[H] Gateway FX400XL Eval

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,687
Please take time to read our evaluation of the Gateway FX400XL as we would love to hear your comments and feedback on our testing format and overall evaluation quality. And of course we would love to hear your opinions on the system itself. Thanks.

The full review can be read here.
 
IMHO, it was a very thorough and detailed review, but personally, I didn't need to read the whole thing. I read the first couple pages, and the conclusion. I know how a 3.0ghz machine with a 6800 Ultra will perform (in general, anyway), so I don't need to see 4 pages of benchmarks. All the other details are filled in in the conclusion.

Bottom line: Thanks for a good review, but my recommendation is to save yourself some effort.
 
I love reading these reviews. Nobody else tells you what it's like to actually buy, setup, and use one of these OEM machines. I almost wish someone would ask me to recommend an OEM computer just so i can say "Go to the [H]!" lol

As far as the system is concerned, the same is true as it was for the other Gateway: having so many security programs on one machine is ridiculous, and the average consumer wouldn't know any better. Other than that and the other bloatware on there, it sounds like a pretty nice system.
 
jebo_4jc said:
IMHO, it was a very thorough and detailed review, but personally, I didn't need to read the whole thing. I read the first couple pages, and the conclusion. I know how a 3.0ghz machine with a 6800 Ultra will perform (in general, anyway), so I don't need to see 4 pages of benchmarks. All the other details are filled in in the conclusion.

Bottom line: Thanks for a good review, but my recommendation is to save yourself some effort.
Click to expand...


This is GREAT feedback. One of the things we are striving to do is make the evaluation worthwhile for people that are not wanting to read a novel about a computer. Our goal is for our readers to be able to hit the first and last pages and then decide if the data and opinion in between is worthy of their time. (While I do sometimes wish we could leave out all of the middle pages, that would certainly lesser the facts backing our opinions that are required by many readers.)
 
Good review, it is very thourough and detailed.

I think it might be a plus if you took better pictures of the inside, like remove the graphics card and take some pics to show the heatpipe better. Take out the hdd and optical stuff to show what manufacturers they are using, etc.

I mean there isn't much to add to the review content-wise, except images.
 
Jason, Chris, and Timothy deserve credit for the work done on this evaluation. I just did a final edit and changed a whole lot of nothing.

Great job guys!!!! I think this format and procedure is going to kick some serious ass in the coming year. Can't wait to get you moved to a site of your own. <hint> ;)
 
Scarceas said:
I still find performance numbers worthless without any base comparison.
Click to expand...
You can find how a Pentium D with a Geforce 6800 Ultra performs on dozens of websites around the web. We make comparisons where applicable, like WorldBench, dB A numbers, and multimedia encoding. For games, either you are happy with the playable settings that a system is capable or you aren't.
 
Overall, I thought the review was well executed. Calling sales & tech support was a great thought, if a little limited in breadth (hard to say if the person is representative of sales & support staff as a whole).

I really liked the review of the internal layout. This and the packaged software are what really define OEM computers.

Great review!

On a side note, the reviewer mentioned a few times that it would be nice if Gateway included a monitor that would support 1600x1200. The LCD monitors in the review are 19", but there are almost no 19" LCDs that support 1600x1200. I was a little surprised that someone doing a hardware review didn't know this. Maybe I'm mistaken in assuming this is common knowledge?
 
Hello all-

I'm glad you guys have liked the review. It's my first, and the project is still undergoing some revision, so thanks for the feedback.

jebo_4jc said:
IMHO, it was a very thorough and detailed review, but personally, I didn't need to read the whole thing. I read the first couple pages, and the conclusion. I know how a 3.0ghz machine with a 6800 Ultra will perform (in general, anyway), so I don't need to see 4 pages of benchmarks. All the other details are filled in in the conclusion.

Bottom line: Thanks for a good review, but my recommendation is to save yourself some effort.
Click to expand...
Again, thanks for the input. I'm sorry that you felt overwhelmed by the data. I actually didn't think that there was a lot of benchmarking in the review. Really, there are essentially only 2.5 pages of raw objective data, and interspersed within that is a lot of subjective commentary about what the numbers mean. The review is written so that you can read the first couple of pages and the last page, and you get a good idea of what the review was about. For some, that's all they need - just the quick-and-dirty about how good this computer is. Some people want more detail, especially if it's someone that is considering buying a Gateway. Two people with comparable knowledge in computers may think very differently about how a 3.0 PenD 6800 Ultra performs. When one is trying to compare two (or more) fairly similar computers, the little differences that are highlighted in reviews such as this one can sway the decision of the consumer if they have done their research. While I agree that this particular review was quite a bit too meaty, the fact that we take the time to examine all the angles of a computer's performance is what sets this program apart from everyone else.

Ultra Wide said:
I think it might be a plus if you took better pictures of the inside, like remove the graphics card and take some pics to show the heatpipe better. Take out the hdd and optical stuff to show what manufacturers they are using, etc.
Click to expand...
In the interest of space, many of the pictures that I took were not part of the article. We're limited to how many images we can put on a page. If you're interested in seeing images of anything, I'd be happy to email them if you request something specific. I took about 140 pictures as I was unpacking and dissecting the box. We did put the brand of the different components in the summary table on page 3, but if there's something specific that you would like to see in the future, please let us know.

Mr.Pig said:
Overall, I thought the review was well executed. Calling sales & tech support was a great thought, if a little limited in breadth (hard to say if the person is representative of sales & support staff as a whole).

On a side note, the reviewer mentioned a few times that it would be nice if Gateway included a monitor that would support 1600x1200. The LCD monitors in the review are 19", but there are almost no 19" LCDs that support 1600x1200. I was a little surprised that someone doing a hardware review didn't know this. Maybe I'm mistaken in assuming this is common knowledge?
Click to expand...
Because of the time investment required to talk to Gateway over the phone, it's a bit of a logistical challenge to take out a lot of time to do multiple samplings of the competency level of several representatives. The goal was kind of a blind experiment. Make a call as any other consumer would, and roll the dice as to who you get to talk to. Although the point is well-taken that some reps are going to be vastly more competent than others, that's not the consumer's problem. The consumer is calling to resolve an issue with their system, and no matter who answers the phone, they need to be competent enough to resolve the problem. The same is the case with sales - they need to know what they're talking about when they recommend a gaming machine over a dual-core machine, or what have you. If there is sufficient interest in making several calls to support and sales to compare the different reps so that we get a better idea of the general competency level of the OEM, then of course we will oblige.

The fact that I commented on the need for a monitor that is able to reach 1600x1200 does not necessarily mean that it needed to be 19", much less an LCD. Of course this would be nice, but at the moment, it would be quite cost-prohibitive to the OEM. The criticism is that there is a demand for 1600x1200 gaming in high end machines, and for Gateway's top model, I would have liked to have seen a higher resolution to address this demand, regardless of what size or type the monitor is. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.
 
As always, I truly respect everybody at [H] for their willingness and desire to have this discussion on the forums to actively try to improve on their writing. It shows that you have our interests in mind, and that is reassuring.
DNA Doc said:
Again, thanks for the input. I'm sorry that you felt overwhelmed by the data. I actually didn't think that there was a lot of benchmarking in the review. Really, there are essentially only 2.5 pages of raw objective data, and interspersed within that is a lot of subjective commentary about what the numbers mean. The review is written so that you can read the first couple of pages and the last page, and you get a good idea of what the review was about. For some, that's all they need - just the quick-and-dirty about how good this computer is. Some people want more detail, especially if it's someone that is considering buying a Gateway. Two people with comparable knowledge in computers may think very differently about how a 3.0 PenD 6800 Ultra performs. When one is trying to compare two (or more) fairly similar computers, the little differences that are highlighted in reviews such as this one can sway the decision of the consumer if they have done their research. While I agree that this particular review was quite a bit too meaty, the fact that we take the time to examine all the angles of a computer's performance is what sets this program apart from everyone else.
Click to expand...
I definitely wasn't "overwhelmed." In fact, as I said, I didn't even read the data. If your goal was to make an article that could be understood by only reading the first couple pages and the last page, then you succeeded. My initial response was "geez they should save themselves some time and effort and not even benchmark the thing at all," but I definitely understand that there are likely to be some people that need/want substantial performance numbers.
 
it may be that the resolution on the monitor was chosen as a compromise between possible users. 1280x1024 with AF and AA still looks very good in games, and i find the text at 1600x1200 to be too small on a 19" monitor. also, running at 1280x1024 allows for higher benchmarking scores. i'd imagine that 1600x1200 in newer games with everything checked off is probably about where that machine will start to feel the heat. unless gateway is marketing this system as strictly a gaming machine, i feel they made the right choice.
 
Morley said:
You can find how a Pentium D with a Geforce 6800 Ultra performs on dozens of websites around the web. We make comparisons where applicable, like WorldBench, dB A numbers, and multimedia encoding. For games, either you are happy with the playable settings that a system is capable or you aren't.
Click to expand...

It's been my experience that a Gateway system with the same cpu, same mobo chipset, and same amount of ram is often slower than other systems of the same specifications. Comparing to the last Gateway you reviewed is a pretty narrow view.

Obviously you're going to do what you want, but I'm not the only person that suggested a baseline system for comparisons. These comparisons, at least starting out, were hailed as being enthusiast oriented OEM system reviews... I read where others suggested a baseline system that all could be compared to... Some suggested [H] build an AMD and an Intel system, and re-use those numbers for successive reviews--I thought that was a pretty good idea...

blah blah blah I type too much
 
Scarceas said:
It's been my experience that a Gateway system with the same cpu, same mobo chipset, and same amount of ram is often slower than other systems of the same specifications. Comparing to the last Gateway you reviewed is a pretty narrow view.

Obviously you're going to do what you want, but I'm not the only person that suggested a baseline system for comparisons. These comparisons, at least starting out, were hailed as being enthusiast oriented OEM system reviews... I read where others suggested a baseline system that all could be compared to... Some suggested [H] build an AMD and an Intel system, and re-use those numbers for successive reviews--I thought that was a pretty good idea...

blah blah blah I type too much
Click to expand...
I understand that as an enthusiast you are used to the most detailed of performance metrics presented in a way that you can discern even a 1% difference in components such as video cards, even from the same manufacturer. If you read my editorial on how we were going to structure our evaluations, coming in first in a group of PCs with similar hardware that all perform within 5% of each other will not get you a good review. So we are not focusing on that. We believe that other factors such as stability and support are very important to our readers. However, we present gaming benchmarks for those who are coming from previous generation hardware and want to know what a current model of PC can do for them (ie, "I want to run WoW at 1600x1200 with full details, can I do this on a Gateway 9310XL or not??). We do appreciate your feedback, however, and we will continue to discuss how we can better ourselves so that we deliver the kind of content that our readers want.
 
dualblade said:
it may be that the resolution on the monitor was chosen as a compromise between possible users. 1280x1024 with AF and AA still looks very good in games, and i find the text at 1600x1200 to be too small on a 19" monitor. also, running at 1280x1024 allows for higher benchmarking scores. i'd imagine that 1600x1200 in newer games with everything checked off is probably about where that machine will start to feel the heat. unless gateway is marketing this system as strictly a gaming machine, i feel they made the right choice.
Click to expand...

I agree. I wasn't necessarily saying that the gaming experience would or would not have been better at 1600....I just wanted to see what it looked like! :) My personal computer won't do 1600, so I wanted to see what the experience was like.

As I said in the review, I think the main reason that the really challenging games were still playable at the highest settings is because we were at 1280. I tried to make it clear that it was still a really enjoyable gaming experience. Most of my chatter about 1600 was curiosity and me wanting to break the computer. Besides the torture testing, I really don't feel like I got to push this computer. I felt that the monitor was a bit of a limiting factor in that.
 
Scarceas said:
It's been my experience that a Gateway system with the same cpu, same mobo chipset, and same amount of ram is often slower than other systems of the same specifications. Comparing to the last Gateway you reviewed is a pretty narrow view.

Obviously you're going to do what you want, but I'm not the only person that suggested a baseline system for comparisons. These comparisons, at least starting out, were hailed as being enthusiast oriented OEM system reviews... I read where others suggested a baseline system that all could be compared to... Some suggested [H] build an AMD and an Intel system, and re-use those numbers for successive reviews--I thought that was a pretty good idea...
Click to expand...

As Morley said, we get what you're saying. It's not the first time it's come up. The process is still a little fluid, so nothing is off the table completely. However, given the diversity of systems to come, building a baseline box may become impractical. Once we get a lot more reviews out in the coming couple of months, comparisons to other comparable systems will become inherent.

The cost and time investment in building a home-grown box for every system that we do so that we have a baseline would be a lot to ask. Although the information that could come from it could be quite useful (especially if one is deciding between building their own or buying OEM), our evaluations are based on OEM performance, period. We can't mix apples and oranges.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea. However, at this point, it may not be a good fit for what we're trying to do with the program.
 
A side note about monitors: we're getting in some test monitors that go up to 2048 in resolution, so if we get dual 7800GTX's in SLI configuration and are sent an LCD that does 1280, then be sure we'll let you know what you're missing out on...
 
There will be a database system in place to compare scoring metrics on machines in the future. We just have yet to build a base in which it represent this and the engine is still also being worked on. Comparisons will come. They will not be on a baseline machine, but they will come.
 
It's unbelievable that no DVI cable or adapter was packed in thus making the whole computer unusable out of the box! I think you should have made a much bigger deal than you did. Luckily, most people could just make a run to the store and get a DVI cable and get going, but imagine little Timmy on Xmas day when all the stores are closed.
 
Morley said:
A side note about monitors: we're getting in some test monitors that go up to 2048 in resolution, so if we get dual 7800GTX's in SLI configuration and are sent an LCD that does 1280, then be sure we'll let you know what you're missing out on...
Click to expand...
This is very nice to hear. :)
 
good review........i think tho, for that actual system, there should be beefier and better name brand PSU's, and i think for a gaming rig, 2 gigs should be the norm for OEM's

and also i dont know if the hard drives have NCQ, but i think it should for any OEM high end rig..... just my thoughts

keep up the good wurk [H]OCP

soulsaver
 
soulsaver_8229 said:
good review........i think tho, for that actual system, there should be beefier and better name brand PSU's, and i think for a gaming rig, 2 gigs should be the norm for OEM's

and also i dont know if the hard drives have NCQ, but i think it should for any OEM high end rig..... just my thoughts

soulsaver
Click to expand...

If this system was SLI, I think a stronger PSU might be appropriate. However, given that the video card works off of heat piping and there are only two hard drives, I think the 400W was more than enough.

You're right about the ram. We pinged them for that, but be aware that just before the review was released, they started putting 2 gigs in the machines.

I'm actually not familiar with any OEM that currently uses NCQ drives. You're right in that if a company is going to sell a premium box, they should be prepared to stock it with premium parts. I don't think ncq is too far off, but at this point, it doesn't appear to give that much of a performance increase in synthetic testing.
 
It's not like NCQ adds much of a price premium, I'm sure we'll run across one soon...
 
soulsaver_8229 said:
good review........i think tho, for that actual system, there should be beefier and better name brand PSU's,
Click to expand...

This is an entirely different game for OEM's. They have the EE's on the payroll to match PSU's with the exact crossloads of their systems, they have the exact derating curves etc.....so they can cut it much closer with a PSU than enthusaists can.
 
Spectre said:
This is an entirely different game for OEM's. They have the EE's on the payroll to match PSU's with the exact crossloads of their systems, they have the exact derating curves etc.....so they can cut it much closer with a PSU than enthusaists can.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
Spectre said:
This is an entirely different game for OEM's. They have the EE's on the payroll to match PSU's with the exact crossloads of their systems, they have the exact derating curves etc.....so they can cut it much closer with a PSU than enthusaists can.
Click to expand...
hrumm

but what if say the person buys that comp and hooks a whole crapload of stuff up......or wants to add another hard drive....or upgrade proc which takes more watts, or video card that takes more watts to run

things like that should be accounted for........not all oems are unupgradeable......tho yes i understand and would totaly agree with having EE's match rigs up to psu's just IMO i think it should be a name brand at least.......i mean hell a 500 antec 2.0 truepower is only 60 bucks or so? somthing hella cheap, i say sleave it and pop it right in, no worries about anything......

just my 2 cents, and thanks for agreeing with my points yall, speicaly when yall are the ones testing it ;)

maayyyyyyyybe i could be a tester?! :confused:

i bet id give editorers there a run for their money with my spelling :p ;)

soulsaver
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top