Origin PC Eon11-S: Great Gaming Performance From A Tiny Notebook?

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]But you didn't say the screen was too small. Nearly anyone who thinks that a screen this small needs more pixels is simply wrong...due to font sizes and so forth, most people who need more pixels also need a bigger screen.[/citation]

DPI helps with that, at least a little.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Borisblade77[/nom]a 650m is insanely weak. How would it compare to one of the faster Trinity APU's? Yeah i know the cpu would be slower, but the graphics aspect should be better with the 7660G graphics built in. Not seen too much on this, but it would be very interesting to see how they compare. It may still be a win for the massively pricier intel/nvidia combo. But the vastly cheaper and less power hungry APU could be a very nice setup for a laptop.[/citation]

The GT 650M with DDR3 memory is a little faster than the fastest mobile Trinity systems' integrated graphics performance. A GDDR5 version with comparable memory bandwidth at least to the desktop GT 640 GDDR5 is not the GTX 650 would beat Trinity by huge margins.

 

[army_ant7]

It's possible that the higher frequency method is superior because you'll usually have lower latency that way, but IDK for sure and it may be more situation-dependent. For example, let's compare normal DDR3-1066 timings to normal DDR3-2133 timings:

DDR3-1066 1.5V is usually between 7-7-7-18 and 7-7-7-21.
DDR3-21331.5V is usually between 9-11-10-30/10-10-10-30 and 11-11-11-31.

From that, we can see that in real-time, a common dual channel DDR3-1066 1.5V memory kit will probably have the same bandwidth as a single channel DDR3-2133 1.5V kit, but a DDR3-2133 kit is probably going to have significantly lower latency.

I don't know if the same observed *rule* applies to memory on video cards, but it's food for thought.

Which diminishing returns phenomenon for the APUs are you referring to?

I forgot what it was for the Trinity A10-5800K, but when memory frequency is set higher than 1600 or 1866 MT/s, the performance gains diminish in gaming (GPU workloads). That's what I was referring to.


I also had a thought. If, hypothetically, 64 bits get prepared to be transferred 2,133 times a second, then the 64-bit 2,133MT/s would transfer those batches of data smoothly (theoretically), but the 128-bit 1,066MT/s (which has the same theoretical bandwidth) would transfer the 1st 64 bits of data fine, but come the 2nd batch, it wouldn't be ready to transfer the data yet due to its half transfer rate. Though, come the 3rd batch (which sums the to-be transferred data to 128 bits) it should transfer all of the data fine. This way though, it doesn't do it as smoothly as the first system, for this hypothetical situation. Thus the data possibly not getting as early to wherever it needs to be (to be processed maybe).

This makes me think that faster (transfer rate) but narrower (bus width) is more flexible with different workload situations than slower but wider.

I'm not sure if memory works the way I described at all. If it did, I wonder if this could manifest itself with end-performance at all though, and if so, if it would be noticeable, how often would it take effect, and what kind of software or situation it would take to make it show.

 

[blazorthon]

I forgot what it was for the Trinity A10-5800K, but when memory frequency is set higher than 1600 or 1866 MT/s, the performance gains diminish in gaming (GPU workloads). That's what I was referring to.


I also had a thought. If, hypothetically, 64 bits get prepared to be transferred 2,133 times a second, then the 64-bit 2,133MT/s would transfer those batches of data smoothly (theoretically), but the 128-bit 1,066MT/s (which has the same theoretical bandwidth) would transfer the 1st 64 bits of data fine, but come the 2nd batch, it wouldn't be ready to transfer the data yet due to its half transfer rate. Though, come the 3rd batch (which sums the to-be transferred data to 128 bits) it should transfer all of the data fine. This way though, it doesn't do it as smoothly as the first system, for this hypothetical situation. Thus the data possibly not getting as early to wherever it needs to be (to be processed maybe).

This makes me think that faster (transfer rate) but narrower (bus width) is more flexible with different workload situations than slower but wider.

