The Area-51m mini-me: Dell Alienware m15 R2 Laptop Review

Although the Alienware 15 R2 looks completely different from the 15 R1, they are nearly identical when it comes to dimensions and weight. The 15 R2 is ever-so-slightly thinner at 19.5 mm or 20.5 mm if configured with Tobii eye-tracking. Because of its extended rear, however, the m15 series continues to be noticeably longer in length and with a larger footprint than most other competing 15.6-inch gaming laptops.

Initial SKUs like our test unit have Intel 8265 and Killer AX1650 options to be Wi-Fi 6 ready. Dell says all SKUs in the near future will be upgraded to Killer AX1650 with Killer-specific features as standard. Though the Intel 8265 is nowhere near as fast as what the Killer module is capable of (867 Mbps vs. 2.4 Gbps), we didn't experience any notable connectivity issues with our unit. You'll still need a brand new router if you wish to fully exploit the benefits of Wi-Fi 6.

Servicing is easy and it requires only a Philips screwdriver. Unfortunately, you won't have much to actually service once inside. Core components like RAM and WLAN are soldered and there is no 2.5-inch SATA III bay to be found.

Expect the same Alienware Command Center software and features as found on the Area-51m including GPU overclocking, Alien FX, and Fusion system monitor. The problem here is that the m15 R2 chassis was not designed with the same overclocking potential as its larger Area-51m sibling and so this particular feature is not as useful here.

We recommend becoming familiar with Command Center because the performance, RGB lighting, and fan noise of the laptop are intimately tied to Dell's software instead of the default Windows power settings menu. While there's a slight learning curve, we appreciate that its system monitor feature provides real-time data like voltage, DRAM timings, temperature graphs, and fan RPMs.

The clickpad is smaller (~10.5 x 6 cm) than on both the XPS 15 (10.5 x 8.5 cm) and original Alienware m15 R1 (10.5 x 6.5 cm). Cursor control is otherwise reliable with no jitter. There is slight sticking when moving at slow speeds, but it's not enough to impact usability. The very high refresh rate of the display gives a sense of faster responsiveness than usual.

Meanwhile, the integrated clickpad keys feel firmer than the last generation model with a louder click when pressed. We find it to be better than the integrated keys of the XPS 15 even though we still prefer dedicated mouse buttons like on the Dell Latitude 7390 for better accuracy.

Color space covers sRGB almost in its entirety to represent a high quality panel. For these 144/240 Hz IPS panels, however, this is relatively common. Users looking for even wider colors would have to consider the 4K UHD OLED SKU or the XPS 15 with the 4K UHD Sharp IGZO option.

Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter reveal an inaccurate display out of the box. Color temperature is far too cool and so both grayscale and color saturation DeltaE values are high at 7.90 and 5.35, respectively. Our calibration attempt directly addresses these issues for a significantly more accurate display with final grayscale and color saturation DeltaE values of just 2 and 1.54, respectively. We recommend users to download and apply our ICC profile above or calibrate the display firsthand in order to get the most out of the IPS screen.

Since display brightness is average for a 15.6-inch gaming laptop, outdoor visibility is not any better or worse than most other competing systems. Users may want to consider the OLED Alienware m15 SKU which offers a brighter display to be less straining on the eyes when outside. Viewing angles are wide on our IPS panel with only small changes to contrast and brightness if viewing from extreme angles.

Raw multi-thread performance in CineBench R15 is 12 percent slower than the average Core i7-9750H in our database taken from 39 other laptops. When running the same test in a loop, we can see notice the poor maximum Turbo Boost potential for ultimately slower performance than expected. Both the Asus Strix Hero III G731GV and even the original Alienware m15 R1 with the older Core i7-8750H CPU is able to consistently outperform the i7-9750H in our Alienware m15 R2. The culprit is the very high CPU temperature of the m15 R2 preventing it from sustaining higher clock rates as we will explore in our Stress Test section below.

Nonetheless, raw performance is still 25 to 30 percent faster than the quad-core Core i5-8300H or i5-9300H. Upgrading to the unlocked Core i9-9980HK SKU can potentially bring 50 percent faster performance or more over the i7-9750H in theory, but we have our doubts due to the already high running temperatures of our lesser Core i7-9750H SKU.

See our dedicated page on the Core i7-9750H for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

PCMark results for the m15 R2 are comparable to other gaming laptops with GeForce RTX graphics if not slightly lower as scores are consistently a few percentage points behind. Even the last generation Alienware m15 R1 is able to outscore the m15 R2 by up to 5 percent to show how minimal the performance delta can be between the two generations.

We experienced no hardware or software issues during our time with the test unit. Note that the screen will automatically dim after about 30 seconds of inactivity regardless of what the Windows settings will tell you. Instead, you'll have to launch the Tobii eye-tracking software in order to toggle the automatic dimming feature.

Unlike the under-performing CPU, the GPU is performing where we expect it to be. 3DMark results are slightly higher than the average RTX 2080 Max-Q in our database taken from 14 other gaming laptops by about 7 percent. Graphics performance is roughly 20 to 25 percent slower than the larger Alienware Area-51m with the full-power RTX 2080 and about 30 percent faster than the RTX 2070 Max-Q. When compared to the last generation Pascal series, Turing GPUs are at their best when running newer DX12 titles where they are most efficient.

It's important to note that any performance differences between Balanced Fan and Maximum Fan modes are minimal. A Time Spy run on Balanced Fan mode returns essentially the same CPU and GPU scores as Maximum Fan mode as shown by the screenshots below. As a result, Maximum Fan mode is most useful for cooler core temperatures rather than faster performance.