Is AMD E-350 wasted potential?

I don't know about you, but I was waiting a long time for notebook makers to make me a machine with Sony Z specs, this CPU and a 12 cell battery.

This post doesn't apply to you Excel spreadsheeters, Photoshoppers, compilers and other CPU intensive work ppl. But, I'd say for at least half of us, the weak CPU in the AMD E-350 isn't a big deal if we get:

13" screen at 1600x900. ( is this 1366 crap?)
3.5lbs
10 hours of real life battery (= Sony's ratings at 24 hrs)
64GB SSD + 750GB HDD.
In a semi-attractive case.
$1,200

Seems a no-brainer. After months of waiting, I got a bunch of sea-shell designs from 2004, garbage specs, all attempted at capturing the lower end market.

The only one that got even semi-close was Lenovo with the x120e. 6 cell battery max? Do they realize I have to carry around a power brick? Why not just make it a 12 cell battery and I'll leave the brick at home? And ditch the optical drive. Is it 2004? Jesus H.

I don't mind lower end notebooks. Obviously, people buy them. But does anyone feel like the potential of the E-350 was wasted?

I was so angry, I went and bought a MacBook. Two of them.

 

well, i agree with you. I believe machines with e-350 can be laptops with 24hr real battery life! ssd's, better resolution should be added. I hope they do what we want with the upcoming Llano APU's..........

 

This is exactly what I thought would happen. Very, very few manufacturers would put a cheap, low-performance CPU together with a high-end display and a quality build -- you might get something from Sony or Apple, but I would not hold my breath. They would much rather use the cheapest parts possible and have a laptop with a low overall price than take the money saved on the CPU and use it to improve some other part of the laptop.

 

They are complete morons. Whoever does what I say will kill in the college, post-grad market. Do you know anyone that uses an optical drive? If yes, I bet they still leave you voicemail messages on your cell phone too.

 

If they took the money saved on the E-350 and spent it on better components then you'd just end up with another group of people posting how the potential of those components were wasted on an E-350.

 

Judging by the lack of responses in this thread, you are probably right. However, nobody is making a machine like I've suggested. And that may also have to do with the suggestion that this is just an arbitrary list of my personal preferences.

However, I think that the VAIO X was an early, failed attempt at exactly what I am advocating. Sony opted for small and long lasting battery. It just lacked the e-350 to actually run video.

Nobody tried again after VAIO X. Everyone is using the e-350 to put out crap, when it's been shown that the APU's biggest attribute is video with low watts out. It should do 1600x900 no problem. And for at least half of America, they don't use CPU power for anything. People use MS Office, they Facebook and they YouTube. IMO, this was a huge chance to change the game.

 

Because compared to even a CULV it is massivly slow.

 

Except those CULV are often paired to Intel's integrated 4500MHD, rather than a decent graphics unit. Also, it compares quite well to my old Intel Core Duo @ 1.6GHz. So, in that respect it is great replacement for older machines...

Now, I know there haven't been any high end E-350 designs, but I think that could change when the E-450 comes out and companies have had a enough time to design a new chassis from the ground up for it. I don't expect a Sony X with the E-350 or E-450 but it would certainly be awesome. High-end Atom designs were, from what I can tell, a complete failure. So I doubt any company wants to pull the same thing with AMD's Fusion (which has even less brand name recognition). On the other hand, it could be AMD's future Llano based products itself that are discouraging companies from making high-end Zacate based machines. If you think about it, a dual core Llano with 160SP would most certainly be much better performance, and hopefully Global Foundries' 32nm process and AMDs new optimizations deliver on battery life.

 

Considering the gets wasted by a 1.3ghz SU7300 I find that hard to believe.

Pair it with a Radeon 5450 or a nvidia chip with optimus and its a LOT faster.

 

Yes, but at what cost? Battery life.

The last thing that consumers care about in 2011 is CPU speed. Stuttering YouTube videos matter, battery life matters, fast boot and applications matter, case design matters. E-350 is an energy saving monster. I hope gdansk is right and Llano ends up being the chip that box makers design around. Not holding my breath though.

But even if Llano gets Core i3 speeds on the CPU side, I can easily imagine that going in a MacBook Air and getting 10 hours real life use, flash websites and all. And that's the kind of thing the Dells and HPs and Lenovos need to be thinking about. I know the general trajectory Steve Jobs is shooting for. Why don't the other PC makers? Why are they so willfully blind?