I'm not sure if memory works the way I described at all. If it did, I wonder if this could manifest itself with end-performance at all though, and if so, if it would be noticeable, how often would it take effect, and what kind of software or situation it would take to make it show.

The diminishing returns is probably just the memory bottle-neck getting smaller. For example, if you have a 75% memory bandwidth bottle-neck, doubling your memory bandwidth will cut that bottle-neck down greatly, but doubling again will make the GPU the greater bottle-neck, so the second doubling won't impact performance nearly as much.

I don't think that the higher frequency, slimmer bus would really have an advantage other than its likely superior timings-based latency. That's because its advantage in extremely small time frames would only apply to extremely small data sets. It might be an advantage and probably would be one, but I doubt that it'd be anything more than an indistinguishably minuscule advantage to an extreme.

 

[army_ant7]

The diminishing returns is probably just the memory bottle-neck getting smaller. For example, if you have a 75% memory bandwidth bottle-neck, doubling your memory bandwidth will cut that bottle-neck down greatly, but doubling again will make the GPU the greater bottle-neck, so the second doubling won't impact performance nearly as much.

Though I think I got what you mean. Though, just for the sake of understanding your example more, what do you mean by a 75% memory bottleneck? The GPU is only running at 75% of what it could if it weren't for the bottleneck, or that the memory is running at 75% of what it needs to be so that it wouldn't bottleneck the GPU?
Also, if the IGP of the A10-5800K runs similarly to the HD 6670, then does that mean the RAM speed of the GDDR5 versions of the HD 6670 tends to be a lot more than it needs, or that high-speed RAM (with which significantly diminishing returns manifest) for the APU approaches the performance of the GDDR5 RAM typically found on the HD 6670?

I don't think that the higher frequency, slimmer bus would really have an advantage other than its likely superior timings-based latency. That's because its advantage in extremely small time frames would only apply to extremely small data sets. It might be an advantage and probably would be one, but I doubt that it'd be anything more than an indistinguishably minuscule advantage to an extreme.

I thought as well that it would be highly situational since you'd have to have data workloads that are too small to take full-advantage of the 128-bit RAM in the example, and other reasons. Though it was just a thought... Hehe... 😛

 

[blazorthon]

Though I think I got what you mean. Though, just for the sake of understanding your example more, what do you mean by a 75% memory bottleneck? The GPU is only running at 75% of what it could if it weren't for the bottleneck, or that the memory is running at 75% of what it needs to be so that it wouldn't bottleneck the GPU?
Also, if the IGP of the A10-5800K runs similarly to the HD 6670, then does that mean the RAM speed of the GDDR5 versions of the HD 6670 tends to be a lot more than it needs, or that high-speed RAM (with which significantly diminishing returns manifest) for the APU approaches the performance of the GDDR5 RAM typically found on the HD 6670?


I thought as well that it would be highly situational since you'd have to have data workloads that are too small to take full-advantage of the 128-bit RAM in the example, and other reasons. Though it was just a thought... Hehe... 😛

I meant a 75% bottle-neck IE the GPU is running 75% slower than it should be (it's running at only 25% of what it should be).

The IGP of the 5800K and the GPU of the 6670 have fairly similar performance. The DDR3 version of the 6670, not the GDDR5, performs similarly to the A10-5800K with similarly performing DDR3 memory. The GDDR5 version of the 6670 remains untouchable by integrated graphics at this time.

 

[army_ant7]

I meant a 75% bottle-neck IE the GPU is running 75% slower than it should be (it's running at only 25% of what it should be).

The IGP of the 5800K and the GPU of the 6670 have fairly similar performance. The DDR3 version of the 6670, not the GDDR5, performs similarly to the A10-5800K with similarly performing DDR3 memory. The GDDR5 version of the 6670 remains untouchable by integrated graphics at this time.

