Bay Trail's not so bad... (N2830)

[VirtualLarry]

So, it was a tax free weekend here in my state, and I picked up a couple of identical laptops at BestBuy. Asus X551M-something.

Celeron N2830 (Atom), 4GB RAM (non-removable, as is the battery), 500GB 5400RPM HDD, webcam, Wifi, one USB2.0, one USB3.0, HDMI, ethernet, DVD-RW.15.6" 1366x768 screen.

Was $229.99.

Been playing around with it a little bit. It browses pretty decently, at least this forum (which isn't very heavy, aside from an occasional ad that might slow things down).

Skype isn't bad either, uses about 50-55% CPU while on Skype. Worlds better than my C-70 APU-based NanoPC that I started that other thread about "going green", that used 97% CPU while on Skype.

I haven't tested the HDMI output yet, to see if it can output 1080P. I read in another thread about a budget laptop, that was supposedly limited on the HDMI output to 720P. Makes no sense to me, but I'm sure it's technically possible.

 

[Shivansps]

mm that one should have Quick Sync too.

 

[frozentundra123456]

At around 200.00, I guess they are OK. I would only consider them in a small form factor like 11.6 inch and below though. In a full size laptop, I would still go for something like an IvB/Haswell pentium or i3. Should be able to get a pentium for around 300.00 and an i3 around 350.

 

[monstercameron]

yep I agree with frozen... not worth it on anything above 11 inches. A few cheap beema laptops should be on the market or even some pentiums.

 

[jhu]

yep I agree with frozen... not worth it on anything above 11 inches. A few cheap beema laptops should be on the market or even some pentiums.

It's not the size. It's how you use it...

 

[Sweepr]

7.5W quad-core Bay Trail-M is a solid performer, especially the >2GHz Pentium models. Night and day compared to older Atoms and similar CPU-wise to 15W Beema but not quite up to Haswell (Core ix) single-thread performance standards.

 

[Shivansps]

yep I agree with frozen... not worth it on anything above 11 inches. A few cheap beema laptops should be on the market or even some pentiums.

Is still a lot better than the C-x0 and A4-12x0 that OEMs has been using on cheap notebooks. Beema and Mullins are MIA.

 

[monstercameron]

7.5W quad-core Bay Trail-M is a solid performer, especially the >2GHz Pentium models. Night and day compared to older Atoms and comparable CPU-wise to 15W Beema but not quite up to Haswell (Core ix) single-thread performance standards.

dont embellish them, they are about comparable to amd e-series dual cores.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Celeron-N2820-Notebook-Processor.109523.0.html

any kabini or beema apu will be better buy or a quad core atom from intel[that part might have been obvious]

@jhu I dont believe that...size matters.

@Shivansps i bet the a4-1200 puts up a decent fight.

cine R11.5
temas: s=0.24 m=0.45
atom dual: s=0.29 m=0.51

3dmark icestorm
temas: 12125
atom dual: 9056

source laptops
temas: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Toshiba-Satellite-W30Dt-A-100-Convertible.108306.0.html
atom dual: http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Pavilion-11-n070eg-x360-Convertible-Review.116929.0.html

 

[Sweepr]

7.5W quad-core Bay Trail-M is a solid performer

You should read more carefully before urging to defend AMD.

 

[monstercameron]

You should read more carefully before urging to defend AMD. :thumbsup:

and you also posted...

similar CPU-wise to 15W Beema

nope!


I did read your post but did you read mine?

any kabini or beema apu will be better buy or a quad core atom from intel[that part might have been obvious].

 

[Shivansps]

@Shivansps i bet the a4-1200 puts up a decent fight.
http://forums.anandtech.com/member.php?u=334330

i dont think so, i think they are the same or worse, probably worse than C-70s thats probably the reason of why OEMs keep using them... everytime i see a Lenovo G485 i want to bash my head on the wall.

 

[VirtualLarry]

dont embellish them, they are about comparable to amd e-series dual cores.

Not really. The N2830 in this laptop, seems quite a bit faster than the E1-2500 that was in my 19.5" AIO Win8 PC, and miles better than the C-70 in my NanoPC.

 

[Sweepr]

and you also posted...
nope

I did read your post but did you read mine?

What's your point? I was talking about 4C/4T Bay Trail-M (7.5W) which I could test and use a few times, not the dual-cores. They are faster than quad-core tablet-oriented Atom due to higher clockspeeds (up to 2.67GHz @ Pentium N3530/3540) and offer similar CPU performance to Beema (15W), even though they're slower than Haswell SKUs.

