alienware 15 when running synthetic graphics benchmarks, the performance is still surprisingly good. With 5727 points, the Radeon R9 M295X surpassed the result of the GeForce GTX 960M (3914 points @Acer V 15 Nitro) by 45% during the Fire Strike portion of the current 3DMark benchmark test and the GTX 965M (4806 points @MSI GE62) by 20%. The GeForce GTX 970M, which is about as expensive, scores about 14% better (6508 points @AW15). The Radeon trails the GTX 980M (8230 points @Gigabyte P35X v3) by up to 30%.
| 3DMark | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Score (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Acer Aspire VN7-591G-727P | |
| MSI GE62-2QEUi716H21BW | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| Gigabyte P35X v3 | |
| 3840x2160 Fire Strike Ultra Score (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Acer Aspire VN7-591G-727P | |
| MSI GE62-2QEUi716H21BW | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| Gigabyte P35X v3 | |
Gaming Performance
Of course, what really matters is the actual performance when running "real" 3D applications - in other words, games. The results are mixed: in some areas, the Radeon is awfully close to the performance of the GeForce GTX 970M, but in some games, the frame rate is very disappointing. Especially at medium settings, the R9 M295X doesn't look great compared to Nvidia's offerings. Not least because of the driver problems mentioned earlier and the fairly low core speed, during worst-case scenarios the Radeon actually lags behind the GTX 965M and GTX 960M, which technically should be much slower.
| The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Dirt Rally - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Battlefield Hardline - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics Quality (DX11) AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Evolve - 1920x1080 Very High Graphics Quality AA:1TX SM (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Dragon Age: Inquisition - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics Quality AA:2x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| Far Cry 4 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics Quality AA:SM (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| Assassin's Creed Unity - 1920x1080 Ultra High Graphics Quality AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare - 1920x1080 Extra / On (Cache Shadow Maps Off), 2x Supersampling AA:2x SM (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| F1 2014 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Ryse: Son of Rome - 1920x1080 Very High Texture Res. + High Graphics Quality (Motion Blur & Temporal AA On, Rest Off/Disabled) AF:8x (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Alien: Isolation - 1920x1080 Ultra, On, Shadow Map 2048, HDAO AA:2x SM AF:16x (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset (HD Package) (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Fifa 15 - 1920x1080 High Preset AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Sims 4 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| GRID: Autosport - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Watch Dogs - 1920x1080 Ultra Overall Quality, Ultra Textures AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Schenker W504 | |
| Alienware 15 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Thief - 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FXAA & High SS AF:8x (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| One K56-4N | |
| One K73-4N | |
| SCHENKER XMG P704 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Battlefield 4 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4x MS (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| One K56-4N | |
| One K73-4N | |
| SCHENKER XMG P704 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Metro: Last Light - 1920x1080 Very High (DX11) AF:16x (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| One K56-4N | |
| One K73-4N | |
| SCHENKER XMG P704 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| BioShock Infinite - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF) (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| One K56-4N | |
| One K73-4N | |
| SCHENKER XMG P704 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:FX AF:16x (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| One K56-4N | |
| One K73-4N | |
| SCHENKER XMG P704 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
| Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:2xSM AF:16x (sort by value) | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) | |
| One K56-4N | |
| One K73-4N | |
| SCHENKER XMG P704 | |
| SCHENKER XMG P505 | |
All things considered, the R9 M295X sits squarely between the GTX 870M and the GTX 880M - good, but far from great. With a higher clock speed and a better driver, the performance could be somewhere between a GTX 880M and a GTX 970M. As of right now, the R9 M295X is too expensive for what it offers. The R9 M290X has a better price-to-value ratio and favors AMD. True gaming aficionados have to consider the main competitor: Nvidia's GPUs are not error-prone and offer a more constant performance.
| low | med. | high | ultra | 4K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crysis 3 (2013) | 116.8 | 85 | 59.9 | 27.9 | |
| Tomb Raider (2013) | 277.1 | 172.6 | 110.9 | 61.1 | |
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 175.6 | 148.4 | 142 | 65.4 | |
| Metro: Last Light (2013) | 95.9 | 86.8 | 71.2 | 42.6 | |
| Battlefield 4 (2013) | 105.2 | 93.4 | 89.2 | 39.9 | 21.7 |
| Thief (2014) | 51.2 | 52.7 | 51.3 | 32.2 | |
| Watch Dogs (2014) | 55.3 | 46 | 33.9 | 25.1 | |
| GRID: Autosport (2014) | 164.8 | 88.3 | 63 | 52.7 | |
| Sims 4 (2014) | 173.1 | 93.8 | 66 | 60.4 | |
| Fifa 15 (2014) | 199 | 188.3 | 104.2 | 57.9 | |
| Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor (2014) | 131.9 | 94.8 | 58 | 44.6 | |
| Alien: Isolation (2014) | 102.3 | 89.3 | 59 | 50.4 | |
| Ryse: Son of Rome (2014) | 100.7 | 69.2 | 41.7 | 37.8 | |
| F1 2014 (2014) | 119 | 100 | 86 | 70 | |
| Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (2014) | 105.9 | 72.6 | 48.9 | 31.9 | |
| Assassin's Creed Unity (2014) | 35.1 | 32.7 | 26.6 | 15.6 | |
| Far Cry 4 (2014) | 67.7 | 70.4 | 45.9 | 38.9 | |
| Dragon Age: Inquisition (2014) | 53.5 | 48.3 | 37.3 | 30.7 | |
| Evolve (2015) | 132.7 | 89.4 | 61 | 53.3 | |
| Battlefield Hardline (2015) | 110.3 | 94.3 | 58.4 | 38.9 | |
| Dirt Rally (2015) | 226.5 | 103.3 | 68.4 | 43 | |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 94.3 | 62.5 | 36.7 | 17.1 | 14 |
Emissions
System Noise
Is the Radeon R9 M295X at least able to distinguish itself positively from the GeForce GTX 970M as far as noise and temperature are concerned? The short answer is yes and no, since the fan management is handled differently. During the 3DMark06 benchmark test, the review notebook was quite audible at 45-49 dB, whereas the M295X-version only reached 38-40 dB. The maximum noise level of 52 instead of 53 dB is very similar, however. The Alienware 15 does really well during idle, regardless of the GPU (GeForce GTX 970M or Radeon R9 M295X): in both cases the fan turns off and only the slight whooshing sound of the hard drive (~31 dB) remains.
Noise Level
| Idle |
| 30.6 / 31 / 33.4 dB(A) |
| HDD |
| 32.4 dB(A) |
| Load |
| 39.6 / 52 dB(A) |
 | ||
30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Voltcraft sl-320 (15 cm distance) | ||
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) Radeon R9 M295X, 4710HQ | Acer Aspire VN7-591G-727P GeForce GTX 960M, 4720HQ | MSI GE62-2QEUi716H21BW GeForce GTX 965M, 4720HQ | Alienware 15 GeForce GTX 970M, 4710HQ | Gigabyte P35X v3 GeForce GTX 980M, 4710HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | 1% | -3% | -3% | -9% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 30.6 | 30 2% | 29.2 5% | 29.4 4% | 29.4 4% |
| Idle Average * | 31 | 32.2 -4% | 32.6 -5% | 30.7 1% | 30.9 -0% |
| Idle Maximum * | 33.4 | 35 -5% | 35 -5% | 34 -2% | 36 -8% |
| Load Average * | 39.6 | 41.7 -5% | 42.6 -8% | 46.2 -17% | 54.3 -37% |
| Load Maximum * | 52 | 42.6 18% | 52.4 -1% | 53 -2% | 54.6 -5% |
* ... smaller is better
Temperature
The lower fan speed of the AMD version has an impact on the temperatures: for the Radeon R9 M295X, we measured a peak temperature of 78 °C instead of 67 °C - still within acceptable parameters, however. The processor Core i7-4710HQ once again stabilized between 80 and 90 °C, which is also acceptable. The chassis got a little warmer as well: we measured an average of 41 °C after subjecting the notebook to our stress test for one hour; 31 °C after two hours of idling is typical for a gaming notebook. The version of the notebook equipped with the GTX 970M ran a few degrees cooler.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 47.4 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 40.5 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 52.6 °C / 127 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.8 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 31.2 °C / 88.2 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-2.3 °C / -4.2 F).
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) Radeon R9 M295X, 4710HQ | Acer Aspire VN7-591G-727P GeForce GTX 960M, 4720HQ | MSI GE62-2QEUi716H21BW GeForce GTX 965M, 4720HQ | Alienware 15 GeForce GTX 970M, 4710HQ | Gigabyte P35X v3 GeForce GTX 980M, 4710HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | -17% | -7% | 8% | -22% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 47.4 | 53 -12% | 49.9 -5% | 43.2 9% | 51 -8% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 52.6 | 53.2 -1% | 43.7 17% | 53.3 -1% | 60.3 -15% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 31.2 | 38.6 -24% | 37.1 -19% | 28 10% | 41.4 -33% |
| Idle Bottom * | 34.9 | 45.9 -32% | 41.5 -19% | 30.1 14% | 45.3 -30% |
* ... smaller is better
Energy Management
Power Consumption
Not taking the maximum power consumption into consideration, the Radeon R9 M295X is a lot more power-hungry than Nvidia's equivalent. 110-130 watts instead of 84-99 watts during the first scene of 3Mark06 indicates that the Maxwell architecture is more efficient than AMD's GCN 3 - while offering more performance as well. The power draw during idle with the HD Graphics 4600 active is very similar (10.0-28.2 vs. 10.1-26.2 watts). Not that great is the rated power output of the power adapter: 180 watts is definitely borderline - especially considering that the battery is draining when the notebook is running at maximum load levels.
| Off / Standby | 0.1 / 0.4 Watt |
| Idle | 10 / 15 / 28.2 Watt |
| Load |
117.2 / 165.1 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Voltcraft VC 940 | |
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) Radeon R9 M295X, 4710HQ | Acer Aspire VN7-591G-727P GeForce GTX 960M, 4720HQ | MSI GE62-2QEUi716H21BW GeForce GTX 965M, 4720HQ | Alienware 15 GeForce GTX 970M, 4710HQ | Gigabyte P35X v3 GeForce GTX 980M, 4710HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -7% | -8% | 6% | -20% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 10 | 16.2 -62% | 15 -50% | 10.1 -1% | 16.4 -64% |
| Idle Average * | 15 | 20.2 -35% | 20.8 -39% | 14.9 1% | 21.4 -43% |
| Idle Maximum * | 28.2 | 22.8 19% | 25.4 10% | 26.2 7% | 25.9 8% |
| Load Average * | 117.2 | 96.4 18% | 91.8 22% | 90.5 23% | 107.8 8% |
| Load Maximum * | 165.1 | 126.9 23% | 136 18% | 165.9 -0% | 181 -10% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
Speaking of the battery: depending on the load and the chosen power profile, our review notebook lasted between one and eleven hours. The version with GTX 970M lasted up to 11.5 hours. A rarity is the 8-cell battery with a capacity of 92 Wh - most manufacturers offer batteries ranging from 40-90 Wh.
| Alienware 15 (R9 M295X) Radeon R9 M295X, 4710HQ | Acer Aspire VN7-591G-727P GeForce GTX 960M, 4720HQ | MSI GE62-2QEUi716H21BW GeForce GTX 965M, 4720HQ | Alienware 15 GeForce GTX 970M, 4710HQ | Gigabyte P35X v3 GeForce GTX 980M, 4710HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -38% | -34% | 25% | 2% | |
| Reader / Idle | 647 | 216 -67% | 267 -59% | 696 8% | 364 -44% |
| Load | 64 | 58 -9% | 59 -8% | 91 42% | 94 47% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict
Although the Alienware 15 was able to reach 80% in most categories, the review notebook didn't completely satisfy. As is often the case, the drivers are to blame. Graphics errors and crashes on one side, sometimes just average performance on the other: the Radeon R9 M295X doesn't offer a satisfying gaming performance - at least not yet. Because of all our problems and issues, we subtracted 2% from the final score. A GeForce GPU makes more sense at this time, since Nvidia's notebook drivers are considerably more mature. In other areas, the AMD version inherits both the strengths and weaknesses of the previously reviewed model. The notable exception: the hard drive. Without an SSD, Windows isn't that much fun - we definitely recommend upgrading.
Alienware 15 (R9 M295X)
- 06/13/2015 v4 (old)
Florian Glaser
Price comparison
