Comments on: HD displays + Atom Diamondville processors = slower netbooks

By: thequinox

thequinox — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 05:26:35 +0000

Wow. That seems like a horribly complicated way of testing this. Why don't you just you know… change the resolution. Set it to 1024×600 manually and see if anything improves. It won't though, as I am quite certain this resolution to speed conclusion is bogus.

Just like bbbl67 said near the top, resolution means pretty much nothing. I'm not sure what the slow down is, but I can bet you it isn't the screen.

By: thequinox

thequinox — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:26:35 +0000

Just like bbbl67 said near the top, resolution means pretty much nothing. I'm not sure what the slow down is, but I can bet you it isn't the screen.

By: Mikez

Mikez — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:58:28 +0000

A new year, a new me, at least for a day.
I am going to agree with everyone today.

Brad has pointed out a significant relationship between display pixels
and something.
As others have mentioned, the "something" would be nice to narrow down.

MonkeyKing is on the right track with: "can we compare these machines
with **only** a change to the display driven".
A good way to do that would be to just unplug the two displays and exchange
them between the two machines being compared.
But we can't expect Brad to do that, even if he had the time and inclination,
these review machines are "loaners" - not his to tear apart physically.

My suggestion:
Brad, get two external, brand name, monitors. Two that differ only in the
number of pixels. You probably already have those on hand.

Add a comparison column: "When driving the 1024x768 vs aaaaXbbb monitor"
to your collection of reported tests.
_Almost_ as good as swapping out the internal displays of the two machines.

By: Shannon VanWagner

Shannon VanWagner — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:38:12 +0000

I think the performance problem is operating system based…

Would like to see the same test with GNU/Linux – e.g. Ubuntu 9.10, can you take a look see and post the results? Thanks!

Also, I've dugg this article via:
http://digg.com/tech_news/HD_displays_Atom_Diam…

By: Brad Linder

Brad Linder — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:56:10 +0000

Actually, I just don't happen to have any of these devices on hand at the
moment. But I'll forward the suggestion to Joanna.

Of course the problem is that these machines tend to look awful when you use
anything but the native resolution.

By: MonkeyKing1969

MonkeyKing1969 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:01:25 +0000

Brad I know this is just a pet theory based on observations and you don't have time to tinker with these devices...but.

What happens when you lower the resolution of the machines to 1024 x 600 resolution? I assume the video can be downgraded so what happens then? Do they perk up? Does it have no effect?

Like I said I'm sure you have better things to do then play with them, but it would be interesting. Thanks for you efforts so far!

By: pauli

pauli — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:43:45 +0000

my 900ha is no slower driving a 19×12 panel than it is just running at 10×6. this whole discussion is bizarre. as someone mentioned, 2d has been fully accelerated for many years now, and display resolution has nothing to do with app load times.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:11:12 +0000

I have HP Mini 311 and installed both Windows 7 Professional and Ubuntu 9.10 Desktop Edition in dual-boot environment (without Wubi).
I think Ubuntu 9.10 performs better in general. But in order to achieve a fully usable system (Wi-Fi, HD video playback with VDPAU), I need to do some initial configuration, setup, and tweaking.

By: bbbl67

bbbl67 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:37:23 +0000

Actually the size of the video resolution should have very little bearing on the performance of any computer these days. This is known as 2D graphics, and it has been accelerated by even the most basic graphics systems since the days of Windows 3.0. Even a crappy video system like Intel GMA950 graphics handles it without sweat, and without any help from the Atom processor. 2D graphics is pretty simple stuff like moving windows & text around on the screen, etc. 3D graphics is what is involved in playing video clips, DVDs, games, etc.

By: bbbl67

bbbl67 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:09:08 +0000

Or rather it might have nothing to do with the video size difference, and everything to with the fact that when you get Nvidia ION graphics, you are also using an Nvidia chipset for controlling the hard disk, RAM, USB, etc., rather than an Intel chipset. Nvidia chipsets are typically buggier and slower than Intel ones at these very basic, non-graphics tasks.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:44:47 +0000

Of course other CPUs slow down a lot after numerous updates, but they can handle that, as the CPU is originally fast to start of with. So, you just notice a slight decrease in speed.

The Atom CPU is slow to begin with. Once you update your machine, it crawls like a snail. Don't even talk about installing and uninstalling crap over time. It just can't handle all the updates Microsoft churns out for both Office and Windows. It gets even worse with your Security Suite installed, say, Norton Internet security.

I dare readers to do a fresh install of their netbooks and see how it flies. Now, go and update your Windows and Office.

Just see the big difference. It becomes a snail.

I only dread to think what will happen in months to come when Microsoft pumps out more security updates to install. It would further slow the machine down.

By: HP

HP — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:40:56 +0000

The CPU normally isn't a factor in file I/O, which is what's responsible for app startup times. Of course, an overloaded CPU may be part of the problem, but I think the culprit lies more buggy drivers. That, or somebody's AV program is really acting up.

The only way to judge compare systems' performance is by holding constant all (or most) software variables. You can't have one system running Win7 and another running XP, each with its different load of installed bloatware, and compare anything meaningful.

By: JT

JT — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:32:18 +0000

blogeee clocked the 1201N's battery life when playing video at 4 hours 11 min.

I wonder how their tests differ. Also, I wonder how the 1201N performs when its in the mid and low perf modes.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=…

By: anon

anon — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:59:44 +0000

AND with an ARM CPU… ARM is going to kick the Intel CPU's butt…!

Can't wait for CES to see what goodies are out there… and to see the new Pixel Qi screen in SHOW devices on the Floor.

By: Brad Linder

Brad Linder — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:45:12 +0000

Eh, I've been using an Asus Eee PC 1000H for well over a year and while it,
like any computer, gets a bit slower after a while due to all the crap you
install and uninstall, fragmenting of the hard drive, and other issues, it's
not that much slower today than it was a year ago.

Sure, most of the netbooks I review are machines I only get to spend a few
weeks with at most. But in my experience, I haven't seen anything to
demonstrate that Atom processors are any worse than other CPUs when it comes
to Windows updates.