Conclusion: The Mini 5103 Is Decent, but Dual-Core Atom Isn’t Enough

Let’s start by focusing on the components we’re testing today. The Atom N550 is currently the fastest netbook Atom processor in terms of overall performance, with two cores plus Hyper-Threading. The lower 1.50GHz clock speed does put it behind single-core Atom CPUs in a few areas, but in general it’s a performance improvement. That’s the good news. The bad news is that overall power requirements put it very close to the old CULV SU4100/SU7300 processors, based on our battery life results, and such systems manage roughly double the CPU performance with better graphics (specifically video decoding) support as well. Given the alternatives already out there for more than a year, the only major selling point for N550 we can see is if you want a 10” or smaller chassis. There’s also pricing, which starts at around $350 on other N550 equipped netbooks, but don’t forget to factor in the RAM, HDD, OS, and other benefits that generally come with CULV laptops.

Looking just at the performance side of things, then, the current Atom landscape fails to impress. Intel knows this, and so do the manufacturers, which is why the focus with netbooks now is more about providing an inexpensive secondary mobile device where you can access all of your regular programs and data, albeit slowly. HP certainly puts a lot of emphasis on those areas, with a fast Gigabit Ethernet connection and their QuickSync software providing an easy way to make sure all your important content is ready for you to grab and go. Syncing still takes longer than we’d expect, especially when you initially set things up: we saw network transfer speeds of anywhere from 1-2MB/s up to 15-20MB/s over a Gigabit switch, compared to standard file copies in the 45+MB/s range. Once the initial sync is complete, however, the Mini 5103 will stay current a lot easier.

In terms of improvements, outside of Atom getting faster/better (which should happen towards the end of 2011), the one area we would like to see addressed on the 5103 design is the battery. The small 4-cell battery is simply too small in our opinion, and while some users will like the slightly lighter weight it brings, the bigger issue is with the 6-cell battery sticking out the bottom of the chassis. If HP can figure out a way to make the 6-cell battery fit flush with the chassis, that would address the only major complaint we have with the design. Of course, other improvements are possible; the default install has a lot of extra software running—like the above ProtectTools, QuickSync, etc. It’s Catch-22, but extra processes running on Atom makes for an even slower computing experience. We recommend keeping it lean and clean, but perhaps business users prefer the extra utilities.

Features like the above are why the Mini 5103 targets the business sector, and it’s why HP is willing to put a lot more money into build quality and materials. The result is definitely pleasing, but the added cost can be a tough pill to swallow. The basic Mini 5103 starts at just under $400 online, with 1GB RAM and an N455 CPU. You can grab a Lenovo IdeaPad with similar specs for about $100 less (but without Bluetooth). Take the 5103 up to 2GB and an N550 CPU like our test unit, toss in a 768p display, and the regular price (i.e. no special discounts applied) is $632. Finding similar features in other netbooks is a bit difficult, but you can get the Samsung NF310 with a 1366x768 display, N550, and 1GB RAM for around $380; upgrading the memory to 2GB should only cost an additional $25. So again, we’re back to features.

If you’re after an attractive and well-built netbook with business class features like HP’s QuickSync, HP’s ProtectTools Security Manager, and WWAN connectivity, the Mini 5103 doesn’t really have much in the way of direct netbook competition. However, as tested it ships with a price north of $600, putting it into competition with plenty of other laptops. Given the incremental increase in performance that the N550 offers combined with the substantially higher price if you custom configure a Mini 5103, we recommend sticking with the base model and keeping the price down.

Looking at the bigger picture, given HP’s various AMD-based laptop offerings—they’re one of the better sources for AMD laptops and notebooks—we also expect to see them jump on the Brazos bandwagon next year. That could mean improved performance in every area relative to Atom, hopefully without sacrificing battery life. It will be interesting to see if HP is willing to make a “business netbook” like the 5103 based on Brazos, or if they continue to stick with Intel offerings for business products.

