[quote name='Ravyne' timestamp='1356518060' post='5014374']
Honestly, cheap 15.6" laptops are like a bad joke perpetrated on us by the computer industry[/quote]100% agreed. I've only bought a laptop so far (i3-330M based) and I cannot stress how much it sucks! I also had an atom 270, with worn-out SSD. It was flat out painful but at least it was something portable. Actually, I was positively impressed by the form factor, too bad it didn't cut it in the market.

I don't know how anyone here can support the idea of getting Intel graphics. Oh well, I finally got the chance to see HD4000 around here... it was about time!

[quote name='Krohm' timestamp='1356604334' post='5014665']

100% agreed. I've only bought a laptop so far (i3-330M based) and I cannot stress how much it sucks! I also had an atom 270, with worn-out SSD. It was flat out painful but at least it was something portable. Actually, I was positively impressed by the form factor, too bad it didn't cut it in the market.

I don't know how anyone here can support the idea of getting Intel graphics. Oh well, I finally got the chance to see HD4000 around here... it was about time!

[/quote]

You should see my mother - she keeps buying those underpowered Atom notebooks, I swear they literally have trouble playing back a webradio. But they're cheap, right?

As for Intel graphics, I agree completely. I still remember the days when I would need to heavily tweak even the least demanding game just to get a playable framerate on lowest settings. I came *that* close to getting one of those Clevo gaming laptops as a definitive remedy to my Intel GMA torment (ultimately opted for a desktop, though). But I will certainly never buy a DELL/Acer/etc laptop again for development or personal use. It just sucks.

I'm running an Intel 512 ( Dell N5010 ) ... displays bluray movies in HD .... and can handle games like Skyrim just fine ... you can not judge the new generation of laptop cards, based off of the old gen performance.

How about a Microsoft Surface Pro?

On Intel, I do wish they did a better job of separating their processors. i3/i5/i7 seems alright, but then you realize there are like 10 different i5s and i7s in the ivybridge line, and some perform drastically differently. I understand they want to kind of cover up the number of choices and give the user an expected performance range, but the worst i5 I think has like half the power of the best i5, which makes it seem ridiculous that they are grouped together under 'i5'.

The whole processor thing confuses me. I received a laptop recently with a single "Intel Core i7-2677M Processor 1.8GHz", and shrugged my shoulder in disdane* because my 5 year-old desktop has a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+ 2.4Ghz (Not incredible either, but the i7 has worse "numbers" to my non-hardware eyes).

Is a single Intel 1.8GHz i7 greater than a dual core 2.4GHz AMD processor?

*Not really, free is free, and I'm hoping to sell it. It's actually a pretty good laptop with a SSD and everything, but I'm a desktop user.

Is a single Intel 1.8GHz i7 greater than a dual core 2.4GHz AMD processor?

http://browser.primatelabs.com/

will give a rough idea

It's hard to fault it for the price - all the better things that people have posted about would cost more AFAIK.

If you were willing to spend more, the single best thing to improve how fast a computer feels (IMO) is an SSD. But that would make a significant increase in cost on a low computer.

You should see my mother - she keeps buying those underpowered Atom notebooks, I swear they literally have trouble playing back a webradio. But they're cheap, right?[/quote]They have their uses, specifically longer battery life, and not everyone cares about having high end CPU power, instead preferring portability (same as with ARM devices). Though if it can't even play webradio, that's a problem with that particular model. My Atom Samsung N220 has no trouble playing full screen video.

Personally I have a Clevo as my main machine, and the Samsung ultra-portable for when I'm travelling (even if I got a more powerful ultra-portable, it wouldn't be good enough for things like gaming - they all still have crappy Intel integrated graphics - so there's little point). Looking at the upcoming Windows hybrids, it's a similar situation: ARM is out for me because I want x86 full Windows (and ARM wouldn't be as powerful as Intel Core either anyway), and whilst I'd gladly spend more money on an Intel Core model, the battery life on the Atom Clover Trail models seems to be better.

Though, if your mother had some Atom based laptop that wasn't an ultra-portable (I see there are even desktop models), then yes that does seem more strange.

Servant of the Lord: I use something like www.cpubenchmark.net to get an idea of how CPUs compare.

Is a single Intel 1.8GHz i7 greater than a dual core 2.4GHz AMD processor?

Actually, an i7 will always have multiple cores (i.e. at least two like the Intel Core i7-2677M). I assume that they do not specifically mention it in the description you read is, that at least two cores is absolutely standard today (it's damn near impossible to get actual single core CPUs today. Hell, even mobile phones have up to five cores these days...[seen in the HTC One X, maybe newer phones have even more]).

I don't know how the one you mentioned compares to your current AMD CPU, though, but I think that has already been covered by the links posted by zedz and mdwh.

You're right, apparently it has two cores. The i7 is better, according to the CPUBenchmark.net site, which makes sense since that specific i7 was released only last year, and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ was released at least 5 years ago (though the benchmark site incorrectly says three years ago, mine came in the 5 year old computer I use).