backtop

Print 47 comment(s) - last by Starcub.. on Sep 7 at 8:55 AM

At a joint press conference Intel and Microsoft claimed that Windows 7 battery life on Intel processors has improved over 32 percent over Windows Vista.   (Source: PC World)
Joint press event gives both companies ample opportunity to trumpet their flagship offerings

Microsoft and Intel senior executives met with members of the press in San Francisco to co-promote their flagship products.  At the event Intel pushed the fact that it had extensively tweaked and designed its latest Wintel offerings, which are shipping this fall, to offer better performance in Windows 7 (Wintel, an amalgamation of Windows and Intel is often used to refer to PCs running the Microsoft OS's on Intel processors).

Both companies hope that these efforts will help them continue their joint dominance of the PC market.  Stephen Smith, VP and general manger of the digital enterprise division of Intel, states, "We have our single biggest engagement here with Microsoft."

Intel showcased its upcoming 32-nm die shrink of the Nehalem architecture, dubbed Westmere.  The desktop version of Westmere, Clarkdale, and its laptop variant, Arrandale, will release later this year.  The running Clarkdale machine showcased impressive performance, encrypting and decrypting the contents of a hard drive 11 times faster in Windows 7 than on an identical Windows Vista PC, according to Intel.  This is largely thanks to hardware acceleration of the AES encryption algorithm, something Windows 7 supports.  AMD will also be offering similar AES acceleration on its upcoming CPUs.

Intel's current offerings look to prove impressive when combined with Windows 7, as well.  An Intel Windows 7 reference system booted in a mere 11 seconds.  Even more exciting Intel showed off its battery life gains using two ThinkPads T400s, with identical specs, including identical Intel processors.  The ThinkPad running Windows XP SP2 consumed 20.2 watts on average, while an identical machine running Windows 7 consumed 15.4 watts. The difference, however, may not really be this great -- Windows XP SP3 contained numerous battery hotfixes, so it seems that they may have cherry-picked the SP2 version for lower performance.

Other tests showed similar results.  A 2.53-MHz Penryn chip on top of a Cantiga-GM (B2) chipset used 2.8 percent less idle power in Windows 7 than in Vista.  It also used 11 percent less power when playing back a DVD.  Intel says that that overall the battery life gains would allow a system that could run for 4.2 hours in Vista to run for 5.5 hours in Windows 7.

Among the improvements that allow for this better battery life without sacrificing performance are optimizations which put inactive threads into an idle power mode.  Overall finer grained power modes and better control of the individual cores is allowing Intel and Microsoft to increase their joint performance.

Wintel mobile offerings need a boost as they still lag considerably behind Apple-Intel notebooks of similar weight, running on OS X (battery life in Windows 7 on Apple-Intel hardware is better than most, but disappoint with respect to OS X's battery life).


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
OEM
By therealnickdanger on 9/2/2009 11:10:21 AM , Rating: 3
Ultimately, it's going to be up to the OEMs to enhance battery life for Windows machines, just like how Apple enhances theirs. It is impressive to see a 32% increase in battery life with a W7 vanilla install versus Vista though. PC OEMs need to reach into Apple's bag of tricks and pull out useful power tweaks whilst simultaneously limiting the power-consuming bloatware they so love to install.




RE: OEM
By RU482 on 9/2/2009 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
any idea what those Apple tweaks consist of??


RE: OEM
By Alexstarfire on 9/2/2009 11:51:44 AM , Rating: 1
Considering the tweaks seem to be on the software, likely OS and driver, side I don't know what you expect hardware vendors to do about it.


RE: OEM
By SoCalBoomer on 9/2/2009 12:07:28 PM , Rating: 4
hardware vendors write . . . wait for it . . . DRIVERS

Microsoft doesn't.


RE: OEM
By RU482 on 9/2/2009 12:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
err, so how does this apply to the OEM?


RE: OEM
By StevoLincolnite on 9/2/2009 12:15:16 PM , Rating: 1
OEM's load up there machines with bucket loads of crap, which requires extra resources to run, hence lowering battery life.


RE: OEM
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 12:54:54 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree - the stuff they load is mostly user-mode apps and such that mostly sit idle in the background. I don't think they are apps that chew lots of CPU and drive power consumption.


RE: OEM
By StevoLincolnite on 9/2/2009 1:29:49 PM , Rating: 5
Utilities yes, but stuff like Norton 15 - 30 day trials or WinDVD/InterDVD/PowerDVD, Adobe Acrobat, iTunes and Utilities for every piece of hardware ranging from LAN to the Wireless, to Bluetooth to even utilities which sit over the desktop as a type of overlay so you can launch programs and services.

