ASUS Eee PC 1005PE: Pineview Arrives
by Jarred Walton on December 21, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Mobile Test Setup
Below are the specifications for the ASUS 1005PE we're testing. We'll include performance results from other similarly priced laptops, with a bit of leeway on total cost. The 1005PE targets a price of $300 to $380, so it's basically filling the same role as previous Atom netbooks. $30 more brings in competition from entry-level laptops and CULV offerings. We'll include ASUS' own UL80Vt as the high-water mark of what you can get for $800 (twice the price for well more than twice the performance), and we'll toss in results from a Gateway EC5409u with SU4100 CULV CPU. Spoiling our future article somewhat, we'll also have preliminary results for the Eee PC 1201N. Test specs of these laptops are included below.
| ASUS Eee PC 1005PE Test System | |
| Processor |
Intel Atom N450 (1.66GHz + SMT, 45nm, 512KB L2, 533FSB, 5.5W) |
| Memory | 1x1GB DDR2-667 (Max 1x2GB) |
| Graphics | Intel GMA 3150 (in CPU Package) |
| Display | 10.1" LED Glossy 16:9 WSVGA (1024x600) |
| Hard Drive(s) | 250GB 5400RPM HDD |
| Optical Drive | N/A |
| Battery | 6-Cell, 10.8V, 5800mAh, 63Wh |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Starter |
| Pricing |
Available in January @ $379 MSRP as configured Smaller HDD and 48Wh battery for $299 MSRP |
| ASUS Eee PC 1201N Test System | |
| Processor |
Intel Atom 330 (2x1.6GHz + SMT, 45nm, 2x512KB L2, 533FSB, 8W) |
| Memory | 1x2GB DDR2-667 (Max 1x2GB) |
| Graphics | NVIDIA ION (16 SPs) |
| Display | 12.1" LED Glossy 16:9 768p (1366x768) |
| Hard Drive(s) | 250GB 5400RPM HDD |
| Optical Drive | N/A |
| Battery | 6-Cell, 11.25V, 5600mAh, 63Wh |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit |
| Pricing | Available Online starting at $471 |
| Gateway EC5409u Test System | |
| Processor |
Intel Pentium SU4100 (2x1.3GHz, 45nm, 2MB L2, 800FSB, 10W) |
| Memory | 2x2GB DDR3-1066 (Max 2x4GB) |
| Graphics | Intel GMA 4500MHD IGP |
| Display | 15.6" LED Glossy 16:9 768p (1366x768) |
| Hard Drive(s) | 320GB 5400RPM HDD |
| Optical Drive | 8x DVDR SuperMulti |
| Battery | 6-Cell, 11.1V, 5600mAh, 62Wh |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit |
| Pricing | Available Online starting at $620 |
Before anyone complains that the EC5409u is substantially more expensive than the Eee PC netbooks, let us again mention the Acer Aspire 1410. It has 2x1GB RAM, a smaller HDD, and an SU2300 CPU, which makes it about 15% slower than the EC5409u. Basically, the two systems should perform roughly the same, and the Aspire 1410 costs $417 (which is already up $20 since we started talking about it two weeks ago).
We'll include the usual assortment of application benchmarks along with a few graphics tests courtesy of 3DMark. If you're wondering, actual gaming performance with the new Atom N450 is still unacceptable on anything but the least demanding titles. Battery life is arguably going to be the most important aspect for these systems, so we'll run our usual assortment of battery drain tests. Given the timing of our receiving the 1005PE and our NDA deadline, we were only able to run one of our battery life tests over the weekend, but we will update with additional battery life tests as we complete them.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
krazyderek - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
the last two sentences pretty much sum it up for me.thornburg - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
I'm used to articles on Anandtech being more scientific and thorough than some of the recent fare, and particularly this article.If you're speculating about the differences between Win7 and XP causing performance issues, why not install the same OS on both machines and try it? It's silly and unprofessional to speculate when there is a fairly simple way to test.
What's the story? Why leave the topic only half investigated?
Zero110 - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
I imagine it's for the same reason that the battery life tests are "half-done." Limited time, and over a weekend no less. They'd rather have this and updates down the road then get scooped by every other tech site.JarredWalton - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
Yeah, that's about it. Working over 24 hours over a weekend to post an article like this stinks, especially when it's close to Christmas. So I ran as many tests as I could squeeze in.More than that, there's really nothing special about the PCMark results. The detailed results table tells us what we need to know in most areas: Pineview is similar to Diamondville in most areas, and HDD, RAM, and other system components come into play with a composite score like PCMark. It's really not a big improvement from previous Atom designs, outside of the battery life issue.
Zero110 - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
I actually wasn't expecting any updates this morning because of the season. I guess Intel screwed you on that one. For what basically amounts to a non-event for most people. But, thanks for all the hard work. Merry Christmas to you, and wish everyone else on the staff a Happy Soonest Applicable Holiday.crimson117 - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
And especially for such an underwhelming product... ;)
R3MF - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
Hi AT team,How come the 3250 is SOOOOOOO bad?
I know the GMA 3100 is pretty rubbish, but it was way better than the GMA 950, but that isn't apparent today.
How has this come to pass?
JarredWalton - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
The X3100 was a much bigger step up from the 3100. X3100 is DX10 (supposedly -- drivers make this a questionable claim), and it has 8 pixel shaders vs. 4 on the 3100. When you couple an IGP like GMA 3100 with a single channel memory controller in a netbook, you cut bandwidth to the system in half, and it was already a limiting situation. The net result is that GMA 950 and 3150 are about the same, which is to say they're junk.R3MF - Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - link
Thanks for the info, didn't know that. :)Regards
SilthDraeth - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link
Just wondering, and would this chip work in the Ion platforms?