Rock Xtreme 620 - 15.4in Gaming Notebook - Rock Xtreme 620

Ardjuna Seghers

By Ardjuna Seghers

Reviewed:

Summary

Our Score:

8

In terms of software Rock gives you a very clean Windows install - just the way most gamers will want it. Pre-installed you get BisonCam webcam software and the aforementioned CyberLink DVD Suite v6; Nero 8 Essentials on an included disc rounds out the package.

At this stage it's also worth mentioning the included laptop bag. It's as basic as it gets, but a nice addition for those who don't already own one. It has a padded carrying handle, shoulder pad and inner section, providing some protection for your expensive new gaming notebook while on the move and also storing the system discs and power adapter - itself a large brick weighing over half a kilo.

Coming in at 3.3kg (not including the AC-adapter), the X620 is hardly a lightweight, but still relatively portable for a machine this powerful. Despite using an identically-rated six-cell 4,400mAh battery to Novatech's X50MV 15.4in Pro Gaming Notebook and using a more power-hungry graphics card, the X620 put in a slightly better performance, with two hours and 15 minutes of use in the non-intensive Reader test.

This dropped to an hour and 36 minutes in the DVD test with the screen at 100 per cent brightness. This is enough for moving around the house but doesn't give you much flexibility, a fact compounded by the lack an extended battery option.

Even so, overall the Rock Xtreme 620 represents good value for money. To put this into context, a similarly-configured Alienware Area 51 m15x (except with a lower-resolution screen and slower 2.6GHz processor) would end up costing £1,986 compared to the £1,762 that lets you take the Rock home. Since games are throttled by the GPU rather than CPU, an even better option would be to go for the Intel 2.53GHz T9400 configuration which, everything else remaining the same, would set you back £1,585. It's also worth remembering Rock's very generous standard three year warranty, something that would cost a lot extra from many manufacturers.

Verdict

Rock's 15.4in gaming notebook outdoes its 17in predecessor in every way and gives other similarly-sized gaming machines a run for their money. It's well-built and looks the part too, while striking a nice balance between performance and value. Our only real complaint is that it gets somewhat noisy while gaming, but this will probably be drowned out by gunfire and explosions from the impressive speakers.

Petrov

March 20, 2009, 1:38 pm

Given your only complaint is the slight noise while gaming, why do you only award it an 8/10 and no TR Recommendation? Is there really a better gaming solution in a 15.4" form factor than this Clevo chassis and spec?





2 points strikes me as a lot to take off for one minor niggle? I have the equivalent model from Kobalt Computers, and it by miles the best gaming laptop I've ever owned (and I've owned more than 4).

Xelon

March 20, 2009, 2:56 pm

Interesting review, but why did Rock choose the now defunct 15.4 16:10 panel? Surely 15.6 or 16" 16:9 panel would be the choice of 2009.

BinnsY768

March 20, 2009, 3:45 pm

I think the main reason would be that this laptop has actually been out for sometime and if I remember correctly was announced and designed just before the big switch to the 16:9 format.





As this is a gaming notebook 16:10 is also still the main format for gamers.

smc8788

March 20, 2009, 4:40 pm

It would have been nice when spending this amount of money on a laptop to have the latest notebook GPUs that are available (GTX 260M/280M or Mobility Radeon HD 4870/4870 X2) rather than something that is now quite old.

Andy Vandervell

March 20, 2009, 4:42 pm

It's fair to assume that it will be updated with the latest GPUs in the near future.

TheLostSwede

March 20, 2009, 4:45 pm

@Xelon, wow, you've really bought the 16:9 marketing spiel hook, line and sinker...


Now repeat after me, 16:9 bad, 16:10 good.


16:10 screens generally (with some minor exceptions) offer higher resolutions than 16:9 panels and in this case you're getting 1,680x1,050 resolution rather than 1,366x768 which you'd get on a 15.6 or 16-inch 16:9 panel.


It's all just marketing hype, on a computer there is NO advantage of going 16:9 over 16:10, apart from maybe the short time you're using it for watching movies on and then you only get a slightly larger black border.

Ohmz

March 20, 2009, 7:15 pm

I agree with TheLostSwede, I'm scared of losing all that vertical space! Even now, desktop monitors are going from 1200 pixels to 1080 pixels vertically. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a big monitor doesn't it?

Matthew Bunton

March 20, 2009, 8:09 pm

Yep LostSwede is right I have a Sony Viao 16:9 and most older games have to be played with large black borders down each side which is a real pity. Although I think most new games support the 16:9 ratio if like me you still enjoy playing some of the older games you're better of with a 16:10 screen.

TechVegan

March 25, 2009, 9:09 pm

@Petrov: The overall score is a combination of price, performance, looks and value - and it's the Rock we're reviewing, not the Clevo, which is indeed a good chassis and used by many other manufacturers, some of whom offer better value depending on your needs.





@smc8788: As you might know, at least in the case of nVidia's latest chipsets they're nothing more than revised and overclocked versions of older cards, so you're not getting 'old' tech as such and performance will probably be quite similar.





@TheLostSwede: Amen.

comments powered by Disqus