Could a netbook be compared to an older PC? Maybe a P4, P3, P2, P1, 486, 386, 286, etc? I don't know this newer multicore stuff. All I know is my Athlon 3500 at home, and my P4 at work. I seem to recall having a 366 MHz not all that long ago. Is an Atom based PC faster than a 366 MHz Pentium?
How much power is in a Netbook anyway?
- Thread starter halfpower
- Start date
Well it's running at more than 4 times the clock rate so it is faster for that reason alone.
and really, this is a very simple question and this article can more than answer it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_atom
and really, this is a very simple question and this article can more than answer it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_atom
A 1.6 GHz Atom N270 is roughly as powerful as a 1-1.2 GHz Pentium M, which in turn is probably equivalent to a 1.5 GHz ish P4.
VinDSL
Diamond Member
Hrm...
Not sure how to answer that, but...
I bought a Eee PC 1000HD a couple of weeks ago. It's a Celeron M model (2GB RAM) dual-booted with XP Home SP3 and Linux Eeebuntu (based on Ubuntu 9.04 'Jaunty').
I run a LOT of older machines here and (to me) it performs about the same as an average P4 box with a descent video card.
This is the way I put it in another forum...
That sums up my *feelings*.I just realized that Compiz Fusion works on this distro... wobbly windows, rotating cube switcher... everything! And, with no visual lagginess or tearing!
The only 'down side' to Netbooks (and it's common to ALL of them AFAIK) is you can forget gaming. Even My Brute (an uber-simple online flash game) is barely playable. Gaming isn't their forte! Large flash videos, e.g. YouTube, is marginal as well. Small-sized flash videos, like they have on news sites, work fine. The window size and resolution of the video/game seems to be the determining factor, just like the olden times of desktop computing.
Netbooks are supposed to be cheap, "Ultra-portable", and easy on battery time. Power management is paramount! Thus, the CPUs are rather meek!
This Netbook has a Celeron. The latest Eee PCs use Atoms, and Ions are in the wings.
Supposedly, a Celeron CPU will out-perform an Atom, but Atoms have better power management - and Ions will use even less (battery) power, so CPU preference in Netbooks becomes a classic case of less-is-more.
So, yes, this $249 Netbook performs just fine - better than an Atom-based model (probably) and I'm tickled pink that Compiz works under Eeebuntu! That, alone, makes it a keeper!
Kind of a strange mixture of components... Netbooks! Bright, high-resolution panel - adequate GPU - underpowered CPU - with a cramped keyboard and tiny touchpad.
However, I'll have to admit, they seemed to have pulled it off in an acceptable fashion!
Running 'System Monitor' in Linux... The CPU spends a lot of time at 100%. Everything else is loafing along, sooo the CPU is the weak link in Netbooks, but that's BY DESIGN.
Heat dissispation and (consequently) battery life are MAJOR considerations! There isn't much room inside these things! The HD in my Netbook, for instance, uses the back side of the keyboard as a heat sink. LoL! I don't know what the hell they're using to cool the CPU, but it cannot be much better!
Anyway, hopefully that'll give you some insight...
the cheap ssd's slow them down a ton. i had a chance to use one with the intel x18-m and it was far more fun obscene price but fun.
i'd go with hard drive or decent ssd; skip the cheapo ssd's they are murderously slow
obscene price but fun. i'd go with hard drive or decent ssd; skip the cheapo ssd's they are murderously slow
thats probably inaccurate.
the 1.6 atom i'd say having owned a few of them, is roughly a 900mhz pentium M for many things. I actually have an atom 1.6 xpc shuttle box, and a 1.1 ghz p3 /100 bus emachines running side by side right now, and the atom just barely edges out the 1.1 p3 i'd say.
I think basically the fastest netbook you can get right now is the $399 gateway one with the 1.2 ghz athlon. That would be the netbook to buy, but it has slightly less battery life.
Atom's performance is all over the place. For most things (general usage), you're probably looking at roughly per clock performance with a pentium 4, or a pentium 3 around 1Ghz. However, in some instances, atom performance can be as low as 1/3 or 1/4 of a Pentium M at the same speed.
VinDSL
Diamond Member
Damn you!!!
http://www.gateway.com/systems/series/529598099.php (Gateway LT Series)
I was sooo happy with my $250 Eee PC...
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Damn you!!!
http://www.gateway.com/systems/series/529598099.php (Gateway LT Series)
I was sooo happy with my $250 Eee PC...
they have it for sale at best buy , if you want to touch it in person and feel even worse about your eeepc.
netbook that runs osx well = yummy
netbook that runs windows = meh.
especially with slow azz 8/16gb ssd you will find windows so painful its not funny.
netbook that runs windows = meh.
especially with slow azz 8/16gb ssd you will find windows so painful its not funny.
omfg
this is anandtech people, anand himself, iirc, did a review in the last two months of the dual core atoms and benched it against older processors *sigh*
i have a 1000h with the atom and its ok for some spreadsheets, web browsing, im's, email, diablo 2 and call of duty, or playing non-hd video (hd always lags for me) on windows
runs linux fine, with compiz, too.
this is anandtech people, anand himself, iirc, did a review in the last two months of the dual core atoms and benched it against older processors *sigh*
i have a 1000h with the atom and its ok for some spreadsheets, web browsing, im's, email, diablo 2 and call of duty, or playing non-hd video (hd always lags for me) on windows
runs linux fine, with compiz, too.