OEMS make deals with allot of company's and vice versa to get there software on the machines as a sort of advertising, OEM's are then getting larger profit margins at the consumers expense, the benefit is that we probably get our machines just that little bit cheaper.

Everything adds up, the programs might be small and insignificant, but that will still have a slight impact on battery life.


RE: OEM
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 1:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
When idle those programs you mentioned might be consuming some memory, but they are typically consuming very minimal CPU. Maybe everything adds up, but you can add together a lot of little things that impact battery time by say 0.00001% before it starts to make any difference.

And compared to the primary drivers of power consumption, i.e., hardware design and device drivers, I would think those apps make practically no difference at all.


RE: OEM
By sinful on 9/2/2009 5:14:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When idle those programs you mentioned might be consuming some memory, but they are typically consuming very minimal CPU. Maybe everything adds up, but you can add together a lot of little things that impact battery time by say 0.00001% before it starts to make any difference.

And compared to the primary drivers of power consumption, i.e., hardware design and device drivers, I would think those apps make practically no difference at all


On startup, however, they consume a lot of CPU horsepower. All that bloat has to be loaded off the harddrive and processed before it just sits there consuming memory.

Additionally, half that bloatware looks to patch itself and download updates constantly, which may be using wireless which can also suck down battery life. The actual updating can use CPU and hard drive juice as well.

It's the "death of a thousand paper cuts" for a battery.


RE: OEM
By Yawgm0th on 9/3/2009 2:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And compared to the primary drivers of power consumption, i.e., hardware design and device drivers, I would think those apps make practically no difference at all.

That's because you really don't know what you talking about. The dozens of startup and background applications have a very real effect on not only battery life, but computer usability. They are not minor or insignificant.

Don't go by Task Manager's CPU utilization. A computer can sit at 0% CPU utlization and still being doing a lot. I practically started my career by "fixing" slow computers which, out of the box, had 40-60 running processes but 0% CPU utilization. Turn off a few services, uninstall a couple programs, turn off almost all startup applications. Half an hour later, you've got a computer literally hundreds, maybe thousands of times more responsive. If it's a laptop, it now gets three and a half hours of run time instead of two and a half.

I've ranted for years about how the big OEMs throw tons of useless software on PCs and how it's destroying the PC market. Come to think of it, I've given that speech right here on DT. I realize now, though, how many entry-level IT professionals would have a rough time if they didn't. They've artificially inflated the market for computer techs so much that, starting out, we all have pretty much guaranteed demand.


RE: OEM
By Alexstarfire on 9/2/2009 4:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, you're telling me that DELL makes drivers for INTEL, NVIDIA, and ATI/AMD GPUs? I'm quite sure that they don't. Nor do they write drivers for the DVD drive, the chipset, the monitor, the CPU, or anything else for that matter unless they happen to make it which is very rare. I wasn't referring to the manufacturer of the individual parts, but the OEMs that assemble the computers like Dell, Acer, ASUS, etc. I know that some of the computer providers do make some products, like Acer with monitors, though they are mostly for desktops. I would expect things like that to have drivers made by that company then. I do not expect any nVidia card to have drivers by anyone other than nVidia. I am aware that some companies do provide additional programs and utilities though.


RE: OEM
By amanojaku on 9/2/2009 12:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely a combination of:

1) A custom motherboard
2) An EFI BIOS, potentially with Intel's ACPI 4.0 (Apple and Intel are both on the UEF, after all)
3) A custom, non-user-replaceable battery (it's physically larger than regular batteries)


RE: OEM
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 12:57:56 PM , Rating: 3
Whatever it is that Apple is doing, the PC OEMs need to get on the ball and start to wring out similar efficiencies from their designs.


RE: OEM
By Omega215D on 9/2/2009 2:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
About the battery, my MacBook has the user replaceable battery and it still gets 3-5 hours per charge depending on what I'm doing. the more youtube I watch well I see battery life go down, also when in battery mode the MacBook automatically dims the screen, not sure if my brother's HP does the same.

Plus the less garbage that has to load at start up the better battery life becomes since the HD can park itself quicker.


RE: OEM
By Pirks on 9/2/2009 3:26:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
when in battery mode the MacBook automatically dims the screen
Same on my Dells
quote:
the HD can park itself quicker
Vista never parks HDD because under Vista HDD never stops rotating.

