4 ms·
It depends on the processor. A low-end single-core Intel Atom is okay for light browsing. But some ultra-portables with dual-core CPU's are much zippier, e.g.,
by rjbond3rd 15y ago
It depends on the processor. A low-end single-core Intel Atom is okay for light browsing.
But some ultra-portables with dual-core CPU's are much zippier, e.g., the Thinkpad x120e with the dual-core AMD Fusion E350.
- dexen 15y agoFor most uses it depends on memory too: both RAM and mass storage. A typical user has a browser, an IM and some other window opened most of the time. A bunch of systray icons, perhaps also antivirus, if MS Windows. A typical netbook is underprovisioned in RAM and has slow storage to match; pain both when starting up and in case of swapping VM pages. Topped up with a joke of a GPU, likely using up access cycles of system memory instead of having own dedicated RAM. Less display estate (pixel-wise) means you have to Alt+Tab or scroll around more often, too; sucking up your time. So no, CPU doesn't have to be the only choke point in a netbook, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahls_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahls_law kicks in.
- dorian-graph 15y agoMy netbook was originally 1GB so I bought a 2GB stick for dirt cheap, something like $20 or so. And this may sound painful but on the 10.1" screen I would have 2 windows next to each other, split vertically so each taking up half the screen, and it was fine.
- rjbond3rd 15y agoInteresting. My case is perhaps unusual since I never use more than 800Mb of RAM. I am running Linux, a browser and a terminal. So on all my machines, I only have 1Gb installed and no swap. I did add an SSD but other than boot time, did not get any benefit since everything fits in RAM and there's no swap. So that's why I consider CPU to be the bottleneck for me.