• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dumb Question but Please Come In...

GTaudiophile

GTaudiophile

Lifer
So my current (very old yet trusty and capable) laptop is the following:

HP ZT3000 Series (circa. 2005)
Intel Pentium M 715 (1.5Ghz) CPU
15.4" WXGA (1280x800) Non-Glossy LCD (one of the best I've seen still)
ATI Radeon Mobility 9200 32MB
1.0GB DDR SDRAM (2x512)
160GB 5400 RPM PATA HDD
DVD/CD-RW combo
Intel Pro Wireless 2200 802.11b/g & Bluetooth
Weight: 6.5 lbs.
Battery life: 2-2.5 hours
OS: WinXP SP3


So my question is this:

Given the specs above, am I pretty much guarantee that just about any NETBOOK I buy today will be an upgrade from what I bought in 2005? Especially in terms of CPU/GPU performance?
 
Last edited:
You're going to be very surprised and possibly quite disappointed by the Atom's performance. I've suffered through 3 generations of EEE PCs and finally threw in the towel and moved a notch upmarket.

Any single-core Atom will perform worse than your 5-year old Pentium M. Heck, in most benchmarks, a lowly Dothan Celeron-M 900mhz will beat the N270/280, and your (clocked comparably to an Atom) will absolutely smack an Atom silly (probably 2x better performance, all other things equal). And the new Pineview CPUs & Pinetrail chipset is just a smidgen better than the ancient 270/280 + 945GSE combo so that's nothing to get excited about.

99.9% of netbooks have 1024x600 LCDsso that's obviously going to be a downgrade. You will pick up LED screen lighting and an integrated webcam, which might be impotant to you.

The Radeon Mobility 9200 is a DX8 card, whereas the GMA950 is technically DX9. That said, aside from Windows Aero, the 9200 will run circles around the GMA950 for DX7/8 gaming if that's your think. Both will of course fail miserably and won't support hardware-assisted Flash for HD streaming etc.

All netbooks now have 1GB DDR2 standard but that's a wash due to the CPU limitation. ANd it's a single stick and netbooks don't support dual-channel. DDR3 is just starting to trickle into the 11.6" ultraportable and ION market.

HDD capacities now are similar (160gb-250gb) though performance, noise & power consumption will be considerably better due several generations of newer portable HDD tech. You will have XP SP3 or Win 7 starter on most netbooks, with a handful coming with Win 7 Home Premium. You can always do a Windows Anytime Upgrade to bump up from Starter to 7 HP.

You'll naturally lose the optical drive. You'll probably pick up another USB 2.0 port or two.

MANY netbooks nowadays still don't come with "N" wireless or Bluetooth. In fact, both (esp. BT) are considered sort of speciality, higher-cost luxury items that you will pay extra for. Most of the cheaper Ralink etc. wireless chipsets used in contemporary netbooks are 2.4Ghz only and don't hold a candle to a solid Intel wireless G card.

Weight & battery life, any netbook or even any current ultraportable will absolutely trounce your trusty HP.

Honestly, your best bet would be something like an 11.6" CULV machine---I am partial to the Acer Aspire 1410 with the SU2300 Celeron dual-core ($400-$450). You also get such goodies as HDMI output and a multitouch touchpad. If you need more graphics horsepower, the Asus EEE PC 120N which has an ION chipset and a dual-core Atom 330 (desktop). It'll give you a nice CPU boost (though far weaker than the ULV CPUs) while offering a HUGE improvment in GPU capabilities and still beat your old HP's battery life.
 
Friends don't let friends buy netbooks. 😛 They fit into their niche well, but outside of that, a full-blown notebook is so much better.

If you want a good compromise between price (somewhat), weight / size, battery life, and performance, consider a CULV notebook. They're a HUGE step up from a netbook as far as performance and functionality is concerned, but still a step down from a "regular" laptop. Unless you do video encoding or extremely heavy multitasking, you won't notice the difference, unlike an Atom-based machine. Look into the Asus UL series or Acer Timeline.

For ~$400-500, you can get a capable single core with around 2GB of memory and some frills. For $800ish, you can get a dual core, switchable graphics, and just about all the extra features similarly priced laptops come with.
 
GTaudiophile said:
What are all the CULV processors out there?

Is the AMD NEO / NEO X2 considered to be in that category?
Click to expand...

I believe so, yes. I haven't kept as much up to date with the AMD offerings, though.

On the Intel side, they're the Pentium and Core 2 processors prefixed with "SU" - so, the SU3500, SU4100, SU7300, etc. They come in four flavors - Pentium single core, Pentium dual core, Core 2 single core, and Core 2 dual core. You can look up individual specs on Intel's website. Intel has also released i3, i5, and possibly i7 CULV processors apparently, and I think they're suffixed with "UM" or something like that. I don't have any details on those.

