Official Sony S11/S12/S13 (2010) Owners Thread

I've been vindicated

Screen is clearly the weakest link on this laptop, if it was better (non glossy and better vertical angles) then it would have been a good stylish busines laptop, and if it had higher res it would have been perfect, bar probably durability which will still below a Lenovo but that's not surprising.

 

What setup have you got, I'm getting much better scores with RAM on a i5-540M, would that be because the memory controller is integrated into the chip ?
My WEI scores:
Processor: 6.8
Memory: 6.8
Graphics: 5.0
Gaming Graphics: 6.0
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9 (soon to be replaced by Intel 160GB G2 SSD).

 

Hi all

I have gone through the whole 60 pages but still I can not decide to buy the S model or not. I am a translator and I only use laptop since I move here and there. My current laptop is VGN-SZ340P. Very solid, still 1.5 hours of battery even after 3.5 years of use, and never let me down. However, it is for a couple of months now that it gets very hot and for me that I have to keep my hands on the keyboard all the time it is pretty annoying. Also it lags behind when I use a couple of programs at the same time.

That's why I have decided to change it. I checked 3 of CW models (core i5 520M, 4G RAM, G320M, 500 HDD) in two sony stores. The palm rest on the right in all of them was warm and that is what I am trying to escape from.
The S model has the same config as CW model except for a lower graphic 310M and lower weight. However, the price is 300 USD higher than the CW in my country Malaysia which makes it almost 1600 USD.

I have also checked the new MAC pro, but I am afraid it will be a waste of money since the programs I am working with only work on windows and not mac and I have read the windows experience is poor in Mac pro.

And the HP and dell don't really give me the same feeling as the vaio does. So my only choice is the S.

I am making the right decision?

 

Is that true?? Where did you read that? As far as I know, macbooks are nowadays fully Windows compatible!

based on the review of the S, it runs pretty cool... they say temp is not a problem here.

 

Elsewhere and Here in notebookreview. you can check the Mac pro thread.

 

After using a 15.4" notebook as my main computer (aka many hours of use a day) for nearly a year in the past I decided it will never happen again, it's a pain. Anyway, I'm a bit sceptical too about those battery tests, still can't understand how web browsing is more power hungry than watching DVDs. They made something wrong.

TDP is just an indication for OEMs about cooling needs and design requirements, battery should last a little bit longer on i3 equipped laptops. Efficiency is a different thing too.

 

I agree, the only true weakness is the screen, but it's not as bad as people write. I think it will be good enough for most people.

 

You guys are way to special 4 years on a 14,1" !! I hate working on big screens like a zombie! I think 14-15 inch is the optimal size for everyday use. 13 is a bit small.. 16 is my upper limit. Everything above 16 is a TV set to me, and I have one already - no thanks. Bit again - just my 2 cents

Not really - I don't agree, sorry. The clue that connects them is called "useful work" - the amount of energy that a machine (generally - CPU, engine, etc) dissipates is exactly what efficiency is about.

And as a CPU does not transform electrical energy into any other form of energy except computing power AND thermal energy Q, it is exactly the TDP (Thermal Design Power) that specifies which one of 2 CPUs that have similar input as elecrical energy is more efficient!

I'm not saying they are absolutely the same in terms of electrical consumption... I'm saying that IMO the difference in reality is measured/counted in minutes with the fingers of one or max 2 hands.

Here is a proof:



Now compare the TDP to Clock Speed Ratio. i3-320 has 13,83 W/GHz, where as i5-520 has 13,16 W/GHz!

i5 is even slightly more energy efficient!

P.s. For all interested in Arrandale's efficiency and performance...: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mobile-core-i5-arrandale,2522.html

 

I'm accustomed to a 22" widescreen, it's really comfortable and I love to have two or more windows side by side or pdf documents with both pages showed like it was a book. I won't never go back.

First of all TDP is not an accurate measure of the power consumption, so don't get fooled by it. Secondly, as you know, being a ratio, efficiency alone tells nothing about neither the output nor the input. That said, you can sacrifice efficiency to lower input requirements or get better output performance, so under light load, even considering i3 less efficient, it can save some power. If I remember correctly, about the S, Sony states 5 hours and 20 minutes for i3 and 4 hours and 45 minutes for i5.

