Need a budget laptop?

[JerseyFoo]

Was looking at laptops for a friend, and I came across this HP g6-1b60us for $400. Quite possibly the king of budget laptops.

A4-3300M
15.6" HP BrightView LED Display (1366 x 768)
AMD Radeon™ HD 6480G
5.22 lbs

4GB DDR3
500GB (5400RPM) SATA
Up to 7 hours battery life (internet)

DVD + Webcam + Wireless-N + Windows7 Home

Doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it; one review mentioned a lack of BIOS options and noisy fan (seems isolated)

Throw in any recent SSD and this will give you better real-world performance than a high-end macbook air. Of course; it's twice as heavy, doesn't calculate pi as fast, and won't get you laid... but it'll help your triceps and you'll be able to spend that extra thousand on something else.

Feel free to challenge this!

 

[Darthfett]

this will give you better real-world performance than a high-end macbook air

Uhh... what? How does it even compare? I'm not a Mac guy, and even I know that claim is ridiculous. The processor is at just over half the speed of the worst of Intel's sandy bridge i3 series (and it only approaches the Pentium models). Its GPU also has to use the onboard RAM, as opposed to having its own, and it's far from being a dedicated card. Sure, it's cheap. That's why the last thing you should compare it to is a Mac.

I've found several computers on newegg that have similar prices, though they don't advertise well their battery life.

 

[Slapshot136]

UThe processor is at just over half the speed of the worst of Intel's sandy bridge i3 series

JerseyFoo has a rather biased preference towards AMD, I think that can explain a lot..

then again, if all you do is type text into notepad, this is all you need

 

[JerseyFoo]

I just do research; that's all.

That i5-2557M is about the same as the i5 450M in the 2010 MBP performance-wise. Notebookcheck and Passmark agree.

The i5 450M is on par with a AMD Phenom II X4 N930. Notebookcheck, Passmark, and Google agree.

Now is it crazy to say a dual-core llano will be on par with a quad-core phenom II in terms of real-world performance? Are you going to be encoding for disney on a budget laptop? Intel fanboys.

Slapshot; you may be mixing up desktop & mobile again.

 

[Slapshot136]

Are you going to be encoding for disney on a budget laptop?

well, your saying that a budget laptop is better then a "high-end macbook air", which does have such a processor

anyways, even budget laptops should have a beefier CPU - something more like this

 

[The Helper]

http://www.walmart.com/search/searc..._sort=4&selected_items=+&search_redirect=true

 

[Darthfett]

The i5 450M is on par with a AMD Phenom II X4 N930. Notebookcheck, Passmark, and Google agree.

Who said anything about a Phenom II X4? Sure, those two look to run about the same speeds.

Now is it crazy to say a dual-core llano will be on par with a quad-core phenom II in terms of real-world performance?

Yes, it is pretty crazy to say something like that. Especially if you look it up on Notebookcheck, which is where I looked before I wrote my first post. In fact, a dual-core llano is only dual-core, and if you look at any of the benchhmarks, the llano is clearly at about half that of the Phenom II X4 you listed.

Intel fanboys.

I find this hilarious, as I am currently talking to you, while running a Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. It had great price-value ratio when I got it. However, AMD has fallen behind recently, and I find it very hard to see why you would throw so many benchmarks out the window when comparing performance. Sure, general day-to-day use will probably be similar, but that's because you won't be stressing either processor. The time when you need to compare two processors is when you test their performance on games, or something similarly stressing. Benchmarks can sometimes be a good measure for this.

 

[sqrage]

Shows up at $477 for me.

 

[JerseyFoo]

Shows up at $477 for me.

Price increased. Inevitable with great deals I suppose.

http://www.walmart.com/search/search..._redirect=true

None of the sub-$400 laptops on Newegg or Walmart compare?

I can't use benchmarks for the A4-3300M because there's not enough data yet (Notebookcheck isn't even using market-samples) and alot of people tend to disagree with Passmark; while I've found it to be a great rough estimation of many processors. Also makes the most economical sense.

Intel Core i7 995X @ 3.60GHz  10945  ~$1000
Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz  9940 ~$320   
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T  6308 ~$190
Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz  6079 ~$190
AMD Phenom II X3 740  2904 ~ $90
Intel Pentium G850 @ 2.90GHz  2790  ~$98

Intel Core i5 450M @ 2.40GHz	  2473
AMD Phenom II N930 Quad-Core  2449
AMD A4-3300M APU with Radeon HD Graphics  2342  (hp laptop mentioned)
Intel Core i5-2557M @ 1.70GHz  2301  (macbook air)

I derived the N930 and i5 350M as comparable to the i5-2557M from researching Anandtech / Notebookcheck / Google. Passmark had it all along. Go figure.

I find this hilarious, as I am currently talking to you, while running a Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. It had great price-value ratio when I got it. However, AMD has fallen behind recently, and I find it very hard to see why you would throw so many benchmarks out the window when comparing performance.

I was responding more to the "JerseyFoo is biased towards AMD" comment. Intel released Sandy Bridge early, and a 10-month difference between Intel SB/AMD Bulldozer really isn't that bad.

Explanation of Macbook air comment

Uhh... what? How does it even compare? I'm not a Mac guy, and even I know that claim is ridiculous. The processor is at just over half the speed of the worst of Intel's sandy bridge i3 series (and it only approaches the Pentium models). Its GPU also has to use the onboard RAM, as opposed to having its own, and it's far from being a dedicated card. Sure, it's cheap. That's why the last thing you should compare it to is a Mac.

The llanos (A4, A6, A8) offers a much better balance of cpu and graphics. The worst case for llano; StarCraft II; still yields slightly better performance than a sandy bridge despite it being CPU-intensive. This means Intel is giving you more CPU than you need; perhaps catering to 2d/Farmville more than anything. (btw: macbook air doesn't have a dedicated card)

More CPU is great and all; on a desktop. On a laptop by paying a premium for that i7 sticker and you're just burning watts more than anything, considering rarely anything you would actually do on a laptop would require that additional CPU-power without complementing graphics. Perhaps this is why the llanos are getting up to 7 hours battery life for internet. Finally; the real bottleneck of a laptop is storage. "Throw in any recent SSD" and you'll get better performance than a Macbook Air because Apple uses last-generation samsung ssds.

As you can see below, the CPU is not the bottleneck. Even in StarCraft II, a Sandy Bridge processor gives performance more comparable to a mobile Athlon II

 

[Ghan]

I just don't really consider Sandy Bridge as a viable graphics solution at all. I would not get a SB laptop unless it also had a discrete graphics card on board, and hopefully a better one than the A8 comes with. A8 is fine for the low end stuff when money is tight, but even for a mid-range laptop, I'd expect to pay something like $700 - $900 and get a good Sandy Bridge chip plus a discrete card.

 

[Icyculyr]

Was looking at laptops for a friend, and I came across this HP g6-1b60us for $400. Quite possibly the king of budget laptops.

A4-3300M
15.6" HP BrightView LED Display (1366 x 768)
AMD Radeon™ HD 6480G
5.22 lbs

4GB DDR3
500GB (5400RPM) SATA
Up to 7 hours battery life (internet)

DVD + Webcam + Wireless-N + Windows7 Home

Doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it; one review mentioned a lack of BIOS options and noisy fan (seems isolated)

Throw in any recent SSD and this will give you better real-world performance than a high-end macbook air. Of course; it's twice as heavy, doesn't calculate pi as fast, and won't get you laid... but it'll help your triceps and you'll be able to spend that extra thousand on something else.

Feel free to challenge this!

Why on earth would you compare this to a MacBook Air? The whole point of the MacBook Air is that it's so light and thin. These are in completely different categories and shouldn't be compared, but anyway

The closest comparable model of the MacBook Air is the $1,299 model.

• i5-2557 1.7GHz dual-core
• 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM
• 128GB Flash Storage
• Intel HD Graphics 3000
• Up to 7 hours of battery life
• Weighs 2.9 pounds, very thin

Take off $400 from $1300 you get $900. Take off $200 for the 128GB SSD you you're left with only $700 (not $1,000) and a slower and heavier machine. And, I'd have no doubt that the MacBook Air would outlast this in battery life -- Apple switched to more accurate battery life tests a while back.

I just do research; that's all.

That i5-2557M is about the same as the i5 450M in the 2010 MBP performance-wise. Notebookcheck and Passmark agree.

