The Asus Eee PCs have always been power efficient. Even looking at the older 1000HE model. It has the same processor, chipset, and battery capacity as my HP yet it can get about 8-9 hours of real world usage while my HP gets about 5.5-6. Look at the MacBook Pro line of notebooks. They have a 17" model that can get 7-8 hours of real world usage on a single charge yet other 17" notebooks with larger batteries, the same GPUs (the Nvidia 9400M), and the same processors get about 2 hours on a single charge. Even Apple's 13" MacBook Pro gets about 6.5-7 hours of real world usage yet companies such as Dell, Toshiba, HP, Acer, etc. must rely on single-core or dual-core CULV/ULV Intel processors along with bare bones Intel GMA graphics to get something like that out of a 13" notebook (and they won't come with an optical drive either). So how is Apple doing this with a power powerful Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia 9400M graphics?
Having efficient notebooks/netbooks is nothing new and it is all due to a combination of software and hardware. What is Asus's specific formula? Who knows. The point is that it works. It allows Asus to come out with smaller Eee PC netbooks that can still push 9+ hours of real world usage. So why does Asus need to use the dinky Atom processor to get 7+ hours of usage when Apple can do this with a full on Core 2 Duo processor? Even the Mac Mini is about as power efficient as a net-top running a dual-core Atom processor. Again, it runs a full on Core 2 Duo processor.
|