Bigger screens and slower processors

[xwb]

Just had a look at some of the newer netbooks. They all have more pixels (1366x768 instead of 1024x600), sometimes bigger screens (11.1 instead of 10.1) and slower processors (1.2 or 1.3 instead of 1.6).

Is it something to do with the battery life? To keep the same battery life, if the higher res screen consumes more power, the processor speed has to be cut to compensate.

I just find it strange that the newer machines are slower than the old ones.

 

[wahnula]

Screen resolution is usually determined by the GPU, not the CPU. Still, it would make sense that more power being used by the GPU to process more pixels (and the larger CCFL) would throttle back the CPU speed, but my guess is what you're seeing is inadequate GPUs trying to process more resolution than they can comfortably handle.

If you're thinking about doing any gaming whatsoever I would look at ultraportable notebooks and not netbooks.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[xwb]

I used to use an 800x600 400MHz lappie which was great for quite a few years. Nowadays most sites are designed for 1024x768 so I have to scroll all over the place.

Most of the 10.1s have a 1024x600, which still means a lot of vertical scrolling. The newer ones have 1366x768 but a 1.2GHz processor instead of a 1.66GHz processor so I'm wondering why?

Are they trying to market it with the same battery life? As you said, it could be inadequate GPUs. What happens in these cases? Do the GPUs just fail after a while because they are doing more work than they've been designed for?

 

[BadBigBen]

but a 1.2GHz processor instead of a 1.66GHz processor so I'm wondering why?

a slower CPU, when you look at the GHz, could still run faster internally...

and yes, basically, the newer CPUs (Atoms) do use LESS wattage than the Core2Duo's etc., thus battery life lasts longer...

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[wahnula]

Also, Atoms are cheaper, which brings the price down. The current netbook GPUs are actually better than the older ones.

Netbooks seem to have lost traction lately, they really are not that useful for power users. They are basically entry-level PCs, if you're a serious user you might want to look at some true laptops, unless budget is the #1 consideration. Personally, the lack of an onboard CD/DVD drive is a real deal-killer for me.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[xwb]

Power Users? Are they real? Do they exist? What are power users? Maybe I'll raise this on some other thread.

Some people I know who describe themselves as power users just have very untidy task bars. They don't really need multiple explorer, word, and IE sessions open. Most of them totally unnecessary. One guy I used to work with had 30 explorer sessions open, many pointing to the same directory.

 

[Nelviticus]

Someone with lots of windows open, all running undemanding apps, is not a power user. 'Power user' is one of those terms whose meaning depends on the context - from a network admin's point of view, a power user is someone who frequently needs higher access privileges than a standard user. From a hardware admin's point of view, a power user is someone who needs to run more demanding apps than web, office and email.

I installed Visual Studio 2010 on my Atom-powered, 10.1" screen, 1GB RAM netbook at the weekend. I haven't played with it yet but it'll be interesting to see whether it's usable!

Nelviticus

 

[xwb]

VS is usable as long as there aren't too many toolbars but it really depends on what you're doing.

I've been using VS2003 on an 800x600 400MHz P3 for almost 4 years on a GUI app. What you lack is vertical space - that is why I was considering the ones with 768 or 800 pixel vertical resolution. It won't have any problems running and even at 1.2GHz, it will be faster than the P3 I'm currently using.

The other thing I play with is PHP. That will run on a 160MHz P1 so, again, no problem on a 1.2GHz atom.

 

[JimInKS]

A little old, but a comparison between the Celeron M and Atom.

Short answer, for the same clock speed Celeron is faster than Atom.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-cpu,1947-9.html

 

[xwb]

Reminds me of how a 1MHz 6502 was faster than a 4MHz 8085/Z80

 

[wahnula]

When I say "power user" I think I mean anyone who uses a PC for more than email & web browsing, not the XP definition. I would think of the average reader of this forum is a power user. For example, I simultaneously:

* Browse the web
* Encode video or copy/burn optical media
* Use MS Office apps
* Use Google Earth and/or Bing maps
* Remotely access a server or other PCs
* Use email & web apps
* Listen to Internet radio
* View & edit photos
* Watch web videos

An Atom processor would falter under this load. My c.2004 Pentium M 1.6GHz laptop w/ XP & 2 GB RAM & 64M ATI 9700 stutters under this load, but my Win7 PC with a Core2Duo 6600 2.4 GHz, decent graphics card, 4GB RAM, and SSD does not.

My point is that your requirements and usage patterns will determine if a netbook can do the job. Examine your usage and go from there. How many windows do you close out at day's end? Are you even a casual gamer?

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[kmcferrin]

The difference is that netbooks have historically only used either Celeron M or Atom CPUs, and the Atom was by far the most popular. Then Intel came out with what they are referring to as a CULV (Consumer Ultra Low Voltage) line of CPUs that are being used in the "new" netbooks, which are essentially low power ultra-portable PCs. I personally expect netbooks to be totally extinct within a year or so. I feel that the iPad and the Windows-based competitors to the iPad are going to fill the role of a Netbook better than a Netbook ever did.

Think about it...take any decent netbook, ditch the keyboard and hard disk, give it a flash-based storage system, make the screen a little bigger and the overall unit a little thinner, and you have a tablet PC. Couple that with some "instant-on" capability and you're set.

I only ever use my netbook around the house anymore, and it takes nearly as long to boot as any of my laptops. Generally I only whip out the netbook if I expect to be moving around and want something light, but a tablet would work just as well if not better.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Windows 7
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCTS:Windows Server 2008 R2, Server Virtualization
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Server Administrator
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator
Certified Quest vWorkspace Administrator

 

[wahnula]

Check this out:

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/top-ten-notebooks.aspx

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[xwb]

Really depends on what they mean by top-ten. Is that judged now or after 1 year's continuous use?

The Samsung Q310 heats up so much, you can feel the heat through a one inch table top. The power supplies get quite flaky through continuous use.

After 2 years, my Acer has 2 keys dropping off and a non-working DVD writer: and that is just occasional use. Home editions insist that you want to play games.

Some of the 17" Dells (Alienware) I've used have missing keys and the graphics cards have been replaced several times.

Not sure about Asus - the \ tends to be in the weirdest places. As a programmer, I like the \ to be in the same place on all the keyboards.

Can't comment about the rest.