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
araczynski - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
big screen and low resolution = yuck, well, unless of course you wear glasses.Mugur - Friday, October 9, 2009 - link
Old 690 chipset? With integrated video disabled and discrete video card? And a weak cpu? Target for this: low power=fail, long battery life=fail, performance=fail (unless compared with an Atom).I have an MSI S420 with 14", 1280x800, CeleronM 1.73 Ghz and Radeon Xpress 200m chipset/integrated video. It has only 1.9 kg without the charger (with 3 cell battery - 2h). I can see no difference :-)... I bought it for ~ 400 Euros.
Equ1n0x - Friday, October 9, 2009 - link
Why are manufacturers still making these things with these big screens? Put this in a 12.1" or even better an 11.6" factor with these specs, and it will sell. People aren't going to buy big laptops with lower end specs no matter how light they are - if you are in the market for a large screen PC, you most likely want something performance oriented.The 11.6 and 12.1 market desperately needs some PC's with decent hardware (read, decent graphics chips). The last thing we need on the market is another Atom/GMA950 and the last thing we need is a large, slow laptop. We need small and decent for a change, without paying an arm and a leg.
qwertymac93 - Friday, October 9, 2009 - link
you mean something like the msi u210?i do believe i just blew your mind.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 9, 2009 - link
The MSI U210 has the same MV-40 CPU, but it uses the RS690E IGP, which is an X1270 (or X1250). Needless to say, GPU power is quite a bit lower than the HD 4330, but it's probably a better match for the MV-40. Battery life is reported as around 4 hours - nowhere near the Atom netbook level, but probably 50-100% better performance.Mugur - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Not to mention the lack of 1080p video acceleration (just 720p is working and not always).Also the drivers for 690 platforms are not updated anymore at AMD...
It should have a 780 chipset.
Mugur - Friday, October 9, 2009 - link
...bought it 4 years ago.vlado08 - Thursday, October 8, 2009 - link
Hi Jarred,I'm glad that you've mentioned the POST times.
For me it just does not make any sense. To have such fast SSDs made form flash chips and OS to load faster than the POST which is a small program written also on a flash chip.
Something should be done here. I hope that Intel is going again to lead the way and probably every body else will follow. If they want Moblin to load for less than 10 seconds.
But until then you should ask these questions again and again - Why so slow? How are you going to make people buy?
And if you give information to us which system has faster POST we will make our choice (our vote)!
juampavalverde - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
This people still dont get that OLD CHIPSETS + DEDICATED VIDEO eat more power than NEW CHIPSETS (780/785g or lower speed variants)... This kind of garbage could be an easier sell on a nettop, but a netbook is about low power and mobility, if they can get good enough performance with less power, why keep choosing this kind of junk?JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
My personal thought is that MSI made the X600 and people said, "cool but it costs $800 and that's too much." So they took the design and said, "let's do it with an AMD CPU instead to cut costs." What they needed to do was go with an AMD CPU and IGP and ditch the HD 4330. Even then, I'm not sure if they could keep it close to 5+ hours of battery, which is what you really want if you're going for this sort of thin and light design.