Author Topic: The OFFICIAL Netbook Thread... (Read 34329 times)

Arcmanov · « **Reply #60 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:38:57 PM »

Ah, but the beauty of the Atom is its low power draw. Of course the Athlon will be more powerful,
but that battery life may be limited to 2 or 2.5 hrs at best.

Carigamers · « **Reply #60 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:38:57 PM »

Philosophical45 · « **Reply #61 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:43:02 PM »

^^^ no, ur wrong, the athlon combined with it's chipset draws less power than the intel atom cpu and its chipset, intel got owned.. google it

Spazosaurus · « **Reply #62 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:47:40 PM »

Quote from: Philosophical45 on August 29, 2008, 09:43:02 PM

^^^ no, ur wrong, the athlon combined with it's chipset draws less power than the intel atom cpu and its chipset, intel got owned.. google it

When you're right, you're right. The cold hard numbers are right here

daniboy79 · « **Reply #63 on:** August 29, 2008, 10:21:33 PM »

i'll let you guys know how it goes after next week wed. (hopefully once the courier doh stick!)

...my new 1000H is on the way!

Arcmanov · « **Reply #64 on:** August 30, 2008, 04:50:46 PM »

How was I wrong? I was speaking of the CPUs themselves, not CPU+chipset.

The Atom draws 4 watts vs the Athlon 2000's 8 watts. Its right there in that same article (page 2). I never mentioned anything
about chipset (learn to READ amigos

). Intel needs to fix that issue with the 945 chipset that they currently use with the Atom,
and maybe then we'll see an improvement in overall power draw...and if they intend to use this thing in subnotebooks/netbooks,
thats the more important factor here.

Longer battery life is the goal. So what if the Athlon is more 'powerful'.

Carigamers · « **Reply #64 on:** August 30, 2008, 04:50:46 PM »

Philosophical45 · « **Reply #65 on:** August 30, 2008, 06:08:40 PM »

Quote from: Arcman on August 30, 2008, 04:50:46 PM

How was I wrong? I was speaking of the CPUs themselves, not CPU+chipset.

ok, i was rather blunt coming out saying you're wrong, and i know that the atom draws 4 watts less than the athlon.

Quote from: Arcman on August 30, 2008, 04:50:46 PM

I never mentioned anything
about chipset (learn to READ amigos ).

now you did say,

Quote

Of course the Athlon will be more powerful,
but that battery life may be limited to 2 or 2.5 hrs at best.

so looking at that, your proposed battery life of the athlon system would be shorter than that of its intel counterpart? or is it that i can't read properly... As much as i know, the cpu alone cannot be that sole factor in determining the battery life of a system, it would include all of its components, correct? If so, an athlon 2000+ system's battery life will be on par, or even longer than the atom system, based on that same article; Page 5 - System Power Consumption

ok, now i have to respect what you said about speaking about the cpu's themselves, but i think its a misunderstanding about what i said you're wrong about. i should have typed some more, or quoting you.....

Quote from: Arcman on August 30, 2008, 04:50:46 PM

(learn to READ ).

but just to conclude, your said it yourself..

Quote

Intel needs to fix that issue with the 945 chipset that they currently use with the Atom,
and maybe then we'll see an improvement in overall power draw

Quote

Longer battery life is the goal.

Spazosaurus · « **Reply #66 on:** August 30, 2008, 10:46:23 PM »

hmmm has arc been pwnt or will he make a strong comeback against the tobagonian? Tune in next time for another episode of techie wars.

But philo makes a good point. The system is only as strong as its weakest link. Overall the amd offering is a winner in power and speed.

Arcmanov · « **Reply #67 on:** August 30, 2008, 11:21:09 PM »

Ah Philo...yuh wukkin too hard dey. Yes, your point is well taken.

Captain, you jus hush...

Arcmanov · « **Reply #68 on:** September 04, 2008, 04:56:21 PM »

...with their new Inspiron Mini 9.

I'm not going to lie...it does look cool.
Only an 8 GB SSD though? Meeehhhh.

EmpireKing · « **Reply #69 on:** September 04, 2008, 09:40:16 PM »

o0....i think i jus see my christmas present

Beomagi · « **Reply #70 on:** September 04, 2008, 10:42:53 PM »

As far as competition, I would consider any mobile that i think earns my money more, thereby having me purchase it over the eeepc 'competition'.

That said, there's some delicious looking pics of the turion equipped everun on umpcportal with a video.

http://www.umpcportal.com/2008/09/everun-note-unboxing/

Looks like a ds. Pricey, but packing 1.2dual with decent video. For me, it may be this the 901 or s10. Dying to see a good lenovo s10 review. Going to have to replace my aging laptop soon (physical damage).

daniboy79 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 04, 2008, 11:06:14 PM »

scary:

Quote

Letter keys are disproportionately large compared to the rest, which should make typing a little more comfortable. That does come with the trade-off of missing or misplaced keys, some of which will require a function-key combination to access.

and on;y ah 9" screen too.

i'll see how the Asus 1000H goes

Arcmanov · « **Reply #72 on:** September 05, 2008, 12:35:40 AM »

^^^ Ay, I want a mini-review of that when yuh get it. WITH pics eh...

Crixx_Creww · « **Reply #73 on:** September 05, 2008, 07:59:49 AM »

i laffed at the usage of turion near worthlessness in the everun

but from what i see there, it is atleast more viable than the atoms have turned out to be

and it also has a 128mb grafexx card in it
thats damn impressive for the ds for daddys lol

i could see some executive big boys going to meetings to show off with it

Beomagi · « **Reply #74 on:** September 22, 2008, 11:17:37 AM »

Power draw affects the choice of power supply and heat management - if both can be done well, turions would be fine - that said, my old turion msi gets hot enough to probably make my having a vasectomy in the future unnecessary, so I also have my doubts.
http://www.umpcportal.com/2008/09/everun-note-full-review/

I don't wanna knock it till I try it. Still the size limits the power of what I'd want to do with it, so I doubt I'd ever need that much oomph in there. $900 is too pricey though

DO note - dual core atoms are coming!
before it's stated how useless this may be...

Most power is not lost on the chip - the chipset and peripherals are killing the battery mostly at this point,
The atom's weakness is multitasking - multitasking also sucks on really low res screens usually. Would be interesting to get the skinny on these.

http://www.liliputing.com/tag/intel-atom-n330

daniboy79 · « **Reply #75 on:** October 09, 2008, 05:38:04 PM »

LOL ...this gettin to be real funny now!

New Asus Eee PC Again

Arcmanov · « **Reply #76 on:** October 09, 2008, 07:02:52 PM »

OOOHHHH...me likey.

...but the word 'premium' does get me frighten. It usually means the price go be kinda vicious.

EmpireKing · « **Reply #77 on:** October 09, 2008, 08:15:36 PM »

Quote from: Arcman on October 09, 2008, 07:02:52 PM

OOOHHHH...me likey.

...but the word 'premium' does get me frighten. It usually means the price go be kinda vicious.

ROTFLMAO.....

from $699

Fkacn_tt · « **Reply #78 on:** October 09, 2008, 08:36:27 PM »

honestly i don't understand the attraction for these devices, seems like a real rip off. The functionality of these devices are so limited you might as well pick up a budget system and done

Crixx_Creww · « **Reply #79 on:** October 09, 2008, 08:56:47 PM »

people say that

yet spend 3 times that for a mac book air.. amazing..

Carigamers · « **Reply #79 on:** October 09, 2008, 08:56:47 PM »

Author Topic: The OFFICIAL Netbook Thread... (Read 34329 times)

Carigamers

Carigamers

Carigamers

ShoutBox