For a $600 notebook, the build quality on the Gateway NX200S is pretty impressive.  The screen hinges are sturdy as is the screen latching mechanism that keeps the notebook closed when not in use. 

The plastic construction of the NX200S is fairly solid. However, the unit was already starting to develop some squeaks during our testing.   

While the Inspiron 2200 offered the most simplistic and sleek design, and the Compaqs were a bit too busy for our tastes, the Gateway NX200S falls right in the middle.  It has the black/grey theme going on, but sticks to a single LED color and manages to pull off a somewhat sleek appearance, thanks to the shape and thickness of the notebook.

The Gateway is the thinnest notebook out of the bunch, measuring between 1.1 and 1.24" at its thickest point.  The unit is also comparable in size to the Compaq V2000 notebooks, making it amongst the most compact in this roundup.  But thanks to the thinner construction, the Gateway feels considerably smaller than the Compaqs. 


The Compaq V series (left) vs. the Gateway NX200S


The Compaq V series (left) vs. the Gateway NX200S

The NX200S features a 14" WXGA display with a native resolution of 1280 x 768.

The display looks identical to what Compaq used in their widescreen notebooks, with similar brightness and visual characteristics.  We wouldn't be too surprised if both notebooks used the same panel.   

Gateway NX200S Gateway Keyboard
Comments Locked

50 Comments

View All Comments

  • OrSin - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    No video benchmarks at all. I'm not saying test BF2, but something would be nice.
    I think the AMD laptops would show some definate leads in that.
  • raskren - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    It sounds like you want to see a benchmark where the AMD offerings *might* show an advantage over Intel so you can feel better about *your* company.

    These are not for gaming. Why should Anand waste his time?

    Why don't we do some Geo Metro top speed testing as well?
  • hondaman - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Has nothing to do with amd vs intel.

    Has everything to do with how well laptops do compared to desktops in games.
  • hondaman - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I was dissappointed about this too. It was the first thing i looked for when I read this article today on anandtech. I wanted some game benchmarks.

    Anyone who buys a 600.00 laptop isnt buying it for games, however, I _am_ in the market for a laptop in the 1000.00 range, and I would like to do some casual gaming here and there on it. Severeral of these laptops reviewed share the same video processor as some laptops much more expensive, and good laptop reviews are so hard to come by.
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Bottom line, gaming on integrated graphics is non existant. If you want a gaming laptop, get dedicated graphics.
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Gaming does not necessarily mean playing the very latest games, and at the highest graphics quality settings. Some people seem to think all that matters with a game is how pretty the graphics are, and discard it when something that looks better comes along. Gameplay is more important to me, and there are plenty of older games that are just as much fun to play as the current hits.

    I'm sure all of these $600 laptops with their integrated graphics (especially ATI) would be quite capable of playing the top games of the 2001-2002 era very well, and do a decent job with some later titles as well. The only likely probloem is the 256MB system memory which has to be shared with graphics-- but an upgrade to 512MB is the first thing most people would do to these laptops anyway to make them more flexible.
  • mikecel79 - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Why? Who is going to try and game on one of these things?
  • oupei - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    maybe some RTS games or something would have been nice.
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Gaming would be horrible. WHo would wnat to play halflife 2 at 800x600 at 24 frames per second?

    I have a V2000Z and tried playing some games on it. It sucks. About the only "modern" game that I can play is Civ VI.

    I'm pretty sure that older games will run fine on it though.
  • bjacobson - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Do you have the x300 ATi or the Intel graphics? I'm thinking of getting one of these boards too.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now