Review EUROCOM X7 (Clevo P375SM) Notebook

Clevo cases have always been easy to identify. Matte black finishing, flat boxy profile and sharp corners and edges are typical of the chassis series from the Taiwanese OEM. These characteristics make a return on the EUROCOM X7 with extra perks for a more appealing look. The rear ports and ventilation grilles are surrounded by chrome plating and the corners have red LEDs that activate when connected to an AC outlet. The blue lights on the display bezel are another visual flair that double as a sort of equalizer while the emblem on the touchpad is a carryover from the X3. The implementation of these LED embellishments is more than likely to have been influenced by other DTRs or even high-end desktops where such lightshows are expected from gamers. While some users may find the extravagant lights a bit too much, it is certainly more eye-catching than the older and duller Clevo cases that lack these features.

Aside from the addition of new lights, case quality is similar to the X3 and Clevo P370SM, the latter of which is very similar to the X7 in physical features. Users should not expect MIL-STD compliance, but the rough matte base is thick and almost completely resistant to twists and pressure from all sides. Only the center of the keyboard gives way when pressed down with enough force, but the very slight depression is not a cause for concern. In contrast, the smooth and slightly rubberized outer matte lid feels similar to an Asus ROG in texture, but depresses a bit too much when pushed down the center. Even a slight amount of force can result in a very visible warp, especially when compared to other 17.3-inch DTRs like the Valkyrie CZ-17 or Asus G750JW. Side-to-side twisting of the front edges of the lid is also possible though minimal enough to not be worrisome. Even so, we certainly do not recommend placing heavier items on top of the X7 if traveling or otherwise.

With the lid open, the two relatively small hinges and the plastic display bezel become visible. The hinges are able to perform their function well, although they could have been better at its widest angle. For example, the screen at its maximum allowable angle will still vibrate slightly when typing normally, but is otherwise perfectly still at smaller angles. The maximum angle is also a little on the low side at only about 135 degrees. The lid is satisfactory for gaming and otherwise, but leaves room for future improvements. When taken as a whole, we have found no major complaints about the base of the unit.

Keyboard

The full-size (35.25 cm x 10.75 cm) keyboard is identical to that of the P370SM. More information on our thoughts about the keyboard can be seen in the Schenker review, but the overall travel and responsiveness are both quiet and reliable. The positioning of the touchpad, however, makes it practically impossible to type without accidentally clicking or moving the mouse, which can be quite the annoyance if the touchpad is not first disabled either manually or by an automatic setting. The small Enter key could have been bigger and the beveled layout can also make the keys feel somewhat cramped compared to a more spacious Chiclet style. Regardless of the minor complaints, we found it easy to become accustomed to the feel and layout of the X7 – we only wish it had dedicated volume and brightness keys for quick adjustments on the fly.

Touchpad

The poorly designed integrated touchpad of the P370SM has been redone on the X7 – and for the better. The moderately sized touchpad surface (10.5 cm x 7 cm) is no longer physically clickable on the Eurocom, which was the heart of the issue on the aforementioned Clevo. The surface, though smaller in area than the trackpad on an Asus G750, is rigid enough to resist a firm push with a finger. The Sentelic software allows the pad to recognize up to 4-finger inputs with many customizable gestures. Zooming feels slightly on the laggy side, but two-finger scrolling and simple pointing-and-clicking are otherwise smooth and responsive with no random cursor jumps or other issues.

With the left and right click keys no longer integrated onto the touchpad, a dedicated pair of click keys is the only other solution. The textured narrow bar below the touchpad is this set of keys and it unfortunately disappoints. Travel is extremely shallow with soft feedback. Quiet clicks are the end result, but it certainly does not make up for the poor feel of the keys. Furthermore, clicking the right half of the bar feels softer than the left half, leading to a somewhat odd asymmetric feel. Thankfully, most users will have access to an external mouse for all intents and purposes, so these keys are not likely to see extended use and can be ignored for the most part.

Color space coverage is about 60 percent of the AdobeRGB spectrum or over 95 percent of the smaller sRGB spectrum. Users can even opt for a glossy option rated for 90 percent of the NTSC color space for an additional $40. For gamers, however, the base option like we have here will suffice as the wider color gamut is mostly of interest for graphic designers and other professionals where color accuracy is vital. This matte option is already leagues above cheaper displays where color space coverage is typically around 60 percent of sRGB. Colors are subjectively vibrant with no screen door effect from a normal viewing distance.

