[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]1) was the Internet cache on XP cleared, or had that machine already loaded the site? This could disadvantage a mobile platform that does not cache websites like mobile Safari, and invalidates the test. 2) Were both machines using the same wireless conenction technology, or was one on WiFi vs 3G or different provider's 3G systems? 3) Why not run Safari on XP vs Safari on iPad, as a more accurate comparison? Or, since both run opera mini, that could have been tested, or load Linux on the alternate platform to put OS differences more on Par (or hackintosh the tablet). 4) video playback FPS limits were not tested? Brute force CPU means nothing without graphics to support it. Synthetics are one thing, full system processor/GPU comparrison is another. 5) 3D Graphic capability was not tested either? 6) power draw was not tested (watts per hour during equal loads)? Great, if it's 10% faster, but 50% more juice and 40% more heat means nothing to me... 7) did both platforms use flash based disk systems, or was the Archos running off SSD, higher performance RAM, or some other hardware that might favor load time of a web site. This was to compare processor to processor, not tablet to tablet, right? All things were NOT as equal as could be so this test has very little real world relevancy... *I'm not pointing out which platform I think is better or worse, simply that I can not take this data into account either way, and to point out the test methodology flaws.[/citation]
1. Yes, but the cache collected after visiting sites, which is why they didn't test them when loading previous pages.
2. Yes, the test would be completely invalid if they did something else.
3. They went with the Opera webkit browser, which is similar to the Safari webkit browser on the iPad.
4. This was a comparison between CPUs, not IGPs. For the record the GMA 500 is far superior to what the iPad has and can easily manage 720p videos and 1080p videos with the correct codecs. The only thing holding the GMA 500 back is its terrible drivers.
5. Still irrelevant for a CPU to CPU comparison.
6. The X70EX has a battery life of 6 hours video, and considering the far, far more rigorous OS, I would say they are at least pretty close.
7. The test was as close as possible. The point is that the X70EX with the 1.33 Ghz Atom was able to pull off better performance than the iPad even though it has a resource hog of an OS, comparatively, flash was enabled, and the browser was not optimized for the hardware.
The fact that the X70EX beat the iPad, instead of just coming close, with all those huge disadvantages just shows the raw power difference.[/citation]
[citation][nom]climber[/nom]Is it just me or does anyone else notice that the displays are different sizes and thus more than likely different resolutions and the higher the resolution, the slower the display of information as a whole compared to a lower resolution setup. So I would rather see a clock for clock, exact resolution comparison. I am not an apple fanboy, I'll never buy a mac desktop or laptop, netbook maybe, tablet, unlikely. Just my observation.[/citation]
The res. on the iPad is 1024x768 and the X70EX has a resolution of 1024x600. So they are very close, easily close enough that it won't make a difference, assuming that it would to begin with, something I doubt
explorer isnt intels if you didnt know 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram