- Jun 29, 2014
- 20
- 0
- 4,570
This is probably going to be long, because I'm a spaz... So recently, I've been looking at netbooks, mostly on Ebay. I need something that I can really take around with me, as well as give me excellent battery life.
See, I already have a laptop. And old one, at that. It's a Gateway M-1624 with a AMD Turion 64x2 TL-60 CPU and 2GB DDR2 RAM. Now on Passmark's benchmark, I believe the TL-60 scores about 1100. Now that may not seem TOO bad for a 6 year old laptop, but I really do notice this thing slowing down. In fact, my last install of Windows 7 was almost 3 years ago, so I guess with all the sh-stuff I have on here, I'm sure it's causing the machine to bog down. And who knows about the HDD? I don't do a whole lot of maintenance, admittedly... I'm pretty sure it was a lot snappier when I first formatted the drive.
Anyway, as of late, I've been bothered by my laptop's incapability to do what I need it to do. Looking back, if I knew it would last this long without any need for repair really, I'd have spent a bit more and got a little bit better processor, and something with a bit more RAM. And maybe an actual capability to do some light gaming. All things that this laptop lacks, short of games from the early 2000's. So I decided that building a desktop would be right for me. I could get the specs I want at a lower price, and just have everything be the way I want.
I wouldn't necessarily call myself a power user, really. I do occasional video editing with 720p video from my point and shoot, occassionally 1080p, though things take hours to render. I would like to game. I do word process for school, typically on Google Drive as of late. I would just call myself an occasional power user when I need to be. I usually don't have too much going at one time. I have 9 browser windows open right now, but that would be the typical load. Then I may open up some folders, use the windows search, etc. I find though, that this laptop locks up and can become pretty unresponsive even in those tasks. I don't know if it's from all my bloatware, or if it's simply the incapability of my processor and RAM.
So I decided to go relatively high end, at least compared to the average user's system. An AMD FX-8320, 4GB X 2 Kingston Hyper X Blu RAM, two Asus R9 270 (non-x) GPU's. That should do everything I need it to do, play games at Ultra/Highest and just generally be a powerhouse. Originally, I was going with an FX-6300, but I figured for the power usage, might as well get something higher end. All that should future proof me for a while. Now I'm not the richest guy out there. Economically, we're not in the best of shape. It is for that reason, that after building this rig, I don't want to have to spend a whole lot more to complete everything.
Many say that netbooks should simply be a companion to a primary/more powerful desktop or laptop. For me, with this build, that WOULD be the case. All I really need to do on the netbook is browse, maybe watch youtube videos, a little word processing and basic spreadsheets. That's it, really. Maybe if I want to transfer over some movie files onto the thing and play them on the go, though 720p MIGHT be a stretch, but even if it's slightly jumpy, that's not really an issue. I may transfer files from my point and shoot as well, but that shouldn't be an issue either. I was even thinking of getting a really low end machine to use as a cryptocurrency wallet to throw in a safe and take out when I need it. Many say an ultrabook would be good. Problem is, I don't have that kind of money. And why spend all that on a laptop that will do far more than I need it to, if I have a kick-ass machine at home anyway? Size-wise, ultrabooks are great, performance great, but from a perspective of price, not so much. Not at the moment, anyway.
I have an old Thinkpad T23 with a Pentium III 1.13 Ghz and 1GB RAM. Looking at benchmarks from this era and processor type, Pentium III's seem to perform equally to something like an Atom N270. A little under 300 on passmark. I remember reading a couple of days ago about in-order vs out-of-order processing. I can only infer what that means, but I think I kind of understand it. Those individuals made claims that something like the earliest Pentium 4's and later Pentium III's would be equal in performance to an Atom Single Core like the N270, and the like (or better). Could that really be? I'll be honest, for using OS-related features, that old thinkpad works pretty well, but when it comes to modern web browsing, it really takes a hit. Pages are slow to load, scroll, and youtube videos at 240p are jumpy, unless you just leave the mouse still, etc.
Could a processor 7 years later have that kind of crappy performance? I read that the Atom N450 had 25% better performance than the N270, but passmark shows a similar score. Should simple number benchmarks be trusted?
A couple of models I was looking at, include... On the really low end, the Dell Mini 9. Then, the Samsung NC10. Both with an Atom N270. Moving up a bit, I was looking at one Acer Aspire One, which had an AMD C60 in it. Dual core, and benchmarks significantly better than the others, though is lacking when compared to the "E" series processors. Then better still, there's an Acer Aspire One with an Atom N2600, and the 2000 series Atom's do perform pretty well, it seems like. An aquaintence of mine from youtube has a Dell Mini 9, and says that with Linux Mint installed, it's a pretty responsive machine, even with the lowly Atom N270.
I'm not really sure what to go with. I know this is long, but hopefully someone can help me, maybe from your own experience in a situation like this...
See, I already have a laptop. And old one, at that. It's a Gateway M-1624 with a AMD Turion 64x2 TL-60 CPU and 2GB DDR2 RAM. Now on Passmark's benchmark, I believe the TL-60 scores about 1100. Now that may not seem TOO bad for a 6 year old laptop, but I really do notice this thing slowing down. In fact, my last install of Windows 7 was almost 3 years ago, so I guess with all the sh-stuff I have on here, I'm sure it's causing the machine to bog down. And who knows about the HDD? I don't do a whole lot of maintenance, admittedly... I'm pretty sure it was a lot snappier when I first formatted the drive.
Anyway, as of late, I've been bothered by my laptop's incapability to do what I need it to do. Looking back, if I knew it would last this long without any need for repair really, I'd have spent a bit more and got a little bit better processor, and something with a bit more RAM. And maybe an actual capability to do some light gaming. All things that this laptop lacks, short of games from the early 2000's. So I decided that building a desktop would be right for me. I could get the specs I want at a lower price, and just have everything be the way I want.
I wouldn't necessarily call myself a power user, really. I do occasional video editing with 720p video from my point and shoot, occassionally 1080p, though things take hours to render. I would like to game. I do word process for school, typically on Google Drive as of late. I would just call myself an occasional power user when I need to be. I usually don't have too much going at one time. I have 9 browser windows open right now, but that would be the typical load. Then I may open up some folders, use the windows search, etc. I find though, that this laptop locks up and can become pretty unresponsive even in those tasks. I don't know if it's from all my bloatware, or if it's simply the incapability of my processor and RAM.
So I decided to go relatively high end, at least compared to the average user's system. An AMD FX-8320, 4GB X 2 Kingston Hyper X Blu RAM, two Asus R9 270 (non-x) GPU's. That should do everything I need it to do, play games at Ultra/Highest and just generally be a powerhouse. Originally, I was going with an FX-6300, but I figured for the power usage, might as well get something higher end. All that should future proof me for a while. Now I'm not the richest guy out there. Economically, we're not in the best of shape. It is for that reason, that after building this rig, I don't want to have to spend a whole lot more to complete everything.
Many say that netbooks should simply be a companion to a primary/more powerful desktop or laptop. For me, with this build, that WOULD be the case. All I really need to do on the netbook is browse, maybe watch youtube videos, a little word processing and basic spreadsheets. That's it, really. Maybe if I want to transfer over some movie files onto the thing and play them on the go, though 720p MIGHT be a stretch, but even if it's slightly jumpy, that's not really an issue. I may transfer files from my point and shoot as well, but that shouldn't be an issue either. I was even thinking of getting a really low end machine to use as a cryptocurrency wallet to throw in a safe and take out when I need it. Many say an ultrabook would be good. Problem is, I don't have that kind of money. And why spend all that on a laptop that will do far more than I need it to, if I have a kick-ass machine at home anyway? Size-wise, ultrabooks are great, performance great, but from a perspective of price, not so much. Not at the moment, anyway.
I have an old Thinkpad T23 with a Pentium III 1.13 Ghz and 1GB RAM. Looking at benchmarks from this era and processor type, Pentium III's seem to perform equally to something like an Atom N270. A little under 300 on passmark. I remember reading a couple of days ago about in-order vs out-of-order processing. I can only infer what that means, but I think I kind of understand it. Those individuals made claims that something like the earliest Pentium 4's and later Pentium III's would be equal in performance to an Atom Single Core like the N270, and the like (or better). Could that really be? I'll be honest, for using OS-related features, that old thinkpad works pretty well, but when it comes to modern web browsing, it really takes a hit. Pages are slow to load, scroll, and youtube videos at 240p are jumpy, unless you just leave the mouse still, etc.
Could a processor 7 years later have that kind of crappy performance? I read that the Atom N450 had 25% better performance than the N270, but passmark shows a similar score. Should simple number benchmarks be trusted?
A couple of models I was looking at, include... On the really low end, the Dell Mini 9. Then, the Samsung NC10. Both with an Atom N270. Moving up a bit, I was looking at one Acer Aspire One, which had an AMD C60 in it. Dual core, and benchmarks significantly better than the others, though is lacking when compared to the "E" series processors. Then better still, there's an Acer Aspire One with an Atom N2600, and the 2000 series Atom's do perform pretty well, it seems like. An aquaintence of mine from youtube has a Dell Mini 9, and says that with Linux Mint installed, it's a pretty responsive machine, even with the lowly Atom N270.
I'm not really sure what to go with. I know this is long, but hopefully someone can help me, maybe from your own experience in a situation like this...
Facebook
Twitter