How is the quality of Samsung laptops?

[Chiropteran]

If you consider 2 hours of light use as good battery life then you have very low standards.

Heh, good job with the selective quoting. If you read the whole paragraph you would see that the battery is set to only use 80% of it's capacity, and in addition there is some sort of bug flaw or issue going on with my laptop causing it to go from 50% down to 9% battery instantly. I don't think that is normal or intended behavior, and I am assuming that if I can figure it out and fix it myself (or just get it fixed under warranty) the overall battery life will improve.

Besides that, I think the general rule applies: performance, battery life, inexpensive- pick any two. For a $380 laptop that can play any game I throw at it, it has performance and inexpensive covered, so I am perfectly fine with 2.5 hours of battery life. For comparison, I also have a dm1z w/ E-350 APU. It runs over 5 hours on a single charge, but compared to the Samsung above the dm1z doesn't perform nearly as well and it cost about 50% more when I bought it new.

But hey, if you have a brand new laptop under $400 that either has a quad core llano APU or some sort of graphic chipset with equal performance that can get 4 hours + battery life, I'll reevaluate my standards for battery life. I don't think such a beast exists.

 

[SilthDraeth]

For notebooks, I won't buy anything except Asus, Samsung, or Lenovo. Asus has a 2 year standard warranty with 1 year accidental, and 1 time screen replacement on most of their laptops. Some sold at brick and mortar and online do not, but most do. That right there is a good enough reason to go Asus over some other brands.

 

[Meaker10]

Heh, good job with the selective quoting. If you read the whole paragraph you would see that the battery is set to only use 80% of it's capacity, and in addition there is some sort of bug flaw or issue going on with my laptop causing it to go from 50% down to 9% battery instantly. I don't think that is normal or intended behavior, and I am assuming that if I can figure it out and fix it myself (or just get it fixed under warranty) the overall battery life will improve.

Besides that, I think the general rule applies: performance, battery life, inexpensive- pick any two. For a $380 laptop that can play any game I throw at it, it has performance and inexpensive covered, so I am perfectly fine with 2.5 hours of battery life. For comparison, I also have a dm1z w/ E-350 APU. It runs over 5 hours on a single charge, but compared to the Samsung above the dm1z doesn't perform nearly as well and it cost about 50% more when I bought it new.

But hey, if you have a brand new laptop under $400 that either has a quad core llano APU or some sort of graphic chipset with equal performance that can get 4 hours + battery life, I'll reevaluate my standards for battery life. I don't think such a beast exists.

That could actually be a problem with the battery circuitry, you might want to test another if you can.

 

[Meaker10]

For notebooks, I won't buy anything except Asus, Samsung, or Lenovo. Asus has a 2 year standard warranty with 1 year accidental, and 1 time screen replacement on most of their laptops. Some sold at brick and mortar and online do not, but most do. That right there is a good enough reason to go Asus over some other brands.

MSI have a 2 year warranty and a 1 year global warranty. They use standard components where possible making their machines upgradable. They have a healthy selection of machines that ship with matte screens as standard and all their gaming series now come with a fullHD display.

They also don't sell gimped machines to brick and mortar stores.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I've sold and used them, and for the price my answer would be "quite good". Their design is pretty simplistic/minimalist and the build quality is higher-than-average, and their keyboards/touchpads are decent. I don't really know much about their reliability in terms of component failures, though.

Heh, good job with the selective quoting. If you read the whole paragraph you would see that the battery is set to only use 80% of it's capacity, and in addition there is some sort of bug flaw or issue going on with my laptop causing it to go from 50% down to 9% battery instantly. I don't think that is normal or intended behavior, and I am assuming that if I can figure it out and fix it myself (or just get it fixed under warranty) the overall battery life will improve.

Besides that, I think the general rule applies: performance, battery life, inexpensive- pick any two. For a $380 laptop that can play any game I throw at it, it has performance and inexpensive covered, so I am perfectly fine with 2.5 hours of battery life. For comparison, I also have a dm1z w/ E-350 APU. It runs over 5 hours on a single charge, but compared to the Samsung above the dm1z doesn't perform nearly as well and it cost about 50% more when I bought it new.

But hey, if you have a brand new laptop under $400 that either has a quad core llano APU or some sort of graphic chipset with equal performance that can get 4 hours + battery life, I'll reevaluate my standards for battery life. I don't think such a beast exists.

That's a great deal you got. If you want good quality for a low price it's all about waiting for a good deal and then buying. I'm not gonna pretend it's the normal price you'd buy it at, but I got the ThinkPad in my sig for $550. Regular price for it would be $700-750 given it came with a Fingerprint Reader, a 500GB 7200RPM HDD instead of 320GB 5400RPM, and Bluetooth 3.0. Battery life while web browsing, checking email and writing in class on Word is roughly 4:30 hours, but I set the battery to stop charging automatically at 90% so it has a much longer lifespan. If I let it get to 100% it'd probably get 5 hours. So I guess that would get a score in all three criteria, but only because I got it on sale. At $700 it's not inexpensive, though given the quality it's justifiable if you have the money.

 

[Chiropteran]

That could actually be a problem with the battery circuitry, you might want to test another if you can.

After making that post I played around with it a bit, and found a "calibrate battery" function in the BIOS. I had to leave for work, but when I have a chance I'll run it through a full calibration and see if it fixes things.

 

[Phynaz]

But hey, if you have a brand new laptop under $400 that either has a quad core llano APU or some sort of graphic chipset with equal performance that can get 4 hours + battery life, I'll reevaluate my standards for battery life. I don't think such a beast exists.

Ok, so you charge to 80% and get two hours. That would put 100% charge at 2.5 hours. Still a long ways from "good"

No I don't have a $400 laptop and will never have one. I bought a $600 laptop some years ago, and vowed to never go cheap again. Your own battery issues show what happened when you cheaped out.

You'll notice from the threads here I bought an i7 based XPS 14z with Nvidia Optimus graphics. It gets 4+ hours of battery life - charged to 70% BTW, absolutely destroys Llano performance wise, weighs almost nothing.

I suppose your opinion would change if AMD had anything to compete outside of the bargain basement.

 

[Chiropteran]

Actually that is funny. I have an XPS 14, I replaced it with the llano, although I still have it sitting on a shelf under my desk. The nvidia graphics couldn't really handle anything worthwhile, and while the CPU was faster (I have an i5 model), for gaming it really didn't matter because the GPU was holding it back so much. Not sure if the "z" model is much different from what I have, but I wasn't impressed and for a laptop at about half the price outplaying it at just about any game I don't think I'll be buying another Dell.

The 14z comes with nvidia 520m. Look it up, it is in a class below llano. Kind of embarrassing really, that nvidia's discrete solution is slower than integrated graphics in llano, but true.

The 4 hours of battery life is nice, but it doesn't hold a high value in my opinion. 95% of the time I am using the computer some place that has a plug. The other 5% of the time, I am in the bathroom- if it takes me more than 2 hours to finish up in there, I have more serious problems to deal with than the size of my laptop batteries.

Ultimately, my opinion wouldn't change if the XPS 14 was free- because in my case it might as well be. I have one sitting around unused, and I prefer to use my $380 piece of junk. I really don't understand why dell even bothered to add the nvidia GPU, as its performance is barely faster than the CPU's IGP.

"Performance

As an entry level card, the GT 520M has to compete against the Intel HD Graphics 3000 in the current Sandy Bridge processors. In our tests, the card was only slightly faster, but the better driver support did make a difference. However, demanding games like Battlefield 3 or The Witcher 2 are not playable. Other modern games only run in low details, and therefore gamers wont be pleased with the performance. Low demanding games like Fifa 12, however, are playable with high detail settings."

Performance matters, but getting 4 hours of battery life doesn't. I have a cellphone for super-portable needs, I'm not going to be using my laptop while walking around outside so the limited battery life isn't a problem.

 

[SilthDraeth]

MSI have a 2 year warranty and a 1 year global warranty. They use standard components where possible making their machines upgradable. They have a healthy selection of machines that ship with matte screens as standard and all their gaming series now come with a fullHD display.

They also don't sell gimped machines to brick and mortar stores.

MSI is a good company as well. I use their motherboards plenty of times. I should have added them to my original post. I just never owned one, but would not have any issue doing so.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Ok, so you charge to 80% and get two hours. That would put 100% charge at 2.5 hours. Still a long ways from "good"

No I don't have a $400 laptop and will never have one. I bought a $600 laptop some years ago, and vowed to never go cheap again. Your own battery issues show what happened when you cheaped out.

You'll notice from the threads here I bought an i7 based XPS 14z with Nvidia Optimus graphics. It gets 4+ hours of battery life - charged to 70% BTW, absolutely destroys Llano performance wise, weighs almost nothing.

I suppose your opinion would change if AMD had anything to compete outside of the bargain basement.

It has a GT 520M. Mobile GPUs are slower than their desktop counterparts when it comes to naming hierarchy by a lot, and the 520M is still pretty damn slow for anything graphically intensive. Only reason why I can see someone thinking it's fine is if they don't want to run games at 800x600 or 1024x768 at the lowest settings with the HD 3000 and instead want to make an incredible boost to 1280x720 and low settings. If you want a decent mobile GPU that doesn't require a big chassis the only real, good options are the GT 540M and GT 555M. As most of the reviews for the 14z say, graphics horsepower is lackluster for the price. And over $1000 for a dual-core i7? Are you kidding me?

Even if I had the money I'd stick with my current laptop instead.

 

[Phynaz]

And over $1000 for a dual-core i7? Are you kidding me?

Does your laptop also have an aluminum and magnesium case and weigh four pounds?

Someday you'll have a job and the money to be able to figure out that the sum is greater than the parts.

 

[Phynaz]

Ultimately, my opinion wouldn't change if the XPS 14 was free.

First, it's a 14z. Different machine.

Second, I'm calling you out on this one. If somebody gave you a $1,200 laptop for free you wouldn't take it, and instead continue to use a $380 poc?

Yeah, sure.

 

[Chiropteran]

First, it's a 14z. Different machine.

Second, I'm calling you out on this one. If somebody gave you a $1,200 laptop for free you wouldn't take it, and instead continue to use a $380 poc?

Yeah, sure.

If it has some value i'll keep it and ebay it or maybe give it to my girlfriend.

The point is, I have an XPS 14. It looks nice, the build quality is great, battery life is not bad, but the GPU performance is terrible and even though it's CPU might be superior it's held back by the GPU for anything where performance matters. So, I don't use it.

I should probably try to sell it, but for now it simply sits unused.

If someone gave me another of the same thing, or even a later version of the same model with a similar GPU deficiency, no I wouldn't use it.

Give me a $1200 laptop with a Radeon 6950m, and I'd happily use it. I just don't have much use for what I consider to be unbalanced devices, with tons of CPU capability but no significant graphic capability to speak of.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

If it has some value i'll keep it and ebay it or maybe give it to my girlfriend.

The point is, I have an XPS 14. It looks nice, the build quality is great, battery life is not bad, but the GPU performance is terrible and even though it's CPU might be superior it's held back by the GPU for anything where performance matters. So, I don't use it.

I should probably try to sell it, but for now it simply sits unused.

If someone gave me another of the same thing, or even a later version of the same model with a similar GPU deficiency, no I wouldn't use it.

Give me a $1200 laptop with a Radeon 6950m, and I'd happily use it. I just don't have much use for what I consider to be unbalanced devices, with tons of CPU capability but no significant graphic capability to speak of.

It depends on what you want or need as a consumer. Your laptop has a decent GPU, I'll give you that. However, the CPU is anemic compared even to a Core i3 in most tasks. I personally have no use for a fast GPU on a laptop, as any heavy graphical workload can be handled by my desktop. Some people do need good graphical capability on the go, and for little money, Llano is a good choice. For me, the ASUS G60VX I had did not suit what I needed in a laptop as a college student so we had to part ways.

But it's disingenuous to say that you have a better balance in your laptop when it's exactly processing power that you're giving up to get higher graphical performance. In reality neither of our laptops strike a true balance when it comes to that. For that mine would have to come with a GT 540M and yours would need to come with a Core i3 at the minimum.

 

[Meaker10]

I think what we can agree on is laptops are VASTLY more personal than desktops and each machine needs to be considered on a case by case basis with clear outlines on the order of preference of different variables.

My machine is perfect for me where it holds little of its value for my wife who would be much better off with a 13" ultra portable for her needs.

 

[God Mode]

Which of the laptop manufacturers have no bios restrictions? I don't want to bother with hacked or modified bios. It's total BS that some lock you to a specific wifi card, keyboard etc.

 

[Chiropteran]

However, the CPU is anemic compared even to a Core i3 in most tasks. I personally have no use for a fast GPU on a laptop, as any heavy graphical workload can be handled by my desktop. Some people do need good graphical capability on the go, and for little money, Llano is a good choice. For me, the ASUS G60VX I had did not suit what I needed in a laptop as a college student so we had to part ways.

Anemic at what though? Running artificial benchmarks? Slow as my llano may appear to be, virtually all normal tasks complete instantly. If there is any delay at all, it's usually the network connection download time holding me back. My llano may be an order of magnitude slower than an i5, but the difference between loading a webpage in .2 seconds or .4 seconds isn't really noticeable when the real bottle neck is the 2-4 seconds it takes for the network connection to download the page.

What actual tasks do people use laptops for that are really held back by a slower CPU? I mean, compiling software maybe? Encoding movies? Like the other guy said, everyone's needs are different, so I guess you have some application where you are severely CPU limited, but as far as my mobile needs go the llano doesn't limit me at all.

But it's disingenuous to say that you have a better balance in your laptop when it's exactly processing power that you're giving up to get higher graphical performance. In reality neither of our laptops strike a true balance when it comes to that. For that mine would have to come with a GT 540M and yours would need to come with a Core i3 at the minimum.

Well, see above. What things are you unable to do with a slower CPU? Not much of anything. What things are you unable to do with a slower GPU? Quite a few games simply aren't playable. So to me, an APU that is capable of handling more tasks is better balanced. Increasing the CPU side so that excel pages update in .0023 seconds instead of .0043 seconds isn't really helping me.

Sure, if you don't play games then you don't need a GPU or stronger APU. You could buy a computer with a strong CPU and virtually no 3d capability. It wouldn't be a very balanced laptop, but it would be dedicated to a few tasks.




EDIT: I re-calibrated the battery, but I haven't gone below 50% sincethen so I am not yet sure if the problem is fixed.

 

[Meaker10]

Which of the laptop manufacturers have no bios restrictions? I don't want to bother with hacked or modified bios. It's total BS that some lock you to a specific wifi card, keyboard etc.

Well totally unlocked then the alienware M18X and the Clevo P270WM will let you overclock an extreme CPU.

Then next down we have MSI that with an unlocked bios lets you change the base clock and the normal bios has no blacklisting/white listing.
You can put in any CPU, GPU (that's standard MXM), memory, wifi card, HDDs etc.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Anemic at what though? Running artificial benchmarks? Slow as my llano may appear to be, virtually all normal tasks complete instantly. If there is any delay at all, it's usually the network connection download time holding me back. My llano may be an order of magnitude slower than an i5, but the difference between loading a webpage in .2 seconds or .4 seconds isn't really noticeable when the real bottle neck is the 2-4 seconds it takes for the network connection to download the page.

What actual tasks do people use laptops for that are really held back by a slower CPU? I mean, compiling software maybe? Encoding movies? Like the other guy said, everyone's needs are different, so I guess you have some application where you are severely CPU limited, but as far as my mobile needs go the llano doesn't limit me at all.




Well, see above. What things are you unable to do with a slower CPU? Not much of anything. What things are you unable to do with a slower GPU? Quite a few games simply aren't playable. So to me, an APU that is capable of handling more tasks is better balanced. Increasing the CPU side so that excel pages update in .0023 seconds instead of .0043 seconds isn't really helping me.

Sure, if you don't play games then you don't need a GPU or stronger APU. You could buy a computer with a strong CPU and virtually no 3d capability. It wouldn't be a very balanced laptop, but it would be dedicated to a few tasks.




EDIT: I re-calibrated the battery, but I haven't gone below 50% sincethen so I am not yet sure if the problem is fixed.

And we're back to square one. All I'm telling you is that what you're saying about Llano being more balanced is false, for the reasons I outlined earlier. I never said some people don't prefer to have a faster GPU; just that you give up processing power in order to get it.

Regarding what's in bold: I'll rephrase it and maybe you'll get my point. "Sure, if you don't multi-task a lot, encode/transcode video and music or edit a lot of photos then you don't need a strong CPU. You could buy a computer with a strong GPU and virtually no processing capability. It wouldn't be a very balanced laptop, but it could be dedicated to a few tasks."

Now, aside from that, I like to think there's more software applications than gaming. To me, gaming is but one of the many things a computer can do. There's software development/compiling, encoding, editing, file compression, content creation, productivity, etc, etc, etc.

To say a Llano system is more balanced than a Sandy Bridge system is false, but to say Llano is useless is also false. If you want to game on the cheap you'll need to go with Llano because for that the HD 3000 is mostly useless. If you don't want to game on the go, you go with Sandy Bridge.

 

[kevinsbane]

What actual tasks do people use laptops for that are really held back by a slower CPU? I mean, compiling software maybe? Encoding movies? Like the other guy said, everyone's needs are different, so I guess you have some application where you are severely CPU limited, but as far as my mobile needs go the llano doesn't limit me at all.

Running CAD. Yes, I run CAD on my laptop. No, I'm not crazy. Yes, the HD3000 handles it fine. Sounds crazy considering it's an ultraportable (x220), but hey. I can't complain when it runs almost as well as my workstation (granted part of it is the SSD on the laptop) and crunches large computations almost as fast.

Oh, if you work with large data sets in Excel or complex calcs, a fast CPU does help considerably.

Is it balanced? I'd say so. Considering the additional graphics power would only be detrimental to battery life under load, I can't complain. Balance is subjective here; once things are "good enough", then balance is simply a matter of what one values more.

 

[Chiropteran]

I guess you guys are interpreting my use of "balanced" as a pure positive and unbalanced as a negative.

I was just using the word as it was defined. A machine that has high end CPU combined with the lowest possible GPU isn't balanced, balance would be a mid power CPU + mid power GPU.

If you don't care about 3d performance you don't want a balanced computer, because that 3d performance would be wasted. Nothing wrong with a computer's performance being unbalanced like that as long as that is what you personally need.

Me, I need a balanced mix of 3d and CPU for the applications (games) that I may use the computer for.

The same way, I'd say a super high end computer with a 7970 and a 2500k matched with a 5400 rpm hard drive is unbalanced- one part of the equation is much slower than the other parts, and for a balanced mix of work that requires all aspects of the computer the unbalanced part (hard drive) will hold things back. But hard drives are easy to replace in laptops, while the CPU and GPU is a bit more difficult to upgrade.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I guess you guys are interpreting my use of "balanced" as a pure positive and unbalanced as a negative.

I was just using the word as it was defined. A machine that has mid-range GPU combined with the lowest possible CPU isn't balanced, balance would be a mid power CPU + mid power GPU.

If you don't care about CPU performance you don't want a balanced computer, because that CPU performance would be wasted. Nothing wrong with a computer's performance being unbalanced like that as long as that is what you personally need.

Me, I need a balanced mix of 3d and CPU for the applications (games) that I may use the computer for.

The same way, I'd say a super high end computer with a 7970 and a 2500k matched with a 5400 rpm hard drive is unbalanced- one part of the equation is much slower than the other parts, and for a balanced mix of work that requires all aspects of the computer the unbalanced part (hard drive) will hold things back. But hard drives are easy to replace in laptops, while the CPU and GPU is a bit more difficult to upgrade.

I really don't get what you're (or we're) arguing about. Read what I edited/bolded in your comment.

Neither your laptop or mine is truly balanced, but for me personally what I have now works. It was inexpensive at $550, gets decent to good battery life (4:30 hours at 90%), boots up and launches programs relatively fast because of the faster HDD, multitasks well, doesn't weigh me down much (4.6 pounds), is built very well, is good to write with, runs cool, etc.

I personally don't care THAT much about 3D capability, which is why I still have a GTX 460 in my desktop. For me processing power is where it's at, and if what you need is 3D capability for cheap then Llano can fit the bill just fine.

 

[wirednuts]

lolz on the "you need a fast cpu" idea. manufacturers found out that doesnt matter a long time ago. thats why when you go to best buy you can barely tell what laptop has what cpu in it... the normal consumer just wants to see "intel" and theyre set. who cares if its an atom or an i3, its intel so its good.

and it works that way because even an atom netbook can run windows 7 just as fast as the millions of P-M laptops out there. so people dont even notice the "lack" of speed.

then they try to get onto netflix. uh ohs. you need a fast gpu for that. whatever, ill just play my wow game. uh ohs, you need a fast gpu for most games now. fine, but i still need a fast cpu to encode my video files so i can put them on my phone. no you dont, gpu's do that now too.

thats why i like amd's apu so much. it really is best of both worlds... good cpu power along with great built in gpu power for what you pay for.

 

[wirednuts]

I guess you guys are interpreting my use of "balanced" as a pure positive and unbalanced as a negative.

I was just using the word as it was defined. A machine that has high end CPU combined with the lowest possible GPU isn't balanced, balance would be a mid power CPU + mid power GPU.

If you don't care about 3d performance you don't want a balanced computer, because that 3d performance would be wasted. Nothing wrong with a computer's performance being unbalanced like that as long as that is what you personally need.

Me, I need a balanced mix of 3d and CPU for the applications (games) that I may use the computer for.

The same way, I'd say a super high end computer with a 7970 and a 2500k matched with a 5400 rpm hard drive is unbalanced- one part of the equation is much slower than the other parts, and for a balanced mix of work that requires all aspects of the computer the unbalanced part (hard drive) will hold things back. But hard drives are easy to replace in laptops, while the CPU and GPU is a bit more difficult to upgrade.

you really make no sense. it might be midday but coffee is in your near future:sneaky: