December 6th, 2005, 04:08 PM
Another Budget Notebook test --X-bit labs
Notebook test here.
Just starting to read it now -- comments later, but I wanted to give everyone else a headstart also. This one includes an Acer and an HP NX-6xxx model.
Acer Aspire 3003NLC
Fujitsu Siemens Amilo Pro V2030
HP Compaq nx6110
Toshiba Satellite M35X-S111
December 6th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Thanks, DanceMan. I have just ordered an HP NX6125-a Turion machine with a 3-year warranty (I am big on warranties on laptops) to replace my now defunct Toshiba P-III. One version of that HP 6110 that is listed on your link is $599 US on Newegg, after rebates. Pretty stripped down, but still...
December 6th, 2005, 04:39 PM
Well, so far Acer doesn't look good, and the HP nx6110 does. The Acer has a poor screen, a half empty battery (4-cell?), flexy frame. The HP has a full battery, solid construction, decent but limited brightness screen.
This is the info I was looking for. Both brands were not represented in the Anandtech report. The Compaq version of HP/C were, but I think it was a very different line than the nx6xxx series.
December 6th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Yeah, the author sure raked Acer over the coals (I can't believe it doesn't even ship with Windows)! He didn't seem to like much about any of the notebooks, or at least that's what I picked up in his tone. These are budget notebooks, so yeah, there will be design flaws and limitations. Looks like Toshiba and Asus faired pretty well in battery life anyway.
Give what you cannot keep to gain what you cannot lose.
December 6th, 2005, 06:31 PM
"Yeah, the author sure raked Acer over the coals (I can't believe it doesn't even ship with Windows)!"
Acer's had one model, a version of the bottom-end TM2312, very briefly available here in NA with just a linux boot disk. It didn't stay around long. Mustn't attract too much attention from M$.
Still, I was disappointed with the Acer's screen and the flimsy chassis and screen frame.
The Sempron 3000 did very well in performance against the Cel M's and the SiS chipset did very well in hdd performance. The SiS graphics were the worst in the test. Battery life could not be compared due to the half-size battery. Also interesting were the comments that I perceived as saying that the two battery tests measured only two states: max and min. To really know how the cpu throttling performed in hand with chipset power saving needs a more comprehensive test.
The HP nx6110 looked quite good.
December 6th, 2005, 09:21 PM
This quote says it all. My feeling is that if you're going to spend $600 on a medium-poor notebook, you might as well shell out $800 for a relatively good one.
Unfortunately, I cannot recommend any of the presented notebooks as the best one just because all devices in this low-end class are a compromise between price and everything else. What troubles me most is the low quality of the screens.
Acer's "built-in UPS" is one of those things that has always amazed me. It's not even as if they save a whole lot of weight doing this.
We all Think Different too.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)