The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    New Samsung R610 notebook (16" 16:9 aspect ratio)

    Discussion in 'Samsung' started by John Ratsey, Oct 8, 2008.

  1. John Ratsey

    John Ratsey Moderately inquisitive Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    7,197
    Messages:
    28,841
    Likes Received:
    2,166
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Samsung are producing their version of the 16:9 notebook called the R610.

    I attach the overview and specs from the user guide.

    Overclocks is listing two models: NP-R610-FS03UK for £629
    and N P-R610-AS01UK for £723
    Both have Blu-Ray optical drives and the main difference in the specs is the display resolution. However, in my opinion 1366 x 768 is quite low resolution (98dpi) while 1920 x 1080 (137dpi) is very high resolution. Why can't they come up with 1600 x 900 which would be a very usable 114dpi? The GPU choice indicates that gaming is not a target activity.

    There's a preview at PC Advisor.

    John
     

    Attached Files:

    John Ratsey, Oct 8, 2008
    #1
  2. tianxia

    tianxia kitty!!!

    Reputations:
    1,212
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    100% agreed, 768 vertical lines is ridiculus in 2008.
    I think the more expensive model should have included a better cpu, at least a p8400.
     
    tianxia, Oct 8, 2008
    #2
  3. Tinderbox (UK)

    Tinderbox (UK) BAKED BEAN KING

    Reputations:
    4,740
    Messages:
    8,513
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    431
    I wonder if it`s 512mb of gddr3 or do you think they will have used gddr2 as a 64bit cannot use anywhere near that much anyway!

    I agree 1366 x 768 is shocking for a 16" screen.

    Regards

    John.
     
    Tinderbox (UK), Oct 8, 2008
    #3