MSI X610: Supersizing the Netbook?
by Jarred Walton on October 6, 2009 10:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
X610 General Windows Performance
Quite a few people have asked for some general performance numbers in terms of Windows boot/shutdown, hibernate/resume, and sleep/wake times. These obviously vary quite a bit between runs, depending on what you've been doing on the computer. If you have a bunch of open applications, it will take longer for the system to enter sleep mode for example. We performed these tests on all of the netbooks and laptops from an empty Windows desktop, and we used the best-case result for each system.
As a side note, all of these tests benefit greatly from a fast SSD, though spending $200+ on an SSD for a $350 netbook may not be the best investment of funds. Regardless, SSDs will help application load times as well as Windows boot/hibernate/sleep times. We also need to note that the NV52 and NV58 run Windows Vista 64-bit and include 4GB RAM, which means they take noticeably longer in the hibernate/resume tests. We also included results with Windows XP 32-bit as a point of reference.
Not surprisingly, with Windows Vista and a single-core processor plus 2GB RAM, the X610 doesn't fare too well in typical OS boot/shutdown testing. It's by far the slowest laptop to start Windows, and one of the slowest for shutting down. The hibernate time is good, however, as is the wake time. One of the worst performances is in the sleep result, where it takes almost twice as long as competing netbooks/notebooks. It is also near the back of the pack when it comes to resume times.
It's worth noting that despite having a "quick boot" option enabled in the BIOS, BIOS POST times are extremely slow. The MSI X610 takes about 12.5 seconds to POST. Of course, the Gateway notebooks aren't much better, requiring about 8 seconds on the NV58 and 10 seconds on the NV52. Needless to say, the netbooks are clearly better optimized in this area, often taking only a second or two to POST. This is something that can be fixed, and frankly it should never be a problem on any current laptop. Unfortunately, manufacturers appear to be lazy in this area.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
stmok - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
It looks like the X610 is based on the elements of AMD's ultra thin notebook platform. (The first generation is codenamed: "Yukon".)The 2nd generation is "Congo". AMD's PR has a look at the prototype of Congo...Its actually an MSI X-series!
=> http://blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/2009/09/09/congo-...">http://blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/2009/0...eneratio...
This newer generation does feature the 780G chipset with Radeon HD 3200 IGP and dual-core CPU (also at 1.6Ghz).
The PR rep reckons you'll gain an hour or so with the 2nd generation "Congo".
Think I'll hold out for that...
ckistner - Thursday, October 8, 2009 - link
LG P300/310 is a great little machine as well.13.3 LED
Dualcore T8100 2.1 GHz
4 gig ram
Nvidia 8600m GS
external dvd rom
3-4 hrs battery life
Its price is a bit higher than the x610 but worth it imo.
JimmyJimmington - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
Dell Studio 14z is the better choice.Higher res screen.
Nvidia 9400M
A real processor
Same weight, still relatively thin.
Seriously what is the appeal of a super thin computer? Weight is absolutely important when you wanna carry your laptop around, but thinness just means more heat, or a crap CPU to keep the laptop from getting hot.
AznBoi36 - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
Considering the Radeon card has 512MB vram, couldn't you have set the quality settings to medium perhaps?JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
As mentioned at the bottom of the page, I tested most of the games at medium details as well (at least, the games where the CPU wasn't such a huge bottleneck that the game wasn't playable at minimum detail). Many of the playable games remained playable at 1366x768, and a couple could handle medium quality as well. Actually, Fallout 3 (27 FPS) and Empire TW (21 FPS) are the only games playable at medium 1366x768 - everything else is under 20FPS. Empire would also be a problem at 21, except mouse input isn't tied to the rendering rate (just like Maxis does with Sims and Spore), so lower frame rates are still okay.Totally - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
the X610 is in dire need of a stronger CPU. As-is it doesn't have an argument against the nv58/nv52.Abhilash - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
recent launched 45nm dual core neo on the X610 would have been greatqwertymac93 - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
why are dual core neos so rare? if this thing had a dual core neo instead of that dumb 4330, it would actually make sense. why is the 780g chipset so rare as well? these companies act like using a dual core neo and 780g in the same computer would rip a whole in the space/time continuum!togaman5000 - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
I've got the x600, and despite the lower number, I've gotten five or more hours of battery life and better performance out of it.JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
Yeah, that's what I've heard. I actually requested the X600 for review and they accidentally sent the X610 instead. I figured it would be interesting to see what the AMD Neo had to offer, but it's really difficult to say when we've got Neo + HD 4330. If the X600 offers two hours more battery life and the only difference is the CPU/chipset, that's not a good sign for the Yukon platform. Still, it's tough to draw any firm conclusions with just one sample.