MSI Wind U123 and ASUS 1000HE Show Netbook Evolution
by Wesley Fink on July 17, 2009 12:02 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Performance Testing
When we first mentioned plans for performance testing of netbooks we encountered stiff resistance from some manufacturers. They expressed concern that performance comparisons defeated the whole idea of a netbook, which is a cheap portable computer based on cheaper processors that provided competent performance for basic computing tasks like web search and writing. While we agree that it would be a mistake to evaluate netbooks on performance alone, the facts are that netbook performance is increasing rapidly, as is the definition of what represents a "basic" computing task.
If the first netbooks represent all that is needed in a netbook there would be no reason at all for any future models. In fact people are doing more and more with netbooks - and the more that is demanded of these little computers the more that is demanded in raw computing power. The caveat, of course, is that it is unfair to compare the performance of a $300 to $400 netbook to a $2000 state-of-the-art notebook. They are aimed at different users and tasks. However, with the growth of computing power in recent years it is truly remarkable how very much the tiny netbook is actually able to do today.
Determining the best method for testing netbook performance proved quite a challenge. Of the readily available test suites PCMark Vantage seemed the ideal tool for testing overall computing capabilities. The problem is that Vantage only runs on Windows Vista and none of the current netbooks available for testing even offer Vista as an OS option. In addition Vantage requires a 1280x1024 minimum screen configuration which is far beyond resolution capabilities of current netbooks, so we would need to attach an external display.
Serious consideration was given to testing netbooks with Linux or a Linux variant OS like Ubuntu. In staff discussions at AnandTech we looked at benchmark issues with testing Linux notebooks, and we also considered the fact that all of the netbooks in house for testing had arrived with the Windows XP Home OS installed. We do plan to compare "Linux" and Microsoft OS options on netbooks in a future article.
With Windows XP Home already installed on all five netbooks that became our current OS choice for performance comparisons. Even that choice presents testing problems. PCMark05 runs fine on Windows XP, but the test suite still requires a minimum screen resolution of 1024x768 and several test modules fail at any lower resolution. The best current netbooks can do is 1024x600. After considering various options PCMark05 testing was standardized on an external monitor fed by the netbook being tested at a 1024x768 resolution. On some netbooks the screen output at 1024x768 is hardly ideal, but using a standard resolution removed a variable from the performance testing.
With the continuing growth in computing power in netbooks we fully expect to add additional tests to our netbook test suite. It is common knowledge that current netbooks can handle Flash and streaming videos present on the web without much difficulty. We confirmed this in our own internal testing. We also concur with other reports that current netbooks can handle up to 720p video playback with relative ease. However 1080p and BD playback is definitely beyond current capabilities.
In the future there is no doubt netbooks will be able to smoothly handle higher resolution video playback, Blu-ray, and perhaps even mid-level gaming. As those capabilities appear we will add relevant tests to the netbook test suite.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
crimson117 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
Where can I get one of these with Linux pre-installed?rad999 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
Visual is right on the money with his comments. Based in Taiwan I watched first hand that Asus tested the market and it paid off. Now they try to bleed the distinctions between a regular notebook and a netbook by offering old chipsets , larger displays and inferior specs amd rake in the cash.What is an atom CPU but a rebranded cpu from say five years ago.
Hav4e you ever tried to play a 3d game on a netbook, maybe upload video or make a DVD from a camcorder. It's a painful experience at best.
rembo666 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
Atom CPU is ANYTHING BUT a re-branded older CPU. It is using a collection of older and newer Intel technologies in a combination to get the best performance vs. power consumption vs. price balance. They chose to go with an in-order architecture (which is a lot older than 5-years, you're talking Pentium II as the last Intel in-order CPU here) with hyper-threading (which is about 5 years old, but it's re-appearing in the latest Core i5 and i7 CPUs), with the latest or recent manufacturing process. It's a completely re-designed CPU for the specific marked to Netbooks and MIDs. The chipset could use updating though...On AMD front, they are using the old Athlon XP designs with their "new" mobile CPUs, so you get proven performance from 8-10 years ago multiplied by manufacturing process advancements; which allow the CPUs to be clocked higher with lower power consumption.
