TCLee
03-24-2003, 07:42 AM
Heyas,
Saw the new Viao and it prompted me to think about the real need of a mobile processor.
Vaio:
1. 2.6 P4 processor (400FSB)
2. 512 mb RAM
3. 2 drives adding up to 60GB
4. 64mb Mobility Radeon 9000
5. DVDRW
6. 16.1 UXGA
M50
1. 2.2 P4-M processor (400FSB)
2. 512 mb RAM
3. 1 60gb drive
4. 64mb Q4 700go GL
5. DVD drive
6. 15.1 UXGA
The Viao is supposed (I know that quoted times are not based on real world usage and also that it depends a lot on what its being used for) to last 2.5hrs on a single batt. 3.5 on 2 batts.
The Dell lasts bout the same on both counts, both also supposed quoted times (even tho I know it to be 'fairly' accurate as I have one)
I know that the Q4 probably guzzles up quite a bit of juice, but when you put it beside the Viao with an extra 1" of screen space to power, 1 extra drive, a desktop processor which is faster (esp when you consider that the quoted batt times on the Dell are actually based on a 1.2Ghz speed - stepping, and not a true 2.2) and the 64mb ATI 9000 which I think isn't that conservative on its power requirements anyways, why is the battery time so efficient?
And if thats the case, why the need for mobile processors? Especially considering the lower speed that they actually run on with batts.
Thanks!
Saw the new Viao and it prompted me to think about the real need of a mobile processor.
Vaio:
1. 2.6 P4 processor (400FSB)
2. 512 mb RAM
3. 2 drives adding up to 60GB
4. 64mb Mobility Radeon 9000
5. DVDRW
6. 16.1 UXGA
M50
1. 2.2 P4-M processor (400FSB)
2. 512 mb RAM
3. 1 60gb drive
4. 64mb Q4 700go GL
5. DVD drive
6. 15.1 UXGA
The Viao is supposed (I know that quoted times are not based on real world usage and also that it depends a lot on what its being used for) to last 2.5hrs on a single batt. 3.5 on 2 batts.
The Dell lasts bout the same on both counts, both also supposed quoted times (even tho I know it to be 'fairly' accurate as I have one)
I know that the Q4 probably guzzles up quite a bit of juice, but when you put it beside the Viao with an extra 1" of screen space to power, 1 extra drive, a desktop processor which is faster (esp when you consider that the quoted batt times on the Dell are actually based on a 1.2Ghz speed - stepping, and not a true 2.2) and the 64mb ATI 9000 which I think isn't that conservative on its power requirements anyways, why is the battery time so efficient?
And if thats the case, why the need for mobile processors? Especially considering the lower speed that they actually run on with batts.
Thanks!