 

TDP is no measure for power conumption at all! It is a measure for dissipated energy that was not used for computing - hence energy taken from the power outlet on the wall and thrown away as a hot air - nearly the effect of a hair dryer - it does no computational work though, does it

True! But have you seen a graph of the power input of both CPUs? Have a look at one I think you'll be surprized by the small difference Taking into account that the i5 is even more efficient based on the data I posted above... the difference in time I would expect as I said (based on absolutely the same configuration and settings otherwise) is not more then ~ 10 minutes longer life for the i3.
I don't think 10 or even 20 minutes are worth considering, sorry.

i3 is just a budget CPU and this is all it can offer - better price.

Besides that - the CPU is one of the less power consuming components in a laptop! So don't expect great impact on the battery life from the CPU alone. If I remember correctly, the main power consumеr is the screen with about up to 40% of all energy needed for a notebook to run!! On second and third place were the HDD and CD-drive if I'm not wrong.

 

I'm used to my desktop 21" widescreen as well, looking at a 13" is just tiny in comparison even on the road.

TDP like you said, is definitely NOT a measure of power consumption. Its just the maximum thermal limit of the CPU. The W/Ghz table if used t judge power usage is pure BS because nearly all the CPUs have the same TDP, however, each "more expensive" CPU has a higher clock speed. High clock speed always equals more power usage. Just look at previous Core 2s, nearly the entire lineup of dual cores (non extreme ones) had a 65W regardless of clock speed or manufacturing tech, the same goes for quad cores. However if you look at energy readings, that is definitely not the case as high clock = more energy. Which one is more efficient is a different story, but TDP != power consumption.

i5 being a higher clocked part will use more energy but be that much faster, it may be more efficient, but it won't use less power than an i3. Also is the same concept applies from C2D series, each CPU has a different core voltage. All chips should have a different VID, unless they standardized it at a stable voltage for ALL chips, which would suck.

 

This article helped me make up my mind regarding CPU choice...

(Note the power consumption chart.)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Core-i3-i5-i7-Processors-Arrandale.25085.0.html

 

Ok, sorry for inadvertently using the wrong word, but that's the point: you can't tell about efficiency looking at the TDP.

IMO differences stated by Sony are consistent, if I'm not wrong many people here are reporting 4+ with i5 and about 5/5+ hours with i3.

Yes, it is! But this is not a problem until it suits buyer needs.

Yes, more or less (led screens should be less power hungry). I expect to get 5 - 5:30 battery life with i3 & ssd.

That is what I meant.
About the screen on a portable notebook: 14" is too much, 12" a bit too small for prolonged use, so 13" is the best size, even though I know sometimes looks very tiny.

 

I think the above graph shows clear enogh how "big" the difference in power consumption is... Would you please compare the idle power consumption of i3 330M and i5 520M????? This is what I meant when saying that i5 is more efficient and this compensates a lot!!

Just don't want to get carried away with this subject but basically - I'll repeat what I said and the graph says nothing else:

The only noticeable advantage of the i3 in comparison to i5 is the price (as long as we speak about arrandale). There is nothing else you need to consider when choosing between them.

This said,

is absolutely true.
I personally wouldn't go for anything under i5 520M, as I strive not to change laptops every year and would like it to be "able" even in 3 or 4 years, no matter how fastidious the software by that time would be. I even didn't want to go under i7, but the price difference between i5 and i7 is in fact unreasonable IMO.

 

Screenshot from Everest 5.30, I did two runs, results were pretty consistent except that for L3 ones where they seem to vary a lot.

I have 6GB DDR3, not sure how I can figure out the timings, Everest is showing the following current timings: 8-7-7-20, 1T CR.
I've got a Samsung DIMM (4GB) and a PQI one (2GB) both rated as :
7-7-7-20 @ 533 MHz and 6-6-6-18 @ 457 MHz.