Display performance is analyzed further with an X-Rite i1Basic Pro 2 spectrophotometer. Without any calibration, almost all colors show a deltaE 2000 deviation of more than 10 units, though this does generally get better the more saturated the colors become. Post calibration shows significant improvements across the board with a flatter RGB balance, reduced blue overtones and greatly improved grayscale and average color performance. Yellow balance could still use a little improvement compared to other colors, though this is extremely minor. Eurocom does include a $40 option to ship a calibrated .ICC profile via CD and this may be worth the extra dollars for some users if they want the display to be as accurate as possible. However, we repeat ourselves here that such color accuracy is not tangibly valuable to most gamers.

The final PCMark 7 score of 5383 points places the X7 amongst other heavy hitters that either also have powerful CPU and GPU combos or have high-end SSDs in RAID 0. As an example, the Eurocom outscores the Alienware M18x R2 by dozens of points and is below the One K73-3S again by dozens of points in the same benchmark. Both competing models run CrossFireX solutions with one of the fastest mobile CPUs from Intel. While our configured model only makes use of one mSATA SSD, users who choose to run two SATA III SSDs in RAID 0 will see PCMark scores rocket to even higher levels.

Similarly, PCMark 8 shows very high results. Its Home and Work scores are one of the highest in our database, though the X7 has much less competition here due to the very recent addition of this benchmark in our reviews. The Windows 8 Experience scores also demonstrate a very balanced system between the CPU, GPU, RAM and SSD, so no key component in our configuration can be labeled as a major bottleneck. Subjectively, the system runs as smooth as silk at essentially all times.

Up to five storage drives can be installed on the X7 as stated earlier in the review. Drives of the same slot type can be configured in RAID 0/1/5/10 if so desired. Our particular model uses a primary 120 GB Crucial CT120M500SSD3 mSATA drive and a secondary 9.5 mm 1 TB Hitachi Travelstar 7K1000 HTS721010A9E630. The Crucial drive shows typical SATA III SSD sequential read rates of nearly 500 MB/sec in CrystalDiskMark with slow 512K write speeds that are similar to the previous generation Intel SSD 320 Series. 4K write, however, is surprisingly high at 110.7 MB/sec, so small data blocks should handle better than average.

The 7200 RPM Hitachi HDD isn’t nearly as fast, of course, but its average transfer rate of 102.9 MB/sec in HD Tune already puts it above most 2.5-inch mechanical drives where 80 to 90 MB/sec is normal. The 5400 RPM Seagate in our Asus G750JW model, for example, returns 85 MB/sec in the same benchmark with a slower access time of 17.4 ms. See here for our growing benchmarks comparison table of HDDs and SSDs.

Dual Radeon HD 8970M GPUs in CrossFireX running BIOS version 015.036.000.005 and driver 13.152.0.0 power our X7 model. As the most powerful AMD offering to date, the scores in synthetic benchmarks are naturally one of the highest in our database. Eurocom does offer plenty of other GPU options – including those from Nvidia – if users prefer the GTX 7xxM Kepler class of GPUs over AMD’s GCN series. Quadrio K1000M up to K5000M GPUs are available as well for workstation users.

We note here that our configured X7 model lacks Enduro. This may have been a smart move considering that AMD drivers are still not up to par with Nvidia and that older systems with Enduro (such as Eurocom's own Racer 2.0) experienced reduced performance from their dGPUs due to AMD’s graphics switching solution. The integrated GPU appears to be disabled to circumvent any potential Enduro related issues entirely.

Both 8970M cores fluctuate between 850 and 900 MHz core clock rate when active according to GPU-Z, which is exactly as rated according to AMD’s own Catalyst 13.9. On the other hand, memory is a steady 1250 MHz. If idling or on Power Saver mode, both the core and memory will run at 300/150 MHz to reduce power consumption. For more information and benchmarks on the 8970M CrossFireX, see our dedicated page here.

3DMark scores are nearly unmatched. In 3DMark 11, for example, the X7 returns a final score of 10997 points – slightly higher than the similarly equipped One K73-3S and only beaten by the recently reviewed 18.4-inch Alienware 18 with its dual GTX 780M and final score of 11960 points. In other words, this Eurocom would have had the highest 3DMark 11 score in our database if it were not for Nvidia’s recently refreshed 7xxM Kepler series. The other closest competing GeForce GPU, the GTX 680M SLI in our Schenker XMG U702, scores about 700 points less than our Radeon-equipped X7 in the same benchmark.

Meanwhile, the notebook’s 3DMark 2013 scores are again one of the highest in our database. With a 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme score of 4212 points, it is second to none – even the desktop GTX 680 and Core i7-2600K score “only” 3049 points in the same benchmark.

We use Prime95 and FurMark to stress the X7 with HWiNFO, CPU-Z and GPU-Z monitoring tools active in order to identify stability or throttling issues, if any. The system was set to maximum performance and connected to a power outlet for the duration of these tests.

With only Prime95 active, the i7-4930MX CPU was observed to be operating at a steady 3.4 GHz or 300 MHz less than the Turbo Boost clock rate for 4 active cores. After a few minutes, the core slowly dropped to a fluctuating 3.0 GHz to 3.4 GHz clock rate, but never below its base 3.0 GHz speed. Core temperature jumped to over 90 degrees C in mere seconds immediately after running Prime95.

With only FurMark active, the GPU was observed to be operating at a steady 850/1250 MHz for the core/memory according to GPU-Z. GPU Clock rates never dipped or increased while the GPU cores themselves topped out at 88 degrees C.

When both Prime95 and FurMark are active, system noise kicked to full gear (~54 dB(A)) and GPU temperatures actually dropped to a steady 82 degrees while CPU temperatures remained above 90 degrees. GPU clock rates were again unchanged at 850/1250 MHz, but CPU speeds were observed to be fluctuating between 3.0 GHz and 3.1 GHz. Very rarely did the CPU drop to 2.8 GHz, and even then for just a very short period of time before bouncing back up to 3 GHz or above. Because of this behavior, HWiNFO recorded throttling characteristics of the CPU. In comparison, the Asus G750JW can sustain its maximum rate without any issues, albeit with a lower-end i7-4700HQ CPU.

Though the X7 does experience very minor throttling, it is so short-lived that users should not feel any ill effects during everyday workloads. A 3DMark 11 benchmark immediately following the stress test resulted in no significant reductions in final GPU or CPU scores (12424 GPU points and 8692 Physics points pre-stress vs. 14073 GPU points and 8496 Physics points post stress).

Running solely on battery power will net much lower 3DMark 11 scores of just 3028 GPU points and 4996 Physics points even on High Performance. The stinted scores can be attributed to the reduced performance of the CPU and GPU when disconnected from an AC source. Both processors will operate at 1.8 GHz and 450/300 MHz, respectively, and not any higher. Having an available AC outlet in reach is highly recommended for any user intending to run demanding applications on the X7.

The X7 is powered by a small-but-dense 5900 mAh (89.21 Wh)  8-cell Li-Ion removable battery. This module is nearly identical to that of the P370SM and is essentially equal in capacity to that of the MSI GX70 (87 Wh), Asus G750JW (88 Wh) and previous generation Alienware 17x (90 Wh). The capacity here is almost twice as much as the recently released Qosmio X70 (46 Wh), which suffers from very short runtimes as a result.

As expected, similar battery capacities between same-size notebooks of differing specifications do not lead to similar runtimes. With an idling (or maximum) runtime of only 3 hours at minimum brightness settings and inactive wireless under the Power Saver profile, the X7 unsurprisingly performs similarly to the P370SM, but is also significantly behind the MSI GX70 (7 hours), Asus G750JW (6.5 hours) and older Alienware M17x R4 (4 hours) under the same settings with the Battery Eater measurement tool. The large discrepancy in runtime can be attributed to the lack of Enduro on the X7, and so battery life will suffer as a result.

WLAN runtimes can be even shorter by up to an hour for about 2 hours of constant use. Despite this, we can’t imagine many users being upset with the battery life if they are considering a DTR of this size and power.