The i5 450M is on par with a AMD Phenom II X4 N930. Notebookcheck, Passmark, and Google agree.

Now is it crazy to say a dual-core llano will be on par with a quad-core phenom II in terms of real-world performance? Are you going to be encoding for disney on a budget laptop? Intel fanboys.

Notebookcheck shows the A4-3300M (2c/2t) scoring 3,300 in Cinebench R10. The i5-2557M 1.7GHz (2c/4t) scores 6,300.

 

[Slapshot136]

based off what you just posted, the SB integrated graphics is BETTER then your weak dedicated card - true it's not a gamer card, but at sub $500 it's still better then what you have in terms of gaming, and it will also be better in terms of battery life (hint: a stronger CPU does NOT consume more power per task, it only finishes the task quicker)

 

[Darthfett]

it will also be better in terms of battery life (hint: a stronger CPU does NOT consume more power per task, it only finishes the task quicker)

Also, take another look at the notebookcheck pages. The A4-3300M uses 35W of power, while the i5-2557M uses a mere 17W. While this doesn't contradict your point, it illustrates that there can be a large difference in power consumed, for less than double performance. It's unlikely that it'll use the same amount of power, and I don't think the power saving features are as efficient as to reduce power consumed to 0 when not in use.

Take off $400 from $1300 you get $900.

For what? The smaller case?

 

[Icyculyr]

Also, take another look at the notebookcheck pages. The A4-3300M uses 35W of power, while the i5-2557M uses a mere 17W. While this doesn't contradict your point, it illustrates that there can be a large difference in power consumed, for less than double performance. It's unlikely that it'll use the same amount of power, and I don't think the power saving features are as efficient as to reduce power consumed to 0 when not in use.

I think the extra power draw for the A4 is the 6480G.

For what? The smaller case?

He said you'd have $1,000 left over after you buy this $400 laptop instead of the MacBook Air. Subtract $400 from $1,300 and you get $900, etc.

based off what you just posted, the SB integrated graphics is BETTER then your weak dedicated card - true it's not a gamer card, but at sub $500 it's still better then what you have in terms of gaming, and it will also be better in terms of battery life (hint: a stronger CPU does NOT consume more power per task, it only finishes the task quicker)

Err, can you re-word that? I'm very confused. You say the SB IGP is better than the weak dedicated card (implying the 6840G and neither laptops have dedicated cards) and then you say the sub $500 machine will be better in battery life because it has a more powerful CPU? Huh?

1) 6840G > HD 3000 (from what I can tell)
2) i5-2557M > A4
3) MBA battery life > $400 laptop battery life

 

[JerseyFoo]

>Slapshot
No comment; you should be familiar with the technologies before debating them.

Icyulyr,

Why on earth would you compare this to a MacBook Air? The whole point of the MacBook Air is that it's so light and thin. These are in completely different categories and shouldn't be compared, but anyway

I was only comparing real-world performance.

Notebookcheck shows the A4-3300M (2c/2t) scoring 3,300 in Cinebench R10. The i5-2557M 1.7GHz (2c/4t) scores 6,300.

There isn't enough benchmark data available on the A-series. Notebookcheck isn't even using market laptops in the whole 2 samples they have per benchmark (presamples). Passmark claims they're on par with 32 samples. Reviews also speak highly of the performance, and it makes economical sense. The A4-3300M also has much greater performance than the E-350 which scored around 2400.

Take off $400 from $1300 you get $900. Take off $200 for the 128GB SSD you you're left with only $700 (not $1,000) and a slower and heavier machine. And, I'd have no doubt that the MacBook Air would outlast this in battery life -- Apple switched to more accurate battery life tests a while back.

It was an estimation/exaggeration. And yes, amazingly, they do have equivalent battery life. Reviews confirmed 7 hours internet for the A4-3300M.

I'm not trying to say this is a Macbook Air replacement. Simply in terms of real cpu performance, graphics, and battery life; they are nearly equal.