The drive is a 320GB WD Scorpio Black replacing the original 320GB 5400RPM Toshiba. My score will only get better once I put the Intel SSD

 

As for me, I don't trust much that review, I prefer to take into account users experiences during normal use. I suppose differences are really small but I do care about 20-40 minutes, in case, especially as long as I don't need a fast CPU.

We already knew that I think it would be fine for you, I'm not trying to convince you it's a wrong choice, even though you probably think I am. Are you pissed off at me?

 

The graph comes from a totally different review...! you don't trust both? well... no one can help you then I'm afraid No user can give you accurate information, as even the temp. in the room plays it's role. Give 2 same laptops to 2 different users and let them measure battery life - bet you will get 2 very different results. No one can define "normal use" either! That's why people perform professional tests under special conditions Some trust them... others consider the gravity being a "theory" only

(Which reminds me of a quotation from my favourite show...:
ROSS: You mean you don't believe in gravity?
PHOEBE: It's not I don't believe in it, but you know, I don't feel like I'm being pulled down, more like I'm being pushed down.)

Pissed off at you? Why should I be I'm not trying to convince anyone in any particular choice either - I am just presenting facts Everyone is free to choose, trust... or not

 

I was talking about this: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Core-i3-i5-i7-Processors-Arrandale.25085.0.html. Results are not always the same even during laboratory tests Gravity? What is gravity?

Uh.. ok, not yet... [1]

LOL

[1] ok, but somehow annoyed... I'm not talking about today

 

Uhm, let me see... TBBT?

BTW, I'd like to know the lower frequency bound for both i5-520 and i3-350 when idling. Thanks

 

There is a bit of discussion about comparing CPUs.
Some french website did some tests with laptops armed with both i3 and i5 laptops and they found that in a particular instance that the i3 laptop was actually faster than the i5.
The reason ? A i5 laptop didn't have good cooling and kept on being throttled down, whereas the i3 never reached that limit and was running at full capacity all the time. I'm not sure by how much a CPU can be throttled down but I guess it's not that fine grained yet so it might drop 50% frequency if thermal envelope is reached.
I will try to do such benchmarks with my S which comes with a i5-540M to see if CPU throttles down often or not under load.

 

Here a part of that review:

" Der Stromverbrauch des 13.3-Zollers ist, speziell im Idle-Betrieb, erfreulich gering. Wir erfassen 11.7 bis 17.4 Watt (je nach Helligkeit). Bei maximaler Belastung durch einen Stresstest zeigt unser Multimeter eine durchschnittliche Wirkleistung von 64.8 Watt an. Der realistische Strombedarf ohne Ladung des Akkus liegt aber zwischen 14 Watt (Idle) und 41 Watt (3DMark2006)."

in English: " The power consumption of the 13.3" screen is, especially in Idle mode, rather insignificant. We were able to measure 11.7 to 17.4 Watt (according to the brightness setting).
When put under serious stress, the voltage meter shows an average effective Power consumtion of the notebook of 64.8 W. The realistic power consumption though (with no battery being charged) is rated between 14 Watt (idle) and 41 Watt (3D Mark 2006)."

As far as my Math is still up to date, 17.4 Watt out of 41 Watt (for the case that the PC is pretty loaded) is 42% power cons. of the screen alone......

And that was my point - the screen even based on LED technology remains the biggest power eater, especially in idle
And of course I mean the CD-drive only when active and spinning

My last PC used to live for about 2h on battery, but if I turned the screen off everytime I was not using it for a few minutes - it'd go up to over 3 hours easily

So instead of buying a slower CPU to eventually gain extra 10-12 minutes on battery live - I suggest using the screen on lower brightness setting and turning it off whenever not needed.... this definitely has much more effect

here are some statistics, although a bit outdated, but they give an idea
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/04/revisiting-how-much-power-does-my-laptop-really-use.html

 

Some more information for those (still) interested in the screen quality.
I was at another shop today - they didn't have the S either (when I asked, they loughed and explained that sony is so wanted that whenever they get 5 pieces of anything - they are gone the same day and Sony in Europe is absolutely overloaded.).

However, I was able to play with the Y again, but this time the PCs were running normal Windows 7 and not a stupid screensaver, so I was able to check the screen out in a normal working environment - open some documents, Word, pictures, desktop, explorer, etc.
This time I left with a more positive opinion about the screen. Next to it, there was a SR if I'm not mistaken.... the SR had better screen as far as I could tell, but the Y was not thaaat bad.... yes the verticle angle is very limited... but I certainly was not able to see the top lines of a document in bold as someone reported. As long as the screen was in it's sweet position - it looked quite ok to me. Not great.... but ok. It lacked a bit more brightness (it was on max and the auto function was switched off). Some more contrast would have made it more vivid too, but the glare screen kind of made everything a bit better... somehow crispy.

Regarding resolution - this definitely is the most optimal one. I checked out another 13" notebook with higher resolution - yes there was more space... but only after 5 minutes, I felt my eyes tired.

I liked the keyboard a lot (unfortunately Y has no LED keyboard so I couldn't check that out).
The overall quality looked good this time... I still would expect a bit more from the S in this direction, although the Y is also containing magnesium alloy.

Let's see how long more it will take until I finally see the S live...

 

??? I can't remember so many without it ,except CULV laptops.

 

Who will buy a sony without a good display? you can defiantly get the superior Lenovo & HP if you don't consider the display

 

So 41% is screen, nearly the rest is the CPU. Without the MCH on the motherboard now, the mainboard doesn't consume much power, the HDD also takes in perhaps always less than 3W (my link before shows it is even less). I didn't say the screen didn't consume power as I said the "CPU along with the screen" Its not just the screen itself, the CPU is also a power hog. GPU as well if you run anything accelerated, but the G310M uses less power under load than the CPU under load. I just wanted to say that the CPU also contributes largely to the battery life.

I would also kind of doubt the benchmark you posted since without an accurate statement on what they tested, Turbo would play a huge role in how the CPUs behave. If it was a single threaded test, then all the CPUs would be overclocked, the i3s being lower clocked, would be able to sustain its maximum turbo for prolonged periods of time due to its lower originating clock, which means lower heat. i5s being higher clocked originally would have to throttle down to remain in the 35W TDP. Not to mention each CPU triggers Turbo slightly differently. My i7 rig for example, never really overclocked itself even in single threaded applications. How the BIOS/each situation is done can vary alot for automatic overclocking solutions.

That said, of course go for the i5, its faster, perhaps 10~30minutes less battery life, but its the minimum I would go too. Sony didn't offer a 540 (I was looking at a laptop with 2.8ghz C2D before), which I would have upgraded to, unfortunately. And a 7200rpm or SSD or G330M....
sigh, we always ask for more and more don't we?

How are Lenovos and HPs superior?

The Scorpio black explains your HDD scores
But RAM? Weird, does 7 add points just for more ram? I have the same timings as you and you are also running 1066 DDR3.

My Everest memory test

 

Let me translate your words: I want an i5 laptop, which is around $1200 and I can't find anything better than S and I'll get it,no matter how bad something with it can be.
That's ok mem,go out and buy it!

 

Aesthetically and Portability wise they are engineered superior.Thinkpads and Elitebooks are famous worldwide.

 

I agree... especially Lenovo. Both are even more strictly business oriented though. I'm still considering Elitebook...
ThinkPad is IMO way too expensive and also too boxy for me
Nevertheless - the only brand notebooks we use at work is Lenovo (95% ThinkPad) and I can confirm - the build quality is superior. Those machines fall down almost every week - even if some plastic piece drops down, the metal frame is indestructable!
The screens though aren't anything special... usually average or even below... but I would assume still a bit better then the S

Look at the price difference... especially with the Lenovo T410 starts at 1600 euros here.
EliteBook is a bit cheaper and can compete with the S.

 

Well at least in Taiwan, Elitebooks and HDXs aren't offered in 13" versions, and are priced with the Vaio Zs (NTD 70,000 To 100,000+, nearly 2x the price of an S on top end configurations)... Thinkpads, I think they are ugly boxes. Durable, yes, but they are strictly for business/industrial locations where you expect it to fall multiple times. Ideapads generally look better, but I doubt contain the integrity of Thinkpads. They are bulky and box-shaped for a reason. Vaios are more orientated for appearance, generally slimmer, and offer better multimedia experiences (as they are more focused on this).

In my opinion, VAIOs give the feeling of it being more of a luxury item then a business tool. If you want something that is rugged, pure business orientated machine, rule VAIO out. They really aren't designed to be rugged, they just look nice.

VAIO is also a well known brand, well Sony. Say Vaio anywhere and people know its a Sony. Depends on location and workplace I assume? Not many of my friends/teachers/relatives know what a Thinkpad or Elitebook (neither Inspiron, Studio, Alienware, XPS, Compaq, Lattitude, Vostro, other Dell/HP lines) is, but everyone knows what a VAIO is. In Asian markets, the people here generally prefer Japanese brands or sometimes even Taiwanese over American/Western ones. Dell/HP(and Compaq) are overshadowed by ASUS/Acer, Sony/Toshiba/Fujitsu remains to be an expensive brand, thus don't see many sales. Apple is well known everywhere, in my school alone (friends), Apple laptops outnumber combined IBM/HP/Dell, then theres probably 3 to 4 times the amount of Macbooks with ASUS laptops. You don't see much Lenovo stands here and they don't carry much models. Alienware (though there is Dell)/Clevo/Sager/Gateway and most other brands are nonexistant here. Quite different than in western countries

 

About i5 vs. i3, the choice depends on many things, user needs, money and available models. For example, adding a i5 to a S11G7E or S11F7E like configuration means buying from sony style, which in turn means +100-200 €. So you can:
- save that money... not bad
- buy another battery
- buy a SSD, which provides a much greater performance improvement and the most useful one
IMO today, for normal use, the CPU is not that relevant, the i5-520M is a really powerful CPU and i3 is not far behind, it should be fine for many users.

 

As an S series owner, the screen is fine.

I have turned off the "Adjust brightness automatically" feature in the Control Center as I like the screen to be fairly bright in any environment I am in.

 

I will calibrate my screen using Spyder Elite, should improve the screen a lot, other than that I'm very happy with VAIO S, almost perfect laptop for me, the keyboard is fantastic, I love typing on this thing.

 

How about just buying the preconfigured VPC-S11V9E/B from wherever you want

some additional info about the performance of the CPUs offered with the S (for those who believe in prof. reviews and benchmarks ):

i5 520M is ranked 13th performancewise (from all mobile CPUs)
i5 540M - 9th
i7 620M - 4th
i3 330M - 32nd

 

+200€ for a i5 I don't need, a GeForce I don't need and even want, a 500 GB HD I don't need.

What a crap! Why don't you stick with the first?

 

Doesn't dynamic alteration of clock speed mean an i5 could use just as little energy as an i3 - as long as you set-up the profile correctly?

On a related point - seems like getting an SSD could have a much greater effect on day-to-day performance than a CPU upgrade - though obviousely much more expensive. Any thoughts?

 

That's why they have a few preconfigured models - so that at least one would meet most people's needs and budget No doubt about it

I also don't care about the HDD's capacity for example - even if it was 100GB

Obviously not exactly... look at the graph.

I believe that too. That's why I decided not to go for the i7, but to buy SSD some day in the future.
BUT from what I read it is almost pointless to buy just ANY SSD, as most of the cheap ones deliver almost the same performance as an 7200 RPM but still cost much more. I read some negative reviews about Intel's SSD performance... so although I am pro-SSD - I'd make a good research before I buy... it's not cheap and it better costs 50 euros more, but really speed up.

 

It looks like you don't have any porno movie as well.

1) no SSD performs as bad as a mechanical HD.
2) Intel is basically the best choice now, there's nothing better at the same price now.
Just for curiosity, what CPU are you using now?

 

I just have enough of external storage (3 External HDDs)

not true more accurate would be that most SSDs perform better. The question is how much better for how much extra money
You should know by now that I always base what I write on facts
Look at the below HDDs benchmark list (sorted by performance) and tell me how many mechanical HDDs you count above the Toshiba 128GB SSD... And this is just a screenshot... many more availeble on top of those

That might be true... but if the performance boost is negligeable as I read for some Intel models (not all), I'd rather invest some more, or stick with the mechanical and save my XXX euros.