I am running windows 7 on a net top and it runs great. XP didn't run too badly either.
Never tried vista, but I'm assuming it'd been somewhat bad (though I run vista in VMs with 512mb ram, and its useable)
That said, I owned a mac mini for a while with a core solo (much faster cpu than an atom) and it had 1gb ram. That was really slow. so I really don't get all the mac OS X worship especially on atom.
MAC OS X is really no less resource hungry than xp. And it seems like its slower than win 7
osx and ubuntu are less disk i/o resource hungry which is a pain point with the slow ssd they stuff in these netbooks.
if you've only used a noisy hard drive netbook you will not understand this.
the ssd is SLOOOW that comes on the mini-9 fanless netbook. however it is dead quiet. i can't stand fans/drive noise.
if you've only used a noisy hard drive netbook you will not understand this.
the ssd is SLOOOW that comes on the mini-9 fanless netbook. however it is dead quiet. i can't stand fans/drive noise.
a company named Convergent Techologies tried to sell something like a
Netbook in the mid-80's. that computer had a small screen.
i got a tour of the factory. big SMT factory right in the middle of Silicon Valley.
anyway, having seen the netbooks, i would have to say the Convergent's computer was similar in size. i don't have the power consumption figures. it ran off a battery, so, in the same ballpark as the netbooks.
Netbook in the mid-80's. that computer had a small screen.
i got a tour of the factory. big SMT factory right in the middle of Silicon Valley.
anyway, having seen the netbooks, i would have to say the Convergent's computer was similar in size. i don't have the power consumption figures. it ran off a battery, so, in the same ballpark as the netbooks.
Seems like a top of the line PIII would be just as powerful. When Intel made the P4M it was based off of the PIII.
VinDSL
Diamond Member
I'm multi-booting Linux Mint 7 on my Eee PC now. I'm in the process of optimizing the default theme for use with the 10" display, and so forth, and so on. Working great, so far!
I'm totally shocked at "how much power" these things have!
LoL! I thought I was buying a 'toy'...
I guess that's what happens when your expectations are low - kind of a reverse bell curve takes place.
The longer I play around with this 1000HD, the more I like it...
VinDSL
Diamond Member
IIRC, A64 3500+ is 2.2GHz? So then your 3500+ is roughly on par with a Pentium M at the same clock (according to this: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=7). Therefore the Atom N270 would be about maybe 40% of how fast your A64 is, seeing how a 1.6GHz Atom is roughly on par with 900MHz-1GHz Pentium M.
In some applications, expect the Atom to be even slower than 40%. I tried to convert some 5-8 minute WMV and AVI clips to MP4 for my iPhone with Videora and they could take upwards of 20 to 40 minutes to complete, whereas it'd be no more than 10 on a 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo.
In some applications, expect the Atom to be even slower than 40%. I tried to convert some 5-8 minute WMV and AVI clips to MP4 for my iPhone with Videora and they could take upwards of 20 to 40 minutes to complete, whereas it'd be no more than 10 on a 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo.
VinDSL
Diamond Member
On most of the things I routinely do, I can't tell the difference between my 1000HD and (say) my Toshiba A215 or a desktop machine.
A few glaring differences are...
I have a *feeling* (based on a little research) these 'problems' are due to the way browsers handle Javascript, and the way the Eee PC handles Flash.
My theory is: Browsers and Flash have evolved, as computers have gotten more powerful. And, as computers have grown more powerful, it has allowed browsers and Adobe Flash to place more of a burden on the CPU/GPU/RAM. Accordingly, Firefox 3.5.1 with Flash 10, on a fast machine, works great. But they're stretching the limits on a (purposely) underpowered Netbook.
I think I'll install Firefox 2.x and Flash 8 (if I can find them) today, and see if that makes an improvement.
I might mention...
A whole new generation of Netbooks are being developed that will address these issues.
The MSI X-Slim X320 and Acer AS3810T come to mind - but, they ain't gonna be cheap!
Matter of fact, technically speaking, I don't think they should be classified as Netbooks.
Basically, they're sub-$1000 Apple MacBook Air clones...
A few glaring differences are...
- 1. Most Flash videos are decidedly wonky. Some look crappy, some look okay, none look great.
2. Dittos for online Flash games. My Brute, for example, is barely playable.
3. Most web sites look/work fine, but some web sites are noticeably laggy.
I have a *feeling* (based on a little research) these 'problems' are due to the way browsers handle Javascript, and the way the Eee PC handles Flash.
My theory is: Browsers and Flash have evolved, as computers have gotten more powerful. And, as computers have grown more powerful, it has allowed browsers and Adobe Flash to place more of a burden on the CPU/GPU/RAM. Accordingly, Firefox 3.5.1 with Flash 10, on a fast machine, works great. But they're stretching the limits on a (purposely) underpowered Netbook.
I think I'll install Firefox 2.x and Flash 8 (if I can find them) today, and see if that makes an improvement.
I might mention...
A whole new generation of Netbooks are being developed that will address these issues.
The MSI X-Slim X320 and Acer AS3810T come to mind - but, they ain't gonna be cheap!
Matter of fact, technically speaking, I don't think they should be classified as Netbooks.
Basically, they're sub-$1000 Apple MacBook Air clones...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter