i haven't had a chance to play with one yet, and i've only seen the one review. i have a mini 10v now that overheats when i watch anything flash, so i'm looking for a good replacement. hope to get my hands on one or find a better review soon.
That AAO 522 looks really nice. What's the build quality like on Acer's netbooks? I tried out an ASUS EEE PC clamshell a couple months ago and was kind of disappointed by the build quality, looked and felt cheaper than my Dell Mini 1012. Is Acer generally on par with the EEE PCs, better, worse?
if anyone here finally gets their dmz1 I would appreciate any comments on gaming performance, probably light/older games. I'm thinking of getting one for web and email, but also some couch or travel gaming. Was thinking some gog.com titles perhaps. Finally try baldurs gate, jagged alliance, and maybe even Civ 4. Assume most gog stuff will work fine, but wondering how Civ 4 runs on these processors? I've never owned a netbook, but hear civ4 doesn't really run on Atom, dunno if this is accurate?
Out of curiosity, how does its performance compare to the Gateway EC1458u (SU4100, dualcore CULV)?
Performance in what?
How about a comparison between an SU7300 (like your SU4100 but more cache) and an AMD K625? I'm traveling right now and earlier today I played Starcraft II compstomp on my Dell Latitude 13 with the SU7300 and Intel GMA 4500 IGP. My wife was in the game with her Acer 1551 with the AMD Turion II Neo K625 (1.5GHz ULV dual core) with Radeon 4225 IGP. So, compared to the Zacate setup in the HP her setup has a slower CPU as well as GPU. My GPU is the same as on the SU4100 (same GM45 chipset) and my CPU is a hair faster (more cache).
Starcraft II ran better on the AMD setup. Both were set up for lowest settings. Game kept complaining that I was slowing it down.
Thanks for the comparison. I play SC2 occasionally, so I'm familiar with its requirements.Starcraft II ran better on the AMD setup. Both were set up for lowest settings. Game kept complaining that I was slowing it down.
Performance in what?
How about a comparison between an SU7300 (like your SU4100 but more cache) and an AMD K625? I'm traveling right now and earlier today I played Starcraft II compstomp on my Dell Latitude 13 with the SU7300 and Intel GMA 4500 IGP. My wife was in the game with her Acer 1551 with the AMD Turion II Neo K625 (1.5GHz ULV dual core) with Radeon 4225 IGP. So, compared to the Zacate setup in the HP her setup has a slower CPU as well as GPU. My GPU is the same as on the SU4100 (same GM45 chipset) and my CPU is a hair faster (more cache).
Starcraft II ran better on the AMD setup. Both were set up for lowest settings. Game kept complaining that I was slowing it down.
I wish that any review site would run some old games for benchmarks on ultra portables like these. I don't care if Crysis gets 4 or 6fps at ultra low 640x480 on these things...I'm not going to play it like that regardless! Load some fun older titles I say!
agreed! I'll probably use one of these for killing time while traveling or on the couch so I'm thinking something turn based would work best. Can't imagine an FPS on 11" with a touchpad.. D: But I haven't gamed on a laptop in years so what do I know..
I bothered Bateluer to try to get some results from Civ 4:sneaky: If that'll run decently I won't need much else
Civ4 should run decently on virtually anything you can buy today (I'd bet even on a 1st gen Atom.) The requirements for it were a 1.2ghz processor, 256megs of RAM and a 64MB GPU. As a point of comparison with the Dmz1, Civ5 was playable on my U230 back when it was stock with a 1.6ghz K8 X2 and a 3200HD, and the processor speed is likely close, while it likely had about half the graphics muscle of the bobcat. Granted the pauses between turns were somewhat long, but hey, it's a turn based game, so it doesn't really matter that much.
ah ok. Cool, thanks for the info. I read somewhere a while ago that Civ 4 didn't really run on atom, so that's what I've been going by. Yeah I imagine the AI calcs and that stuff might slow down a bit, but like you said not a big deal really. Hearing how civ 5 runs could be interesting then, even though I've held of buying it after hearing the AI was broken etc (Although I'm so bad I probably wouldn't notice.)
Civ5? That game chokes my E8500/8GB RAM/4870. Not a chance of it running on anything Atom powered.
Part of it is what you define as "Runs acceptably." Civ5 isn't smooth at max settings at 1080p on my Desktop either, However, with a little bit of patience and the graphics set to low/medium. It is an entertaining game to play on my K8 powered Netbook. Yes, it takes a couple minutes to load into the game, and yes, your average mid-game turn takes 30 seconds to process. BUT despite all this, quite frequently when push comes to shove, when I'm done with work and studying for the night, I'll settle down with the laptop and a glass of scotch at my bedroom desk to play Civ5 there, instead of powering on the desktop.
We'll disagree on that. Civ5 is firmly in my 'I want my money back!' category of games. One of the worst electronic games I've ever bought.
Powered mine on just a few minutes ago. One thing I noticed is absent, a Windows 7 key sticker on the machine. Hmm, might be in the booklet that came with it. Hopefully, otherwise going to be a little harder to wipe the HP bloat off.
Edit - 2230, 3DMark 2006, all tests with default resolution and settings.
the 12eu sandybridge 2500k (desktop) is usually way ahead of zacate on most game benches but that is because of the way higher cpu clocks. until the new mobile SB parts (with lower clock) are released we wont know which is better for mobile gaming.
It's underneath the bottom cover. Remove the battery, there are two places to grab hold of the cover, pull and it will pop off.
You can see the mobile 2820QM benches. It only seems to be 5-10% slower than the 2500/2600K.
Before Sandy Bridge release I was pretty sure they would have 6EU variants in mobile to save power, but I was wrong. Plus, the base clocks and Turbo clocks for the ultra low voltage parts are surprisingly high. That might mean even the ULV Sandy Bridge parts would have gaming performance advantage over Zacate. Price would of course make it a different market altogether though.
Even then, Intel will probably use castrated Celeron Sandy Bridge parts to go against Zacate, at that point, graphics performance advantage might go to Zacate.
I don't think you can be serious. AMD designed zacate to be low cost. No matter how much intel castrates Sandy Bridge, it will still require much more silicon to function than Zacate.
Zacate targets Atom. The mobile Sandy Bridge chips will eat it for breakfast, no doubt. And consume more power, cost more, and be found in larger notebooks, no doubt.
I picked this notebook up for light gaming and mobile computing. I think it'll do well at that. Just noticed, though, there doesn't seem to be any wired ethernet port. WiFi only?