Schenker XMG P506 (Clevo P651RE) Notebook Review

The Full HD display of the XMG P506 differs from the old model. Chassis manufacturer Clevo switches from the AU Optronics B156HAN01.2 to the Samsung 156HL01-102, which produces worse measurements. The XMG P506 does manage a higher luminance (~300 vs. 274 cd/m²) and a wider color gamut (96 vs. 81% sRGB), but the XMG P505 has the edge in all the other categories.

It starts with the contrast, which is now around 900 instead of 1200:1, but this is subjectively hardly visible. The reason for the deficit is the higher black value; 0.35 cd/m² means that black areas appear a bit grayish (XMG P505: 0.24 cd/m²). Still, the differences are not huge, especially since both panels perform very similar in the CalMAN tests (grayscale, gamma, saturation).

Our review unit was equipped with 16 GB DDR4-RAM (2x 8 GB dual-channel), a small 256 GB M.2-SSD and a 1,000 GB HDD. You also get a Core i7-6700HQ and a GeForce GTX 970M.

The two generations hardly differ in respect of the performance. Clocked at 2.6-3.5 GHz, the Core i7-6700HQ reminds us of the Haswell predecessor i7-4720HQ (2.6-3.6 GHz) or i7-4710HQ (2.5-3.5 GHz), respectively, which is also supported by our benchmarks. It does not matter if you stress one or all cores: The advantage is not even 10% compared to the XMG P505 in Cinebench R15. If the difference of a Haswell notebook is bigger, it is because of a limited or deactivated Turbo (see XMG A505).

The automatic overclocking worked really well on the XMG P506. We were able to measure between 3.1 and 3.5 GHz depending on the number of active cores. The Turbo was even still active (~2.8 GHz) in the stress test with the tools FurMark and Prime95, which causes many laptops to throttle.

The system performance is defined by the storage solution nowadays, and Windows does not really feel snappy without a Solid State Drive. The boot times, installations and application launches sometimes take much longer. The loading times in games are often much longer as well.

To get the most out of the XMG P506, we selected an SSD with a PCIe-x4 interface. The PCMark 7 score shows that the model does more than a decent job. An overall score of 6228 points deserves credit, even though other gaming notebooks are on a similar performance level (e.g. the Gigabyte P34W v3, the Gigabyte P37X or the Asus G751JY).

Fast, faster, Samsung SM951: This would be the appropriate short description of the PCIe model. The SSD is not limited by the SATA-III interface of common Solid State Drives, so the drive manages much higher sequential transfer rates. 1656 and 1269 MB/s in CrystalDiskMark surpass a standard model by the factor three. Only a RAID configuration consisting of multiple SSDs can keep up with the Samsung SM951.

A conventional hard drive is the better solution for larger file collections (movies and so on) due to cost reasons. Even though experienced users can notice a difference between 5400 and 7200 revolutions per minutes, we think that a less expensive option like the Western Digital Blue is sufficient. The 1 TB model manages more than 100 MB/s.

Is the GTX 980M worth the money? That basically comes down to your demands. If you want high-quality anti-aliasing and high resolutions like 3K or 4K, the GTX 970M has much less headroom. 1920x1080 pixels is not a huge problem for either card, so the additional price of 372 Euros (~$422) appears a bit steep. One example would be the 3DMark Fire Strike test. The review configuration of the XMG P506 scores 7595 points, which is a very good result. The GTX 980M is almost 30% faster (9970 points @XMG U506), but the difference is usually smaller in games.

A few more words about the technology: Nvidia uses the Maxwell architecture for the GeForce 900-series that uses a 28 nm architecture. While the previous top model (recently replaced by the GTX 980) is clocked at 1038-1127 MHz and has 1536 CUDA cores, the GTX 970M gets 1280 shaders and a core clock of "only" 924-1038 MHz. Video memory is not an issue, although the GTX 980M does have a wider interface (256 vs. 192-bit).

The GeForce GTX 970M performs very well in the native resolution (1920x1080). Four out of five games ran smoothly at the highest settings and with activated anti-aliasing. Even Batman: Arkham Knight, which caused big troubles at launch, ran at more than 40 fps with the performance patch (at least in the benchmark). Only The Witcher 3 stuttered in the highest preset.

The noise development is similar to the version with the GTX 980M. You can only slightly hear the XMG P506 while idling; fans and HDD murmur at 31-33 dB(A). The cooling solution does, however, pulsate occasionally without apparent reason. 36 dB(A) is not disturbing by any means, but the temporary rpm increase will be annoying for some users.

The system noise of the XMG P506 is average under load. 42 dB(A) on average during 3DMark06 and 51 dB(A) during the stress test are typical for a gaming notebook. Noise-sensitive users should still look for an alternative. The bulkier P751DM barebone only reaches 45 dB(A) under maximum load, and the Asus G751JY is even quieter at up to 41 dB(A).

You can read all about the sound quality in the review of the predecessor.

Despite the slightly higher performance, the Skylake CPUs are more frugal than their Haswell counterparts. While the XMG P505 with the Core i7-4710HQ still consumed 12.0-22.2 Watts, our measurement device only showed 10.5-20.7 Watts for the XMG P506 with the Core i7-6700HQ, which also explains the slightly better battery runtime.

The notebooks are not comparable under load since the GeForce will be deactivated in 3D scenarios. We were particularly impressed by the maximum consumption. While we still criticized the insufficient power adaptor (150 Watts) in the first review, the new 180-Watt module is not really challenged. The situation probably changes with the i7-6820HQ and GeForce GTX 980M.

Thanks to the Optimus technology, the XMG P506 can realize decent battery runtimes. We determined 5 hours and 14 minutes in the Battery Eater Reader's Test that scrolls through a text document. The battery managed almost 1.5 hours in the much more challenging Classic Test, and you should expect between 2-3 hours when you browse the web or watch a video.