Still using my Pentium M 2,26GHz CPU, which was one of the top 5 when I bought the PC 4 years ago - and yet, that's the reason it is still enough powerful to run most of the new software, but is really rather slow especially for Windows 7 and some of the programs I use nowadays.

Which is another reason you or anybody else might want to buy a more powerful CPU - not that you need it now - you really don't and i3 would do a perfect job for all of us - normal users... but unless you swap laptops as often as I swap desktop backgrounds, you might find it a bit slow tomorrow.

 

...but some have sufferd from significant issues like shuddering.

The x series are good but I've had bad things about some of the v series. OCZ and Super Talent are offfering good alternatives to Intel. Same performance but ususlly cheaper.

 

wow, quite a lot of movies...

No, you use to write a lot of numbers you didn't understand the meaning, without elaborating them.

QED
There is no legend about columns content, but I suppose you refer to the sequential write speed. Well, it's useless. The only real downside is that computer might take a little bit longer while hibernating, but who cares, it doesn't prevent you from packing your laptop when moving.

Not true, even the V series can improve performance significantly.

Really 4 years old? How could it last that long? Anyway, bad performances are most likely due to HDD.

 

What is "shuddering"?

I've never heard "bad things" (what kind of "bad things"?) about the 40 GB model. Apart I don't like the indilinx controller, no, they are not cheaper, at least not here.

 

I am finding this thread hard to follow with all your "facts" and posts

 

Gracy123 quit talking about it and buy the damn thing! you're obviously itching for it.

Steve how are you finding the 1366x768 resolution in comparision to your Z series? in my opinion the S11 is no more than a glorified netbook with the exception of the grunt processing power and graphics. why did you opt for the S series?

 

@Sheldon - Shuddering is when the there's a sudden delay of up to a second when writing to disk. Caused by controller issues - lack of cache.

Apparently the performance (write speed) on the value range wasn't great - may not be true but worth investigating. I'm sure Intel always use their own controllers but why don't you like the indelinx? assuming your talking about the barefoot it's had v. good reviews

 

I don't know how anyone can honestly tell themselves that the S11 is a glorified netbook, that's like saying a battleship is a glorified gunboat.

 

That's way companies spend millions on advertising materials... people like you make it pay off No offense Just don't trust everything you see on TV Peace

Try harder then!?

Sorry... I got the impression we are supposed to be talking about "it" in an "Official Sony S Series Thread"... my mistake then.

what has the Sony S in common with a n Etbook
I see absolutely no similarities...
bigger screen (netbooks go up to max 12", mostly 10")
much faster CPU
dedicated GPU
much more durable construction (supposedly)
totally different architecture
Optical drive
more output ports
much higher price because of the above

Absolutely inadequate comparison. Are you sure you know what S11 is?

Couldn't agree more.

 

It's great! The Z has the better screen, however, browsing web pages and documents at 1366x768 on the S is a lot more comfortable. The text is perfect, whereas at times I was having to squint to see some text at 1600x900 on my Z. The S is not a replacement for my Z, it's just another option for me to use (I've never been able to use just the one notebook...).

I think it's a bit harsh to call the laptop a glorified netbook though! It's a great laptop in it's own right and I configured my S11 to be more powerful than my Z! The 7200RPM drive is the most significant improvement.

 

You do realise you are spoiling this thread for a good number of people with your inane ramblings and "facts"? Still, the fake pic gives me a good chuckle.

And your condescending argumentative attitude isn't something to be admired.

 

Yeah Gracy, they don't need your "logic" and "reason" here.

...

 

you are then just making it worse - keep it to yourself - Maybe there are people who find some beneficial information from my "ramblings and "facts""
Glad you find a reason to chuckle, no matter what See - there's a good reason for me being here - keep it going

I find it really amasing how people only want to read what they want to be reading, if you know what I mean As soon as something becomes a bit more complicated... they can't follow up and get uptight that something might in fact not be as they always believed it is....

And this is the main rule in selling technics - tell people what they want to hear and they'll love the product.