Back to Article

  • SmCaudata - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    With the current processing power of Ivy Bridge I'm wondering what's the point? You can get small and lightweight versions with optical drives and the same screen resolution for about the same price as this laptop. The performance difference between normal voltage and low-voltage processors now does not matter for most users. I really feel that there should only be two classes of laptops now. The giant ones with high end GPUs (gaming or workstations) and the chassis that fit within the ultrabook spec.

    These companies could decrease the number of SKUs significantly by getting rid of these laptops. I'm sure people will buy them because the walk into a big box store and see an inexpensive laptop. They wouldn't be missed if they were off of the shelves. Also, it would help your brand image if all your products were well built with only internals making up the difference.
  • gamoniac - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I agree. It's become too confusing unless one follows a particular line closely and regularly.

    Personally the main thing I look at in any laptop specs are: Size, CPU/GPU, and screen resolution, in that order.

    The size is pretty self-explanatory -- you decide how big/heavy your laptop will be. CPU-wise, any mide to highend CPU are plenty powerful as long as I can mitigate the hard drive performance bottleneck by slapping in an SSD. The screen resolution is more often than not the reason I skip a review or move on to the next item on the shelf.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I'm confused about your comment. These Aspire V5 laptops are "small and lightweight with optical drives", and they come with the standard voltage processors. That's the whole point, unless somehow you mean you prefer models with ULV processors from other companies? If not, you might want to read the article a bit more carefully. Reply
  • DaveSimmons - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I see these as a good deal for someone looking for a budget general-use laptop. Making them thinner and lighter without spending the extra $200+ for high-end parts is a nice compromise for someone who doesn't want to spend $800+ Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    What the hell kind of scam is that? If it costs $450 for a sb notebook then how the hell can an ib notebook cost $630 when the chips are the same price???? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    We don't know the specifics of the $450 models. My guess is: Core i3 (or possibly even Celeron/Pentium branded 2nd Gen Core?), 250GB or 320GB HDD, and 4GB if you're lucky. The Ivy Bridge models will most likely have 500GB and 4GB or even 8GB RAM for $630. Anyway, we'll have to see what actually shows up, but regardless getting even Core i3 IVB for $630 is pretty reasonable. Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    Well, still seems kind of expensive to me, especially for an Acer. Maybe they will up the quality.

    But you can get an A6 Llano for 400-450 dollars, which seems like a better deal to me. Actually, seems like Llano/Trinity would be an ideal fit for these cheaper laptops. No way would I consider Sandy Bridge in a laptop now vs AMD with better graphics and also since Ivy is out with lower power use and better graphics as well.

    They would have to really cut the price dramatically, somewhere well below 400.00 for me to consider a SB laptop now.
  • starcrab - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I own 8943g 17" Acer notebook. It over heat under heavy load Or gaming. Very very disappointed and will never buy any account Acer again! Reply
  • ajp_anton - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    This must mean it's NOT 1366x768, because it's not exactly 16:9. Reply
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    My thoughts exactly. :-) Maybe they've downgraded to 1280x720... Reply
  • KitsuneKnight - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    Since they refrained from specifying the resolution, that seems by far the most likely resolution (unless they opted for some odd resolution, like 1024x576!). If it was higher than 1366x768, you better believe they'd be advertising it that way! Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that their "true 16:9" is just regular old 1366x768, even if that's not exactly 16:9. Besides, 1366x768 is 1.7786 aspect ratio while 16:9 is 1.7778; I doubt anyone is really going to care about the 0.05% difference, especially since outside of HDTV most content isn't 16:9 AR anyway. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now