Solved! Acer Aspire AOD250-1165 vs Panasonic Toughbook CF-48

[tomo2009]

I have a question, I'm curious to see how well a Acer Aspire AOD250-1165 upgraded to 2gb of ram with the 1.66 Atom would hold up against a Toughbook CF-48 1.8 ghz P4 with 768mb of ram speed wise for running things like firefox, photoshop, GIMP, Blender and Second Life. I like the idea of the toughbook's reliability and durability but would it be faster since it only uses DDR 266mhz ram compared to the Aspires DDR2 ram. The Toughbook has the Radeon Mobility 7000 with 16mb of ram dedicated while the Aspire has the integrated intel graphics with shared memory, so I'm really stuck as to which would be faster. They are both running XP, Aspire XP Home, toughbook XP pro

 

[HansVonOhain]

These laptops are made with different uses in mind. Toughbook is for construction workers or some other people who have the potential to drop their computer. It does a very good job of protecting it's internals. Acer Aspire is more geared to a common customer who just wants to browse, skype, email, etc.
I would personally pick Acer because it is a newer tech that will run cooler, and intel graphics are way more powerful than Radeon Mobility 7000.

 

[kiren]

Are you trying to decide which to use out of ones you already have or something? Honestly both are fairly slow, and the CF-48's (which we used to use at work) are only a little more durable then average, certainly not worth the price premium IMO.

 

[tomo2009]

Are you trying to decide which to use out of ones you already have or something? Honestly both are fairly slow, and the CF-48's (which we used to use at work) are only a little more durable then average, certainly not worth the price premium IMO.

Well, I have the CF-48, and I have the Acer, but the Acer is still in the package brand new and if I open it I can't return it and get my money back so, I need to ask someone that knows a bit more about the hardware than me.

 

[kiren]

Ah, I understand then.
Either graphics chip is pretty bottom of the barrel today, heres a little info on them: GMA950 Radeon 7500 The site notes that apparently the atom version is clocked even slower than the other GMA950's. Looks to me like the Radeon might be marignally faster, but the GMA supports directx9, niether one of them really provides a useful amount of gpu power.
On the processor side, it looks like the Atom does benchmark a little bit higher, but again only slightly.
To be honest I think the biggest performance difference you'd see is from the 2GB of ram, if you're performing tasks that use a lot of memory.

My best advice would be that if you don't need the netbooks small size return it, use the CF-48 until you have the money for something just a bit more, there are lots of budget models out now that will easily outperform either of these models.

 

[tomo2009]

Ah, I understand then.
Either graphics chip is pretty bottom of the barrel today, heres a little info on them: GMA950 Radeon 7500 The site notes that apparently the atom version is clocked even slower than the other GMA950's. Looks to me like the Radeon might be marignally faster, but the GMA supports directx9, niether one of them really provides a useful amount of gpu power.
On the processor side, it looks like the Atom does benchmark a little bit higher, but again only slightly.
To be honest I think the biggest performance difference you'd see is from the 2GB of ram, if you're performing tasks that use a lot of memory.

My best advice would be that if you don't need the netbooks small size return it, use the CF-48 until you have the money for something just a bit more, there are lots of budget models out now that will easily outperform either of these models.

Thanks for the info!