HP Mini 5103 LCD
Comments Locked

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • seanleeforever - Monday, December 20, 2010 - link

    your logic is flawed.

    instead of spending money on laptop/desktop/netbook and what have you, and only uses 1/4 of your investment every time, you could simply buy a ultra portable, and use your investment 100% of time. (not to mention the hassle of migrate files, sync folder and what not).

    my x201 tablet weights about 3 lbs, 7 hr battery life, i7 core, ssd and IPS. small, light, portable (very portable because it is a tablet), and process 1080p flash and still have 60% of cpu power to do other stuff.

    sure it is costly on the paper (about 10 time more expensive than my HP Mini 210), but i use it 100% of time.
  • synaesthetic - Monday, December 20, 2010 - link

    I disagree with netbooks being portable. They're more portable, but when I had a netbook and a desktop compared to having just a full-size laptop, I used my netbook no more often than I use my laptop now. It was not any easier to quickly check something, because I still had to boot it... wait for the OS to start... be near a wifi connection... etc.

    My smartphone fills the portability niche.
  • LoneWolf15 - Monday, December 20, 2010 - link

    I just got a Dell Latitude E4200 from their Outlet for $690 after tax. That includes the following:

    SU9600 processor
    2GB RAM
    12.1" 1200x800 matte display with full-size keyboard
    64GB SSD and external eSATA DVD writer
    Six-cell battery

    The HP netbook is pretty cool if you want new, but I got a 3-year warranty with the Latitude, but when I can get a $1700 ultraportable as a certified-refurb for about the same as the HP, and it performs faster and has superior construction quality (not that the HP is bad, just the Latitude is killer), then the Latitude wins. I was also able to easily add a WWAN card after the fact.

    Still, HP is moving in the right direction with this. I hope more vendors will do so.
  • Guspaz - Monday, December 20, 2010 - link

    Atom has been on the market for almost three years now, and despite this fact, no significant advances have been made in power efficiency or performance.

    Compare the Atom 330, which came out in mid 2008 to the N550, reviewed today. Their power draw is about the same (8.5W versus 8W), and their performance and clockspeed is about the same (1.6GHz versus 1.5GHz).

    Atom was underpowered when it was released, but fast enough to be useful. Today, performance is about the same, but the demands placed on it are higher. The end result is that Atom just gets worse and worse.

    ULV products are a lot more interesting.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, December 20, 2010 - link

    The only problem with your post is that the Atom 330 didn't have SpeedStep, it didn't have an IGP, and it didn't have DDR3 support. We looked at the ASUS 1201N way back in the day with Atom 330 + ION, and because of the lack of SpeedStep the battery life was about half of what you can now do with the N550. But the rest of what you say is true, and I really hope the next Atom revision does more to improve the status of netbooks.
  • synaesthetic - Monday, December 20, 2010 - link

    I'm afraid it won't, because Intel has already spent a great deal of time badmouthing netbooks as primary computing devices. They don't want netbooks to compete with their more expensive mobile processor lines. Hell, this is why they killed the SU2300 in the first place; because Acer was selling Aspire 1410s with that chip for $400 and it was selling like hotcakes, scarcely slower than the more expensive CULV chips!
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, December 23, 2010 - link

    I'm not so sure about your "simple math", rarson. The 5103 has a 29Wh battery, not a 66Wh battery (that upgrade is available, but it's not what I tested).

    Based on the figures in my review, at idle the Mini 5103 uses just 6.8W total. In the Internet test it uses 9.0W, and in the x264 test (the "worst case" scenario) it hits 12.9W. Of course, those are all on battery power, and I'd assume there's some inefficiency in getting power out of the battery and into the system.

    As a secondary test, I just plugged the Mini 5103 into a Kill-A-Watt device to test power draw. Power adapter efficiency certainly comes into play in this test, and if it's 80% efficient (reasonable) the actual power draw is pretty close to the above calculations.
    Idle: 10W
    x264 playback: 13.5W
    Cinebench SMP: 15W

    So, again, TDP doesn't necessarily tell you a whole lot. Idle power requirements are much lower than TDP, and even heavy use will rarely hit TDP on everything, so you can't just add CPU, chipset, HDD, etc. TDPs to figure out how much power a system will actually use.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now