Do research before you flame please.
And why would you even dream of playing a 3D game on a $350 netbook? They're not made for performance or gaming. They are essentially designed to run Internet Explorer or Firefox, nothing more. Come on...
swaaye - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link
Atom is actually sort of a failure really. I believe that it's actually meant to compete with the popular embedded CPUs, such as the Arm and MIPS archictectures. But it consumes too much power for those applications and it's not nearly as flexible (the Arm and MIPS chips are sorta cut and paste "what u want" designs.)Atom is lucky that it found the netbook area, but it's definitely not exciting outside of its relatively low power envelope. Relative to other x86 chips that is.
Atom was born out of the Larabee project too actually. It's an offshoot of one of those cores if I recall correctly.
agent2099 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
While I agree surfing the web is probably one of the most common things a netbook is used for, it isn't the only one. As the article admits, people also buy netbooks for those long plane or train rides. Considering internet access is not available on most commercial airlines, I think the battery testing should be a bit more broad.In particular I would like to see testing for divx and h.264 playback, or even mp3 playback while web surfing.
goinginstyle - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
I agree. I travel a lot and usually watch movies or TV shows on the plane, if not I am listening to music. I am tired of lugging around a rather heavy 15" notebook and want something easy to carry and use while traveling.The majority of people I see on the plane or waiting in the airport are either doing work or watching video/listening to music, sometimes both. I would think doing a test with video playback would be a given as would using Office.
I am still bummed about the lack of wireless testing and was hoping for a reply today.
Lifted - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
Just had an idea reading this article with respect to the battery power and performance tests.Put both the battery life and "general" performance results for each netbook/laptop in a horizontal bar chart as you have in this review, then have a slider at the top that lets you specify in percentage of importance (to the reader) battery life vs performance. When you slide it to the left, for 100% battery life and 0% performance, it would order the horizontal bar chart in order of performance for battery life alone. Slide to the middle and you have 50-50 for battery/performance and the chart sorts accordingly.
Yes, people will argue about the relevance of the battery and performance tests to their specific needs, but they will do that regardless. At least this tool would help to find a balance that is important to the readers using the results provided.
Visual - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
This is just terrible. Don't post any more articles like this. You'll convince the manufacturers that they actually have a decent product, and then they will not bother improving it ;)But seriously now, I am really disappointed by the slow rate of progress in the netbook area. They are all still using the same old crappy intel chipsets with terrible igp performance. Still on the crappy 1024x600 resolutions. Still no rotating screens and touchscreens. That is not evolution, that is milking the same old cow over and over.
I have the Gigabyte M912X tablet-convertible netbook, it is a model old as the world now, and yet it hasn't been surpassed by anyone yet. Even the fresh new tablets by Asus T91 and T101 are a step back, again with the lower resolution.
And here I was hoping we would even have multi-touch tablets by now. The initial misleading advertising of the Asus T91 as multitouch (which turned out to be about the touchpad and not the screen, damn Asus) had hyped my expectations way high.
Ion or at least the faster Intel GMA X4500, dual-core Atoms or Via Nano, are all getting old already without even appearing in a netbook product yet. If even existing tech takes so long to be adopted by the industry, how can I even hope for some future tech? At this rate I'll probably grow old and die before OLED displays, Moorestown, external/dock graphics, usb 3 or bluetooth 3 arrive.
AstroGuardian - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link
I agree. Totally! I am waiting ages already to see OLEDs and Ions in a netbook. But things look boring at this time.KeypoX - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link
agree agree... this is total bs. Netbooks run flash like crap too. I dont care who's fault it is. Try to play two or more youtube at once your screwed.Also 400 for a netbook is about 200 to much. You can get 400 notebooks core 2 duo almost everyday now.
I remember this site a few years ago, every article was gold, it was interesting and seemed honest. What happen?