INFO: an ultraportable at netbook prices

netbooks vs ultraportables vs notebooks: cpu performance and power consumption

Processor / CPU passmark (worst to best)
Intel ........Atom Z520 @ 1.33GHz 253 <- Acer One 751H netbook, though is clocked at 1.24Ghz!!
Intel .........Pentium M @ 1.20GHz 298
AMD ........Athlon L110@ 1.20Ghz 300 <- Gateway LT31 series netbook
Intel ........Atom N270 @ 1.60GHz 306 <- most netbooks
Intel ........Atom N280 @ 1.66GHz 317 <- ASUS 1000HE netbook
Intel .Core Solo U1400 @ 1.20Ghz xxx <- ULV HP nc2400 (solo model)
Intel .Core Solo U1500 @ 1.33GHz 330
Via ........Nano U2250 @ 1.33Ghz 434 <- Samsung NC20
AMD Athlon Neo MV-40@ 1.60Ghz 435 <- HP DV2
Intel Core 2 Solo U3500@ 1.40GHz 490 <- Acer 1810T/AS1410. NOTE: passmarks web data is inaccurate. See here.
Intel .........Pentium M @ 2.26GHz 552 <- fastest Centrino CPU
Intel Core2 Duo U7500 @ 1.06GHz 569
Intel ..Core Duo U2500 @ 1.20GHz 587 <- ULV HP nc2400 (duo model)
Intel ..........Atom 330 @ 1.60GHz 614
Intel Core2 Duo U7600 @ 1.20GHz 650 <- ULV HP 2510P, Dell E420
Intel Core2 Duo L7100 @ 1.20GHz 662 <- ULV Lenovo X300
Intel Core2 Duo U7700 @ 1.33GHz 724 <- ULV HP 2510P, Toshiba R500
Intel Core2 Duo U9300 @ 1.20GHz 768 <- ULV HP 2530P, Dell E4200, Toshiba R600, Acer 3810T
Intel...............T2250 @ 1.73GHz 783
Intel Core2 Duo T5500 @ 1.66GHz 872 <- approx overclocked U7600/U7700 2510P
Intel Core2 Duo U9400 @ 1.40GHz 923 <- ULV: HP 2530P/Lenovo X301/X200s, Dell E4200, Toshiba R600
Intel Core2 Duo L7700 @ 1.80GHz 1109 <-LV HP 2510P/Thinkpad X61s
Intel Core2 Duo L9400 @ 1.86GHz 1230 <- LV: HP 2530P/Lenovo X200s
Intel Dual-Core T4200 @ 2.00GHz 1232
Intel Core2 Duo T7500 @ 2.20GHz 1234 <-Thinkpad X61
Intel Core2 Duo P7350 @ 2.00GHz 1365
Intel Core2 Duo T6500 @ 2.10GHz 1519
Intel Core2 Duo P8400 @ 2.26GHz 1542 <- Lenovo X200
Intel Core2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz 1719

CPU power consumption (best to worst - mostly opposite to performance)
2W TDP: Atom z520, z530 [netbook]
2.5W TDP: Atom N270, N280
5W TDP: Core Solo U1400/U1500, Via Nano U2250
5.5W TDP: SU3500
8W TDP: Atom 330
10W TDP: SU2700, U2500, U7x00, U9x00 (ULV)
12W TDP: L7100 ULV
15W TDP: AMD Athlon Neo MV-40
17W TDP: L7x00, L9x00 (LV)
25W TDP: Pxxxx, eg: P8600 [notebook]
35W TDP: Txxxx, eg: T4200 [notebook]

Candidate ultraportable units at netbook prices
There are one-gen older ultraportable systems like HP 2510P/NC2400(duo) that offer equivalent battery life or better to current netbooks. With a buy-in price lower than $350US on EBAY, the final solution then is around the cost of a premium netbook, but offer more than 2.5 times the performance. Standard 3yr warranty also has international cover, so can broaden the search for a unit. Can also do a hybrid small 1.8" ZIF SSD + hotswappable 2.5" HDD via optical caddy/optical drive setup to get the best features of both: battery life, performance and decent storage space on the cheap. There has been a few 2530Ps on ebay-US for < $700US, predominantly SU9300 equipped that also offer hybrid 1.8" SSD + 2.5" HDD via optical bay caddy setup. A bit more than a netbook though..