If you want a small, sleek notebook with good battery life I'd suggest a Timeline or UL20 / UL30 / UL80 with a SU7300 - dual core, Core 2 architecture. If performance really isn't a concern for you (and it would be no worse than your Pentium M) you could save some cash by going with a cheaper model that only has a SU3500, 4100, etc.

If size, weight, and battery life aren't your top priorities then I suggest you just buy a regular laptop that fits your needs.
 
Last edited:
Well, the AMD offerings are basically a notch slower speed-wise, a a notch better IGP-wise, a bit cheaper but run hotter & are less efficient. AMD's Congo platform has reasonable performance and decent graphics but it definitely doesn't have the power efficiency of the Intel ULV chips.

CursetheSky is right about being on the lookout for the "SU" prefix. There are actually Celeron and Core 2 Solos in the single core line and Celeron, Pentium and C2D in the dual-core line. Any of them, even the slowest CULV Celeron 743, will demolish an Atom in every possible benchmark test other than battery runtime. But if you really don't need hours upon hours of battery life or a very portable machine with no optical drive, I'd just go with something like a $600 Core i3 or a $700 i5-based 15" machine as the most reasonable replacement candidate for your old HP. Heck, Best Buy has a $630 15.6" Gateway with a Core i3-330, 4GB DDR3 and a Blu-Ray drive. The only thing you lose out on is integrated Bluetooth.
 
Well, I am also going for lighter weight, smaller size, and better battery life on my next purchase. I would like enough battery to cover a trans-continental US flight, so say around 5 hours.

In terms of screen size, I think I want something in the 12-14" range. In terms of weight, something in the 2-4 lbs. range.
 
GTaudiophile said:
Well, I am also going for lighter weight, smaller size, and better battery life on my next purchase. I would like enough battery to cover a trans-continental US flight, so say around 5 hours.

In terms of screen size, I think I want something in the 12-14" range. In terms of weight, something in the 2-4 lbs. range.
Click to expand...

What's your price range?

An ASUS UL30VT or UL30A would fit the bill perfectly, but they are much more expensive than your average netbook. They're great laptops, and my only real complaint is the lack of bluetooth on the UL30A model (fixed with a USB bluetooth adapter), and the poor screen (akin to a cheap TN panel desktop monitor, black levels are particularly bad). For what you're getting, the good far outweighs the bad.
 
The UL30VT / UL30A easily fits into the upper-end of that range. Many other CULV laptops do as well, such as the UL80 (14"), UL20 (12"), and Acer Timeline series (various sizes).

If you can afford it, the current one to get is the UL30VT-A1. There is a new version coming out "soon" that will have an i5 and slightly newer dedicated graphics, but who knows when the release date will be. In my mind, if you're buying a CULV, your priority isn't performance anyway.
 
hkklife said:
Well, the AMD offerings are basically a notch slower speed-wise, a a notch better IGP-wise, a bit cheaper but run hotter & are less efficient. AMD's Congo platform has reasonable performance and decent graphics but it definitely doesn't have the power efficiency of the Intel ULV chips.
Click to expand...

Clock for clock, AMD's processors are all faster than the Atom. Even the K8-based Athlon 2650e is way faster than the Atom, and it runs at 1.6GHz.

Intel's CULV processors are faster than AMD's CULV's though, yes.
 
GTaudiophile said:
So my question is this:

Given the specs above, am I pretty much guarantee that just about any NETBOOK I buy today will be an upgrade from what I bought in 2005? Especially in terms of CPU/GPU performance?
Click to expand...

Noooo. A 1.6GHz Atom (the N270) is about comparable in processing power to a 1.2GHz Pentium M. So a 1.5GHz Pentium M will be faster.

Even the Mobility Radeon 9200 is going to have favorable performance when compared to Intel's GMA 950.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-9200.6943.0.html

As you can see it's a TAD bit quicker than Nvidia's GeForce 6150... which is an old chip, but is ALSO still competitive with Intel's GMA graphics chips.
 
Decembermouse said:
Intel's CULV processors are faster than AMD's CULV's though, yes.
Click to expand...

Clock for clock, yes, but AMD's NEO (CULV equivalent) processors are clocked higher. The L335 for example, slots in between the SU 2300 and SU 4100 http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html However the tradeoff for this is worse battery life Of course, the ATi 3200 can run circles around the GMA4500. I've got a Wind U230 on order, and I'll do some benchmarks as soon as I get it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152160
 
Get some CULV thin & light laptop.
For $900 you should get a nice one with 10+ hours battery life.
Make sure to get one without a CD/DVD drive (probably shaves .5 lbs of weight)
 
How about a Dell Latitude E4300? Right smack in the middle of your spec requirements for both size and weight, should be able to get 5-6 hours on the battery.

If you go through Dell Outlet you can get a decently spec'ed one for $7-800. You also get a regular processor instead of a CULV and a much better warranty and build quality because it's Dell's business line.
 
I kind of like the DELL Vostro V13 as well (with the Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor ULV SU7300)

I wonder how the Mobile Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD compares with what I have now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top