 

Actually the battery life tends to be a little less than the CULV platform when surfing the web.

 

The Intel Core Duo T2050 (which is in my Dell Inspiron 6400), scores 759, and the AMD E-350 scores 749 (which is in my HP dm1z-3000). Anecdotally, the dm1z feels much faster, but there are many other factors at play... such as Windows 7 and an extra gigabyte of memory. Also, I was comparing to the Core Duo not a Core 2 Duo, which has a quite a few performance improvements over the Yonah core in Core Duos. Personally, I don't have a SU7300 powered machine to compare it to, but I'd assume you are correct. The E-350 is enough processing power, for me at least.

By adding another unit in the notebook build, you're kinda missing the point of Fusion. It is cheap, power efficient and delivers great performance (graphics on par with ION, CPU performance well ahead of Atom) in a small package. Interesting that you mention CULV battery life, as the units that I've see that post better battery life have excessively large batteries (such as 84WHr battery in the Asus UL-50Vt). Though I will give some credence to this concept, as long as you forgo the GPU... such as the Acer 1810t.

 

Personally I love my x120e, which has a e-350. If you really want a thin laptop with a low power cpu and a high res screen, 13" MBA fit the bill for you. The 10hrs battery life and a more powerful processor/ graphic card fit your bill perfectly. Stop complaining and start buy MBA. If people really like to see a low power processor in a high performance, company will listen and make product that the market demands.

 

Actually, a 2010 VAIO Z would be the perfect computer. I hate Mac OS. It's made for non-computer people. That's great for them, but I can't do the most fundamental things. Plus Win 7 just looks better from a UI design standpoint. Like those jelly sliders? Those are so 2001. I'd totally just use the MBA or MBP with Win 7, but Apple purposely crippled the drivers so that Win 7 only lasts half the time on battery.

Apple for hardware. MSFT for software. Alas, one can't have both.

 

Yes, but real life has Office, Facebook and YouTube in it. AMD destroys everyone in Flash video.

I wonder if anyone was crazy enough to get the 9 cell on the Sony YB. It'd be really interesting to see battery results on there. Bet they'd kick serious booty.

 

. . . for a brief moment until the 2nd-gen i-core UMs are released with IGPs that are faster than the HD6310 setup. Eg: 11.6" Acer 1830T and 12.1" Asus UL20FT refreshed systems. Probably why Lenovo and HP are trying to flog off as many X120E/DM1z systems as they can while the going is good.

 

If that's true, it makes a lot of sense as to why PC companies are justified in making me mad.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but those two are in different markets as the Intel ULV will run you far more than the AMD. Example being the Lenovo e220s being about $800 while the x120e starts at a mere $400. No?

 

There are the systems that are to be refreshed to 2nd-gen i-core UM CPUs. Not much more than a E350-based system.

$500 11.6" Acer 1830T i3-330UM 1.2 3GB 250GB W7HP
$550 12" Asus UL20FT i3-330UM 1.2 2GB 320GB W7HP

 

Not too bad then. I had the experience of using a low voltage AMD and Intel and man o' man the difference. The Intel just simply walks over AMD, but AMD has promised a better product this time around. (Intel i5-470UM vs. AMD L625 with ATI 3200.)

 

No, it is not. With a 9-cell battery, even standard voltage Sandy Bridge can get 15+ hours. The E-350s distinguishing characteristic is that it is cheap -- it makes no sense to put it into a $1200 laptop because at that point you might as well charge $1300 and have a half-way decent CPU.

 

most ppl watch youtube. you can check the performance on flash for yourself. if you don't believe your eyes, then I have nothing to say.

 

MSI put out 80% of my requirements.
They say 10hour battery, which means 5 hour battery.
Resolution is typical grandma at 1366.

 

For the price of a MBP why not get the x202?

all-day battery on the standard 9-cell, plus a non-ULV i5-2540m (or was it 2520?) in a 12" shell...

but i'm patiently waiting for bulldozer...

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings on what the OP is asking for.

To the person that said compared to CULV it is "massively slow", though, I disagree. In real-world performance I have found it faster than a non-OC'd SU7300 I have used in an Asus UL80 and m11x, a lot faster, and just as quick as the i3-330um I used in a tm2. I gets destroyed in benchmarks and anything intensive but it is also a lot cheaper. Notebooks with the E-350 are targeted at people that want to do everyday tasks, get great battery life and not pay a lot.