Other candidate ultraportable units
There may be others units as well. What to look for is a ultraportable with a 9.5mm optical drive, as the value units are crippled with slow 1.8" 4200rpm ZIF drives. The optical drive bay provides an upgrade path via a optical bay caddy. Otherwise an ebay/ refurb Lenovo X61s costs more than a netbook, but offers significantly more useability and performance with only a slight size increase. Consider the difference in performance.

Other architecture performance factors to consider that may limit upgradability

* the storage subsystem. Is it SATA or PATA? UDMA5/ATA100 PATA interface tops out at 87MB/s. SATA can do 3GBps and SATA SSD is better bang-per-buck.

* the RAM subsystem. Likely to use integrated graphics, so does the system support dual-channel RAM config? It was found that single-channel X3100 graphics performs at 65% the level of a dual-channel config.

 

great, great post! but is there any info on how much power consumed by gpus? i think steaming hd videos is one of the main tasks ppl peform on netbooks along with web browsing and office.

 

WinDVD 7+ is optimized for Intel Clear Video technology to deliver HD video with very low power consumption on any recent Intel integrated graphics processor, eg: X3100/X4500 as delivered on any of current or one-gen older ultraportables.

 

thanks for this rep+

 

It's 2.5W for both N270/N280.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41411

 

Thank you. Point noted and list corrected.

 

Nice stuff man. Repped

 

Is there a 2530p thread on this board?

 

No owner's lounge type thread if that's what you're asking. Could start one if you get a 2530P?
Can offer two useful posts about the 2530P:

• Win7 WEI Score - comparison against other ultraportables
• second harddrive via optical drive bay

 

Add Pentium M ULV to those with 5W TDP! They are still viable competitors to Atoms in netbooks.

 

This info is simply HIGHLY incorrect. Please do NOT post information if you have not personally tested each CPU in an IDENTICAL controlled OS environment and similar hardware.

A Pentium M 1.1ghz SMOKES any Atom single core CPU out there due to its superior out-of-order super scale design yet you have it being second to last in performance. This shows you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of CPU design and clearly shows you have never even used these CPUs first hand.

To everyone else, pass on this thread. The information posted here is inexcusably incorrect.

 

Information presented is a summary of some common notebook and netbook CPUs to compare performance as extracted from Passmark's cpumark list. A full description of what the benchmarking does is here, or summarized as:

• Integer Maths Test
• Compression Test
• Prime Number Test
• Encryption Test
• Floating Point Math Test
• SSE/3D Now Test
• Image Rotation Test
• String Sorting Test

You are welcome to run passmark on multiple systems to confirm/deny the relevance of this information.

I just leave it to the experts to design accurate benchmarking software and enjoy the ability to compare performance, regardless of the internal architecture of the cpu.

 

Too funny!! These so called "experts" turn out to the the uneducated general public that simply upload their scores to their website. These scores are NOT run in a controlled OS environment with similar hardware. Simply too funny! Your knowledge of CPUs is inexcusably incorrect. Please stop posting FALSE information when you clearly do not have one shred of experience with ANY of these CPUs as it is very clear in your remarks. Please stop posting misinformation. As stated before a Pentium M 1.1ghz is superior to any single core Atom and the list you provided is simply FALSE.

Im sorry but this thread is PWNED.

 

Passmark, the creators of the cpumark software and associated cpubenchmark database tell us:

PassMark® Software Pty Ltd is a privately owned software development group based in Sydney, Australia.

We specialize in the development of high quality performance benchmarking solutions as well as providing expert independent IT consultancy services to clients ranging from government organizations to major IT heavyweights. PassMark Software is a leading authority in software and hardware performance benchmarking and testing.

Since our inception in 1998, PassMark Software has developed a comprehensive range of PC benchmark and diagnostic solutions used worldwide by hundreds of thousands of users. We are profitable and have experienced consistent quarterly growth in sales and revenue since the launch of our first product in May 1999.

We also maintain the world's largest CPU benchmark website, cpubenchmark.net. This site gives users access to CPU benchmark results for over 20,000 systems covering more than 300 different types of CPUs.​

If you have an issue with the accuracy of their CPU benchmark results, perhaps contact them -> [email protected]<-? They might welcome your suggestions?

 

They gather results from the GENERAL PUBLIC. Listen, Im sorry but you have to understand how to benchmark. You need a CONTROLLED OS environment and somewhat similar hardware. You get NONE of these by having the general public users upload results from systems that are crippled with spyware, have too many background processes running, ect ect ect.

 

iGrim, I think that the post of nando4 does not give you enough reasons to attack HIS knowledge of processors. The collected informations is useful. And everybody can decide about its obvious limitations according to his/hers knowledge, or post the facts contradicting the published scores here.

I also think that Pentium M ULVs are better than Atom, though Atom comes with more advanced graphic chipset and can yield better battery life.

 

iGrim does have a point though. Passmark is a good benchmark but the results online are just a database of very different systems and not very reliable for comparison.

Passmark CPU score is influenced by the whole system (CPU, FSB, chipset, memory, etc).

For example: My Intel Pentium M 725 scores much higher in Passmark than their results say. This is probably caused by the fact that their database contains many slower systems with 725.

No, that's an exaggeration. There are some errors in the list but most of it is correct.

 

..........

 

nando4,
Thanks for the good work.
+rep

 

My pleasure. Thank you for the +rep

Information was posted to highlight some hidden performance potential and features in one-gen older ultraportables which can work out to be better bang-per-buck for consumers than a netbook. Something that is perhaps useful in the current financial climate. On the flip side, this may mean lost profits to vendors hoping to sell netbooks.

Hypothetical question: can it ever be win-win for both consumers and vendors?

 

Intel 330 or any 3xx series has 8W TDP.

 

hey on the via nano power usage none of them use a max of 10w on there ulv series.... on the ones in the lenovo s12 and samsong nc20 the max wattage of the cpu is only 8 watts while the idle is only 100mw

 

Im sorry but you just have to laugh at how grossly inaccurate the performance list is that nando4 posted.

As I posted before, Nando4 has NOT tested each device himself. He simply pulled numbers from uncontrolled, dissimilar environments and made a grossly inaccurate list of each CPU stacks up against each other.

LOLz....An Atom cpu beating a Pentium M 1.4ghz....you simply have to laugh at how ridiculous that list is.

Its a shame that some people will view it and actually believe its true. Please take down that grossly inaccurate list.

 

If you have any constructive suggestions on how the listed could be better/more accurate, I suggest you PM the user. I am sure he will listen(assuming your advice is well supported and your tone is not demeaning).

Unless otherwise stated, the list is fine. Also, remember that the consumer should always do their own research before buying any piece of technology.

 

EXACTLY, now this is where the porblem is....people will try to do some research and find this gross misinformation as posted in this thread.

nando4, please delete this misinformation.

 

iGrim's got a point but the list is not as bad as he makes it seem. I expect about 80% of the list is accurate.

My Pentium M 1.6 gets about 406 in Passmark CPU, so 1.4 should get 355. Pentium M 1.4Ghz is definitely better than the Atoms.

 

Nice Job! and Great of you to provide your knowledge and wisdom for all to benefit from..

Rep.. up.

Thanks and be well, JW

 

For the newer processors not enough people have taken part to get a fair comparison of some of these processors.
I was looking at passmark and it puts the processor in my Sony TX 1.33 core solo at 346 and it puts the Core solo U3500 at 344. Now although i might like that to be true i don't believe it.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+Solo+U1500+@+1.33GHz

The results will no doubt change when more people take part.

 

were not saying delete the thread but can you please update it with more accurate info, this could be really useful just update it with correct info

 

There is an important typo in your list:
Intel Core 2 Solo U3500@ 1.40GHz 490 <<< WRONG
...........it should be 340 <<<

(See the PassMark site...)

The Intel U3500 is lower power and lower performance than the AMD Neo MV-40 (430). But, the Neo TDP is 15w vs 10w for the intel...hence the 5 hr battery life for the amd vs 7-8 hrs for the intel. You have to decide what's more important to you, a little higher perf or longer battery life.

KP

 

There are exactly 5 entries in Passmark's database on theSU3500 with variations from 260 to 500 (see below). You can see this yourself by downloading Passmark's Performancetest.



So the website gives some average, which still is lower than I calculate it. The U3500 cpumark of 490 is correct as shown in the Acer_1810T review. Makes logical sense too, the U3500 is a single-core version of a U9400 which has a cpumark of 930, which I've verified in the database by viewing a value of 960 against a U9400 Lenovo X301.

In summary is the U3500 is considerably faster than an atom, and beats the MV40 as well as Via U2250. It's X4500 is also faster the x1250 of the Gateway netbook or MSI Wind U210 or GMA500/GMA950 of a netbook as shown by it's 3dmark06 performance. So the small difference in price between a LT31/U210 and a Acer 1410/1810T is well worth it.

 

Like Nando already explained, the Passmark database is full of mistakes.

I ran Passmark on a Acer 1810T with SU3500. You can find the details in my review.