 

[monstercameron]

What's your point? I was talking about 4C/4T Bay Trail-M (7.5W) which I could test and use a few times, not the dual-cores. They are faster than quad-core tablet-oriented Atom due to higher clockspeeds (up to 2.67GHz @ Pentium N3530/3540) and offer similar CPU performance to Beema (15W), even though they're slower than Haswell SKUs.

yes my bad, you are right, didnt see the qualifier. Quad atom is a decent processor, my dell venue 8 pro is pretty decent.

@VirtualLarry

...seems quite a bit faster than the E1-2500...

in what manner does it seem quite a bit faster?

 

[Blue_Max]

The last Atom machine I used could barely run Excel and it was a painful experience... You use it at all?

 

[Anonemous]

at the $200 level mark, I would prefer to get the laptops with Celeron 2955U chips...

 

[witeken]

The last Atom machine I used could barely run Excel and it was a painful experience... You use it at all?

I don't know what your last Atom machines was, but Atom got a significant upgrade in Q4 2013 with up to 80% higher performance per clock, much higher clocks and 2X as many cores.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Ok, I take it back, partially. The laptop got a bit bogged down with the target.com website, slow scrolling, lots of stuff on the page. Only had this forum, FW, and Skype open not in a convo.

Then again, I have NoScript installed on my 1007U laptop, so perhaps it's not a fair comparison.

 

[Vesku]

Ok, I take it back, partially. The laptop got a bit bogged down with the target.com website, slow scrolling, lots of stuff on the page. Only had this forum, FW, and Skype open not in a convo.

Then again, I have NoScript installed on my 1007U laptop, so perhaps it's not a fair comparison.

When I tested my 1007U Acer C710 it was ~30% faster in Octane 2.0 than a 2.1 (2.4GHz boost) Bay Trail.

 

[Blue_Max]

Thanks for the info VL - I'll stick to at least a Celeron... Atom still won't work for me.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thanks for the info VL - I'll stick to at least a Celeron... Atom still won't work for me.

I wish that they had laptops in this price range, with 1007U or 1037U CPUs, and Windows 7, I would choose them in a heartbeat over the Atom CPUs. But this was a price-sensitive purchase, and the cheapest 1017U laptop with Win7 64-bit was $330 at Newegg.

 

[Blue_Max]

I totally understand budget limitations.
You have your own Win7 ISO? I have mine installed on a USB key so I can install it on any machine, even without DVD drive. (Happens to be way faster too!)

 

[ninaholic37]

The last Atom machine I used could barely run Excel and it was a painful experience... You use it at all?

That's partially because Microsoft software is extremely bloated. Once I switched from Microsoft Visual Studios to Code::Blocks and Dev C++ and got rid of IE and Microsoft Office, my Atom N2600 went from slow to awesome. I'm hoping that Microsoft was forced to improve their software efficiency for the Windows 8/8.1 era so their products could go into Tablets without people wanting to throw their windows devices out the window though.

 

[Enigmoid]

That's partially because Microsoft software is extremely bloated. Once I switched from Microsoft Visual Studios to Code::Blocks and Dev C++ and got rid of IE and Microsoft Office, my Atom N2600 went from slow to awesome. I'm hoping that Microsoft was forced to improve their software efficiency for the Windows 8/8.1 era so their products could go into Tablets without people wanting to throw their windows devices out the window though.

I will chip in.

Same simple 3 page document. Mixed text and graphics (mathematical formulas).

Word 2003 -- 25 MB
Word 2013 -- 90 MB

25 page Powerpoint presentation. Mixed text and graphics.

Word 2003 -- 23 MB
Word 2013 -- 74 MB

These are the same file (not using any features unsupported by office 2013). They are small amounts of RAM yes, but they serve to illustrate the bloat. Word 2013 increases the RAM usage sharply as you work on and edit your document. Both are equally responsive (2003 does not suffer from the 2013 latency bug).

Another prime example is Amazon ebook reader (kindle).
Same book

Kindle - 260 MB
Calibre - 60 MB

Kindle reader is complete crap. Slow on Android (compared to aldiko, moon reader, etc), slow on PC. Complete memory hog. How on earth does a 2 MB book require more than 2 orders of magnitude more RAM.

Better optimized programs are required and I feel that older programs that can do the same task generally do so with a lot less RAM usage.

 

[pw257008]

At around 200.00, I guess they are OK. I would only consider them in a small form factor like 11.6 inch and below though. In a full size laptop, I would still go for something like an IvB/Haswell pentium or i3. Should be able to get a pentium for around 300.00

Not so common anymore. I don't know if it's on Intel's side or the OEMs', but since BT-M, there aren't many Core Pentiums/Celerons, especially in that very low budget laptop range.