If it runs 25% of what it should, then doubling the memory speed should make it run at 50% of what it should, and doubling again should let it run at 100% theoretically. 😛 Hehe... I'm kinda kidding though since I doubt the GPU would scale linearly like that with its memory speed and that the GPU might end up being the bottleneck, like you said. 😀

If those two do have fairly the same performance, yet the GDDR5 version of the HD 6670 holds quite a lead while the IGP of the APU seems to gain less speed as you provide it with more memory bandwidth. I wonder why...

 

[blazorthon]

If it runs 25% of what it should, then doubling the memory speed should make it run at 50% of what it should, and doubling again should let it run at 100% theoretically. 😛 Hehe... I'm kinda kidding though since I doubt the GPU would scale linearly like that with its memory speed and that the GPU might end up being the bottleneck, like you said. 😀

If those two do have fairly the same performance, yet the GDDR5 version of the HD 6670 holds quite a lead while the IGP of the APU seems to gain less speed as you provide it with more memory bandwidth. I wonder why...

Think of it like this:
The closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy it takes to continue accelerating at a constant rate of acceleration. Technically, reaching the speed of light locally is impossible according to scientists because it'd take an infinite amount of energy to reach it.

The closer you get to the GPU running at the same *mythical* 100%, the more bandwidth it takes to get the same performance increase. Same concept. It's also the same concept for how it takes more and more power to get the same clock frequency increase and many other aspects of scaling.

The GDDR5 6670 simply has a lot more memory bandwidth thanks to its GDDR5 memory; it doesn't benefit from memory bandwidth more effectively. Like the APUs, as you increase memory bandwidth on a discrete card, you're moving the bottle-neck further and further towards the GPU, thus decreasing the scaling you get from constant memory bandwidth increases.

 

[army_ant7]

I see... So the GDDR5 HD 6670 just brute-forcedly gets more performance from more memory bandwidth, even though it is "dragging along" in terms of gains as it does so... I see... Thanks.

 

[blazorthon]

I see... So the GDDR5 HD 6670 just brute-forcedly gets more performance from more memory bandwidth, even though it is "dragging along" in terms of gains as it does so... I see... Thanks.

Exactly. It's similar to how the 660 Ti is beaten by the 670, mostly through sheer memory bandwidth difference.

 

[army_ant7]

One more thing (for now :lol. I'm wondering about something you said before about the GDDR's (or VRAM in general). How they have extremely high timings but also very high bandwidth. I'm wondering if they do the same thing with DDR3 RAM used as VRAM, like if they have timings many times higher than normal system RAM.

 

[blazorthon]

One more thing (for now :lol. I'm wondering about something you said before about the GDDR's (or VRAM in general). How they have extremely high timings but also very high bandwidth. I'm wondering if they do the same thing with DDR3 RAM used as VRAM, like if they have timings many times higher than normal system RAM.

They probably do have very high timings even on standard RAM when used as a GPU's memory.

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]Estix[/nom]It's based off a Clevo barebones, so it's the same as the Sager NP6110 which starts at $899http://www.sagernotebook.com/index [...] ame=NP6110I just wish they'd offer a screen better than 1366x768 (at least 1440x900 or such)[/citation]

At 11.6 inches that resolution would make text too small to read.

You gotta keep in mind pixel density. With such a small screen, even that seemingly low resolution looks plenty sharp because the pixels are so small.

For comparison, most netbooks with a similar screen size are based around 1024x600 resolutions.

@the Review,

My sister got an alienware m11x during a Black Friday sale a while back and, while I really like the form factor, the performance was pretty bad. It can barely, barely play Skyrim at low settings, averaging 25-30 fps in most areas.

The Origin series so far has seemed to avoid making the same sort of compromises that the m11x did and have been all around more capable.

I want one simply because I like to game and I really like the portability of the thing. My alternative is the Asus N56JZ for about 1000 but it's an all around larger computer at 15" with an identical resolution screen.

 

[army_ant7]

About text being too small on a high-resolution, but small screen...
1. Not enough space to display content
2. The smaller the screen, the closer your face

I use this 1024x600 10.1" screened netbook, and some things don't work well with it. I'm not just talking about not having enough of a "workspace" but also fixed sized windows, for example, the Realtek settings window. I can't see the "Ok" button because it slips past the bottom of my screen. It's annoying since I'm not sure if the settings apply automatically and I am forced to press tab until I think the "Ok" button is selected. I also actually zoom out web pages normally just to see everything. This in turn makes the text smaller (with Chrome, I set a minimum text size so that it doesn't get too small as I zoom out), but its alright since I tend to put my face close to the screen anyway, which is my 2nd point. Before I get to that though, it's worth pointing out that zooming out pages on some sites result in a lot of weird and annoying aberrations. They're annoying when they impede my usage and not just make the page appear strange.

Now with my 2nd point. This is why Apple supposedly has less DPI for its Retina Display on the 3rd and higher gens of iPads compared to its 4th and higher gens. of iPhones/iPod Touches, because the bigger screen on the former means that the user would tend to look away from it farther away to see the whole screen more, and thus need less finer pixels and maybe not as small text like you were saying, guardianangel42. Another thing that would contribute to you being closer to the screen with netbooks may be as well that fact that the keyboard (and touchpad) is "closer" to the screen due to it, and the chassis being smaller along with the screen.

I don't think 1366x768 would be too much for this 10.1" screen (about 156DPI by my calculations) and even more so for an 11.6" screen (about 135DPI). Though these are just educated (?) guesses and I don't really have scientific data (like how far people would normally view the screen from and when pixels get too much at that specific screen size). Hehe... In fact, I really wish this netbook I use had a higher resolution and maybe a little more screen size, though I'd be happy even with just the former.

 

[jurisc]

still the resolution of the screen is too low - i would probably buy one with 1080P

 

[army_ant7]

still the resolution of the screen is too low - i would probably buy one with 1080P

Do you mean with the same screen size or a bigger screen size?

 

[jurisc]

[citation][nom]army_ant7[/nom]Do you mean with the same screen size or a bigger screen size?[/citation]
with the same of course

 

[army_ant7]

That would be (pretty much) 190PPI by my calculations (1920x1080 on an exactly 11.6"). The iPad's "Retina Display" supposedly has 264PPI, though you'd probably be viewing a netbook farther away though.

Plus, it also depends on how acute your eyes are. I wonder myself if I'd be able to appreciate "Retina Displays" with my eyesight. I don't wear glasses, but I don't think I have "perfect" vision.

Anyway, I wonder how 1080p would look on a netbook of that screen size at a normal viewing distance. Like, would 1600x900 (158PPI rounded-off) be the practical upper-limit? At some point, I'd worry more about the cost of a pixel-dense screen and the processing required for a high resolution (and thus power usage (batter life) and maybe hardware life) most especially if I wouldn't notice a difference in quality.

 

[Crashman]

That would be (pretty much) 190PPI by my calculations (1920x1080 on an exactly 11.6"). The iPad's "Retina Display" supposedly has 264PPI, though you'd probably be viewing a netbook farther away though.

Plus, it also depends on how acute your eyes are. I wonder myself if I'd be able to appreciate "Retina Displays" with my eyesight. I don't wear glasses, but I don't think I have "perfect" vision.

Anyway, I wonder how 1080p would look on a netbook of that screen size at a normal viewing distance. Like, would 1600x900 (158PPI rounded-off) be the practical upper-limit? At some point, I'd worry more about the cost of a pixel-dense screen and the processing required for a high resolution (and thus power usage (batter life) and maybe hardware life) most especially if I wouldn't notice a difference in quality.

For MOST PEOPLE, I recommend a 13" screen to view 1600x900 at native content size. Yes, you can increase font size to non-native, you can slouch closely over the screen, you might even be able to "buy" better eyes (j/k) but that's just my general recommendation. If you're old, you might want to drop your 17" display to 1600x900 1920x1080 looks good on a 15" screen.

Given my desktop space needs, photo editing needs and the fact that I don't like to slouch, the most portable solution that fits my minimum needs would be that 1600x900 13" screen. Yet I've always give up a little portability to get an even wider screen, to accompany the wider keyboard I use to fit my big mitts.

 

[army_ant7]

For MOST PEOPLE, I recommend a 13" screen to view 1600x900 at native content size. Yes, you can increase font size to non-native, you can slouch closely over the screen, you might even be able to "buy" better eyes (j/k) but that's just my general recommendation. If you're old, you might want to drop your 17" display to 1600x900 1920x1080 looks good on a 15" screen.

Thanks for that info... I'm assuming this is based on personal experience, but also general satisfaction feedback from these people. Either that or you've used a formula to calculate it (if it's through a formula, please divulge! 😀). But whatever. Based on your background (Tom's Hardware Team) you seem pretty credible to me. I'll try to keep what you've said in mind. 😀

EDIT: Oh it is personal experience. If it's not too much of a bother, could you say what your Snellen Chart (vision) rating is, if you've been to the doctor at least somewhat recently? Thanks! Just for a scientific and somewhat statistical purpose. 😀

 

[Crashman]

Thanks for that info... I'm assuming this is based on personal experience, but also general satisfaction feedback from these people. Either that or you've used a formula to calculate it (if it's through a formula, please divulge! 😀). But whatever. Based on your background (Tom's Hardware Team) you seem pretty credible to me. I'll try to keep what you've said in mind. 😀

EDIT: Oh it is personal experience. If it's not too much of a bother, could you say what your Snellen Chart (vision) rating is, if you've been to the doctor at least somewhat recently? Thanks! Just for a scientific and somewhat statistical purpose. 😀

I've worked very hard to have average eyes, while also observing the distance at which other users sit from various screens to confirm that my personal opinion reflect "average" user experience.

Kids get away with smaller fonts for two reasons: Their eyes are slightly better than average, and their arms are slightly shorter than average. The flip side is older adults...I make the dangerous assumption that the "average" user is somewhere between their late teens and mid 40's...

 

[army_ant7]

@Crashman
Very good! 😀 Thanks for sharing the info. Again, I'll try to keep it in mind. I really didn't have a clue as to what PPI would be fitting for whomever, though of course, the regular 15.6" 768p do work fine for a lot of people as I see, though better visuals are appreciable still (maybe like what that 13" 900p you mentioned as good). Thanks again!

 

[Crashman]

@Crashman
Very good! 😀 Thanks for sharing the info. Again, I'll try to keep it in mind. I really didn't have a clue as to what PPI would be fitting for whomever, though of course, the regular 15.6" 768p do work fine for a lot of people as I see, though better visuals are appreciable still (maybe like what that 13" 900p you mentioned as good). Thanks again!

Correct, people can read larger fonts more quickly to a certain point, and the general recommendations I made are at the point where smaller fonts force most people to sit closer to their screens, squint, or make other uncomfortable adjustments. If size wasn't an issue I'd recommend 17" notebooks to everyone!

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

This is based on the clevo w110er. got a barbone chassis from rjtech and built the whole thing for about $650 (with core i7 3610qm and 8 gb corsair ram). installed the bios mod, allowing me to diable hyperthreading and turboboost (which are not needed with a gpu this slow) and lowered the voltage on the memory..all i have to say, is ZOMG THIS THING IS AMAZING!!!! seriously, best notebook i have ever bought.

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

I'm very interested in notebooks with high performance at this size. I myself have an Alienware m11x r3, and unlike the previous commenter who had one, mine performs perfectly up to spec. I have not run any proper benchmarks, but I get smooth playthroughs of Skyrim at the native 1366x768 on High settings with maxed out LOS. And this is only on a GT 540M. I would have really liked to see what Alienware could have done with the new 600M series. But this seems like an interesting alternative for when my notebook needs replacement