Clevo strikes again with NVIDIA 8800-based M570RU 17-inch laptop

If that 11.9-pound monstrosity, Clevo's D900C, is just a bit too much laptop for you, there's always second best: the 17-inch M570RU. Clevo hasn't stripped everything out of this guy, there's still the NVIDIA GeForce Go 8800 graphics, room for 4GB of RAM and even the addition of Intel's latest wireless chipset for 802.11n MIMO WiFi. The screen has been pared down to a 1280 x 800 resolution, but where the M570RU really differs from its big brother is that it's running a traditional mobile version of the Core 2 Duo processor, instead of that Core 2 Duo Extreme desktop chip inside the D900C. Other frills include a webcam, subwoofer and fingerprint security, along with a snazzy orange trim. No word on price for this one, but we're guessing that just because it has a mobile processor and weighs a few less pounds, doesn't mean you'll be seeing one of these for less than a couple grand.

[kuzu-b @ Mar 20th 2007 4:29PM]

All those great specs, and they ruin it with a horrible resolution. Shame. 17 inch widescreen has to be AT LEAST 1440 X 900 if I'm dropping a couple grand. It's not like the chipset can't support it.

[LukeA @ Mar 20th 2007 5:49PM]

I agree. 1280*800 is more acceptable for, say, a MacBook's 13 inch display than this 17 incher.

[suntiger @ Mar 20th 2007 7:23PM]

Clevo 17" models come standard with screen options for 1200x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, or 1920x1200. I have the M570U (previous version of this) with the 1920x1200 display, and damn is it beautiful... although this makes me wish I had waited a year *laughs*

[bazald @ Mar 20th 2007 4:32PM]

Way to leave out the only interesting part of this article, as the rest is old news (older than the referenced article).

The D900C gets a 4.4 on the Vista performance rating indicator, with the HD being the bottleneck. I imagine this is without using a Raid-0 or a Raid-5 which would bring the score up considerably. The computer should be able to break 5.0... the *notebook computer*.

And those are the numbers before the 8800 GTXs get put inside that thing, and with a Core 2 CPU on the lower end of the set being offered.

Anyway, cool rig as it is, I'm definitely waiting for the 8800s.

[bazald @ Mar 20th 2007 4:36PM]

Way to leave out the only interesting part of this article, as the rest is old news (older than the referenced article).

The D900C gets a 4.4 on the Vista performance rating indicator, with the HD being the bottleneck. I imagine this is without using a Raid-0 or a Raid-5 which would bring the score up considerably. The computer should be able to break 5.0... the *notebook computer*.

And those are the numbers before the 8800 GTXs get put inside that thing, and with a Core 2 CPU on the lower end of the set being offered.

Anyway, cool rig as it is, I'm definitely waiting for the 8800s.

[bazald @ Mar 20th 2007 4:37PM]

Way to leave out the only interesting part of this article, as the rest is old news (older than the referenced article).

The D900C gets a 4.4 on the Vista performance rating indicator, with the HD being the bottleneck. I imagine this is without using a Raid-0 or a Raid-5 which would bring the score up considerably. The computer should be able to break 5.0... the *notebook computer*.

And those are the numbers before the 8800 GTXs get put inside that thing, and with a Core 2 CPU on the lower end of the set being offered.

Anyway, cool rig as it is, I'm definitely waiting for the 8800s.

[bazald @ Mar 20th 2007 4:39PM]

Way to leave out the only interesting part of this article, as the rest is old news (older than the referenced article).

The D900C gets a 4.4 on the Vista performance rating indicator, with the HD being the bottleneck. I imagine this is without using a Raid-0 or a Raid-5 which would bring the score up considerably. The computer should be able to break 5.0... the *notebook computer*.

And those are the numbers before the 8800 GTXs get put inside that thing, and with a Core 2 CPU on the lower end of the set being offered.

Anyway, cool rig as it is, I'm definitely waiting for the 8800s.

[bazald @ Mar 20th 2007 4:40PM]

Way to leave out the only interesting part of this article, as the rest is old news (older than the referenced article).

The D900C gets a 4.4 on the Vista performance rating indicator, with the HD being the bottleneck. I imagine this is without using a Raid-0 or a Raid-5 which would bring the score up considerably. The computer should be able to break 5.0... the *notebook computer*.

And those are the numbers before the 8800 GTXs get put inside that thing, and with a Core 2 CPU on the lower end of the set being offered.

Anyway, cool rig as it is, I'm definitely waiting for the 8800s.

[bazald @ Mar 20th 2007 4:40PM]

Way to leave out the only interesting part of this article, as the rest is old news (older than the referenced article).

The D900C gets a 4.4 on the Vista performance rating indicator, with the HD being the bottleneck. I imagine this is without using a Raid-0 or a Raid-5 which would bring the score up considerably. The computer should be able to break 5.0... the *notebook computer*.

And those are the numbers before the 8800 GTXs get put inside that thing, and with a Core 2 CPU on the lower end of the set being offered.

Anyway, cool rig as it is, I'm definitely waiting for the 8800s.

[bazald @ Mar 20th 2007 4:41PM]

Uh... it kept saying to please try again soon. And nothing showed up when I hit refresh. So... sory for the many posts. Please delete them at your leisure.

[Ken @ Mar 20th 2007 4:46PM]

This is where project managers should lose thier job. What fuckup decided to put all this raw graphical grunt into a machine and only have a 1280x800 display? This one takes the prize for dumbest idea of the day.

At 17", this laptop should be displaying 1920x1200. No excuses. Oh and I didn't read a thing about this having LED backlights. WTF!? Clevo get a clue!

I hope Quanta or Compal (whoever the hell is making the next gen XPS) get's it right. Clevo obviously can't. Here, I'll help.

17" WUXGA LED backlit

GeForce Go8800 (With dual HDMI "gasp")

C2D (I'd rather have an option for quad, but that's Intel's problem)

4GB RAM max

2 (TWO) HDD bays (Preferably a small solid state system drive with a disk mass storage over any RAID setup)

Get rid of biometrics (I've never met anyone who uses it, let alone on a gaming laptop). This is useless feature creep.

Dump any notion of 2.1 sound and just put 2 quality speakers in. A subwoofer on a laptop is an insult to consumers' intelligence.

Bluetooth 2.0 - Why does this always have to be an option. It's cheap as hell to add and is more useful than biometrics.

802.11n (Optional)

Firewire 800

Linux hardware support. (not just binaries please)

[suntiger @ Mar 20th 2007 7:23PM]

See my other comment. You'll be able to get WUXGA on this thing, just like on the last M570.

[suntiger @ Mar 20th 2007 7:25PM]

Oh, also, the previous rev of the M570 has the ability to put a second HDD in the optical bay; mine's always set up like that because I just use ISOs for everything (I mean, with 240gigs of drivespace, why not?)

[Stranger @ Mar 21st 2007 2:55PM]

That orange trim made a world of difference to the design, this laptop is actually one of the best looking I have seen.