 

[Slapshot136]

>Slapshot
No comment; you should be familiar with the technologies before debating them.

from the graphics review you posted, the intel integrated beat the AMD graphics - I still don't understand your "balance" if I can find a laptop that has a much better CPU, better graphics, and for a similar price (the laptop I posted originally was $499, yours is $477) - the only difference is that yours is a quite a bit larger at 16" vs 13" (yet you compared it to a macbook air, so I looked for a smallish laptop)

 

[JerseyFoo]

from the graphics review you posted, the intel integrated beat the AMD graphics - I still don't understand your "balance" if I can find a laptop that has a much better CPU, better graphics, and for a similar price (the laptop I posted originally was $499, yours is $477) - the only difference is that yours is a quite a bit larger at 16" vs 13" (yet you compared it to a macbook air, so I looked for a smallish laptop)

The AMD processor has better graphics; integrated graphics. I suggest you read again. Original price was $400 also, and it seemed like a stable price. Besides, it's easy to find a sale on a better laptop at a higher price. This was also $499 when you linked your example.

The machine you linked was sold out at the time, had less powerful graphics, and less than half the battery life.

As for balance, just answer this; what application do you have for a laptop which is bottle necked by the cpu in the sense that it will significantly affect real-world performance?

 

[Slapshot136]

As for balance, just answer this; what application do you have for a laptop which is bottle necked by the cpu in the sense that it will significantly affect real-world performance?

well I personally use my laptop when traveling mostly, since I have a desktop, so I would be using it to manage my pictures, I use both Picasa for it face grouping/recognition, photoshop to touch them up (bad lighting, etc.), and also for converting movies (dvd/blu-ray copies that I make so I can save on battery life and not use the cd/dvd drive) to 480p so I can watch them on my phone smoothly while in the train/etc. without my phone having to down-size them - all of these are fairly CPU intensive, and I do them on a thinkpad x220 (a 13.3" laptop, not a huge 17.3" like the ones you are linking now).

it was in-stock when I posted it.. quite a few were sold, I don't see the problem with posting good deals as opposed to bad deals when you are doing a value comparison, I will take your word that yours was $400 as well then, but I would still prefer the 13" even with a regular hard drive as opposed to a small SSD on a 16"

 

[Icyculyr]

>Slapshot
No comment; you should be familiar with the technologies before debating them.

Icyulyr,

I was only comparing real-world performance.

Sure, but why? Why not a MacBook Pro for example which is at least in the same category?

There isn't enough benchmark data available on the A-series. Notebookcheck isn't even using market laptops in the whole 2 samples they have per benchmark (presamples). Passmark claims they're on par with 32 samples. Reviews also speak highly of the performance, and it makes economical sense. The A4-3300M also has much greater performance than the E-350 which scored around 2400.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that according to Notebookcheck the A4-3300M (2c/2t) scores half that of the A8-3510MX (4c/4t) which is only on par with the i5-2557M (2c/4t). Here's a benchmark of the i3 2100 (2c/4t) and the A4, A6, and the A8: http://wccftech.com/official-amd-llano-fusion-aseries-apus-benchmark-performance-detailed-computex-2011/

You can clearly see that in PCMark the i3 is on par with the A8. But in 3DMark (including graphics) it clearly wins. This lines up with Notebookcheck as well. The i3 runs at 3.1GHz with no Turbo, the i5-2557 runs at 1.7GHz but turbo's up to 2.7GHz and it's also a newer architecture.

It was an estimation/exaggeration. And yes, amazingly, they do have equivalent battery life. Reviews confirmed 7 hours internet for the A4-3300M.

I'm not trying to say this is a Macbook Air replacement. Simply in terms of real cpu performance, graphics, and battery life; they are nearly equal.

In terms of CPU the i5-2557 is significantly better than the A4. You can't expected a lower clocked AMD A4 CPU to perform on par with a higher clocked Intel SB CPU that has two more threads than the A4. In terms of the GPU the 6480G is significantly better than the HD 3000 graphics. And I really doubt this $400 laptop has battery life on par with the MacBook Air, but perhaps I'm wrong (I suppose it is larger) -- got any links? This shows the MacBook Air's battery life: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4528/the-2011-macbook-air-11-13inch-review/13

 

[Slapshot136]

Even in StarCraft II, a Sandy Bridge processor gives performance more comparable to a mobile Athlon II

ah, this is what I thought your original laptop had (or equivalent), I stand corrected - the one in your laptop is a notch above the SB integrated, but not by that much