How slow are those netbook processors?

how much slower is the N450(1.66GHz) compared to a mobile AMD sempron processor 3500+ ~ 1.8GHz?

the reason i compared it to the amd, is because a friend i know has that as his processor on his laptop (single core) and its pretty decent speed for multitasking basic applications (office, media player, and 4 tabs on firefox at the same time).
So are those atom processors really slow?

Anyone know a good laptop for school?
The only reason im considering a netbook is because of the cheap $300.00 price tag. Unless maybe someone can suggest a laptop that could be cheaper without being to much slower than the AMD processor?

 

Hello! If you are considering a laptop, perhaps the "What notebook should I buy?" Forum is the best place for it.

If you ask me, get a CULV or a Neo. Same battery life as a netbook normally and many times the power.

 

See comparative performance here. Agree with above comment, a CULV like a $450 11.6" Acer SU2300 1410 outperforms an atom by 2.5 times.

 

Agreed here... CULV owns atom anytime.,...

 

kinda expensive though =/

 

The acer timeline isn't really more expensive than a netbook, just bigger. But it will tear the netbook up, performance wise.

 

+$150 isnt that more expensive??
thats a 50% mark up....

 

The Atom is just fine if you don't need the performance, i.e. for high-end gaming. For the average user who just needs it for web surfing, typing, music, and what not. And the higher end Atoms (like my dual core Atom 330) are capable of more demanding stuff, like running newer games.

The Atom was designed for low power draw. The average Core 2 Duo draws 25W or 35W, CULV models draw 10W, the dual core Atoms draw 8W, and the more popular single-core Atoms draw between 2W and 5W depending on the model

 

Every experience I had with an Atom netbook ended up with it being returned to the store because it was too slow for my basic computing tasks. CULV is the way to go.

 

*This* machine, while 70 bucks more than the HP Mini 210, is QUITE a bit more capable. I would gladly pay $70 more to have such a step up in features over a netbook. CULV's are starting to make me question the need for the Atom. It's woefully underpowered comparatively speaking with the N270. The dual core Atom 330 is certainly a step up from the N270 and is pretty close to the Celeron 743 in that link, but even the Celeron at 1.3 GHz and single core is faster.

 

I've been saying this for months now, CULV systems, even a SU2300, can function for 95% of people as a full time PC. I don't have time for gaming or audio encoding anymore on my desktop so even though it's sitting 10 feet away I find myself on my AS1410. I hook up a 22" 1080p monitor and a mouse and it functions as well as a desktop for all my class / office productivity needs.

My Atom systems did not.

 

Those numbers represent TDP and not power consumption; the two are not equivalent. TDP = Thermal Design Power. All TDP specifies is how much the heatsink paired with the processor must be able to dissipate to keep the processor under its maximum recommended operating temperature. It says nothing about power consumption.

The Atom is a very weak processor that can barely manage fluid web surfing, not counting flash-heavy websites. Even in basic multitasking it lags (switching between windows, for example). It will disappoint those who demand a responsive machine.

 

^^^^^^^

This.

I can't emphasize it enough, if you're used to any kind of a responsive machine that does things when you want and when you click them, you will be frustrated beyond words if you buy an Atom system.

 

If Atom's were out of order, how good would they be?

 

I'd say they would be better, but then I don't really know enough about the rest of the Atom architecture to say anything.

 

While it is slightly more expensive, the performance up, this being CPU, IGP.GPU, HDD, RAM, screen resolution, everything gets a bump. Especially the CPU-IGP area, where a CULV paired with Intel GMA4500MHD or a Neo with a 3200HD/4200HD beats by a considerable (as in enormous) margin the performance of an Atom-GMA950

 

What typical numbers would you put on power consumption of those processors ?

 

With a higher capacity battery on my AS1410 I get between 8-9 hours of battery life, so CULV systems can clearly compete and exceed the vast majority of Atom systems. You have to pay a significantly higher cost to get a long battery life Atom netbook at which point you're just better off buying a CULV anyway.

 

Atoms do what they were meant to do, basic web browsing and Word. Nothing more.

It is like a glorified smart phone with Windows Mobile 7.

I would get the CULV if you can. It might cost more but it will have a much longer useful life.

 

I have a qx9300 in my laptop and an atom in my umpc. The atom doesn't suck "as much" as you guys are claiming it to be.

With that said, I would also suggest the CULV.

 

I don't know how to measure the actual power consumption in watts of a part in a computer. Perhaps someone here does though.

Depends on the person.

 

True.

I don't know what netbook you were using, but mine is very responsive.

 

I had a Gateway LT2005u and even my mouse cursor lagged at times moving around the screen while web browsing or working in Word / Power Point. To me that's well below the usability threshold.

 

I can honestly say that's never happened to me in any Atom-based netbook I've ever used.

 

I'd call a bad driver on that one...

 

I have an Atom N270 in my Samsung NC10, and when its plugged in its not too bad for doing basic things, and its fairly responsive. However, when its running on battery I sometimes find that it becomes unusably laggy (although this hasn't happened very frequently at all). Also, while on battery, things are noticeably slower even just doing basic tasks.

All in all, I would say that for the price and for what its meant to do, atoms are acceptably fast. However, if you demand extremely responsive systems, I'd steer clear of them and settle for something more powerful. I couldn't justify and afford anything more than 300, since I already have a Latitude with a Core 2 in it, so I went for the atom.

 

I'm currently in posession(well I have access to at least) both an Atom (in a Compaq netbook) as well as a Pentium 4(in a Dell Precision 360). Both are said to be comparable CPUs and in both cases, I really have no trouble with browsing the internet nor Office work. I'm actually installing VMs on the P4 as we speak

One's running XP and one's running 7 for the record.

I think it's just a matter of what you do with the machine. Netbooks are selling, therefore by logic, they are enough for some market of people.

 

They aren't great, but I agree that the Atom (single core) is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. The performance bottleneck on my Mini 9 is actually the POS SSD; with some tweaks, the system is actually very usable for browsing and simple Office apps. The only time I ever experienced lag between switching windows was before I installed flashfire to boost the performance of the horrid, stuttering SSD.

They aren't meant for heavy multi-tasking (how much can you possibly do on your standard 1024x600 netbook screen?), but for the majority of users, Atom-based netbooks are perfectly fine for their intended purpose. The biggest disappointment for most people, IMO, will be flash performance. Even so, 360p Youtube works well enough.

That said, I would not want a netbook as a primary portable computer, nor would I pay more than $250 for one, unless I had a very specific need for a particular model.