Anyone tested this thing in 7?

Is it as focked up as in Vista with regard to never stopping HDD when on battery power?


RE: OEM
By overzealot on 9/3/2009 12:03:51 AM , Rating: 3
My HDD spins down correctly in Vista and Windows 7.
It causes annoying lag when spinning back up, but it's worth it for the power saving.


RE: OEM
By genzai on 9/2/2009 3:59:47 PM , Rating: 3
While i am not certain, my experience in the OSX86 world leads me to believe a lot of these battery gains probably have to do with the Apple SMC (System Management Controller).

This controller, which is in every Mac, seems to be integrated with the OS on a very low level. That is to say it may be very difficult for the diverse PC world to come up with an equivalent.

If a manufacturer decided to put such a chip in their system, and even provides drivers for Windows, the benefits may be there but will probably be limited because the OS is not looking for or hooked into this type of hardware, or working with it to maximize power savings wherever they can be had.

What would really be needed then to be competitive with Apple is for the PC industry to create a standard that the manufacturers can use to build similar SMC chips and for which Windows has extensive integration. I have not heard of any such initiative, but maybe it does exist.

Otherwise, the manufactures may come up with their own very different designs and i really don't think that a driver alone can provide the type of improvements we are looking for. Windows would need to be aware of and make extensive use of the controller chip as well -in the way it manages the system.

This might be one case where Apple's proprietary behavior works to its benefit. It knows the SMC chip will always be there, and it tries to build the OS to exploit it fully.


RE: OEM
By phazers on 9/3/2009 4:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
any idea what those Apple tweaks consist of??


My guess would be non-exploding batteries LOL..


RE: OEM
By gstrickler on 9/2/2009 4:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's about time. That might be enough to convince me to try Win7 under VMware Fusion on my MBP. Right now, I definitely notice the shorter battery life when running XP under Fusion. I don't run Windows under Fusion all that often, but if Win7 can improve the runtime by even 10%-20%, it would be welcome.

I hope the PC laptop manufacturers use this to actually increase battery life rather than use it as an excuse to scale back from 4, 6, 9 cell batteries to 3, 4, 6 cell batteries (to lower cost and/or weight). Most PC laptops don't have enough battery life now (especially the ones you can buy retail or the really low priced ones Dell advertises). IMHO, a 4 cell battery is almost useless (it's essentially an expensive and proprietary battery backup). Even 6 cell models don't provide enough run time under XP or Vista, but it sounds like they might get to the low end of the "acceptable" range under Win7.


Hmm
By StevoLincolnite on 9/2/2009 12:03:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Other tests showed similar results. A 2.53-MHz Penryn chip.


Where can I buy one of those uber processors!

quote:
Intel says that that overall the battery life gains would allow a system that could run for 4.2 hours in Vista to run for 5.5 hours in Windows 7.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I've had several notebooks in the past, and not a single one had managed to break the 3 hour barrier, did they choose 4.2 hours so that the "Percentage" looks higher?

Currently I have a Penryn 2.1ghz, 2gb of memory, Intel x3100 decelerator graphics, and it usually averages around the 2 hour mark.

quote:
Among the improvements that allow for this better battery life without sacrificing performance are optimizations which put inactive threads into an idle power mode.


Threads don't have "Idle Power Modes" - More than likely they are either: On or Off, or a change in priority over other threads.




RE: Hmm
By ksherman on 9/2/2009 12:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
I've got a 2.53Ghz Penryn chip in my MacBook Pro...


RE: Hmm
By StevoLincolnite on 9/2/2009 1:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
But you don't have a 2.53 Mhz Penryn as stated in the article.


RE: Hmm
By Hieyeck on 9/2/2009 12:50:37 PM , Rating: 3
Why rate this man down? Because of what the mactard said below? Did EVERYONE miss the sarcasm in his quip about the MHz typo in the article?

With regards to battery life, whilst I do disagree with him, it's hardly worth a downrate. I simply imagine they're not running intensive processes.


RE: Hmm
By MrDiSante on 9/2/2009 12:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Dell Studio 15 with 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo (Penryn), 2GB RAM, Radeon 3450 and here's the key: LED backlit screen and 9-cell battery. Depending on how actively I'm conserving power (lowering screen brightness, turning off WiFi) I get anywhere from 5 to 7 hours.


RE: Hmm
By Starcub on 9/7/2009 8:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I've had several notebooks in the past, and not a single one had managed to break the 3 hour barrier, did they choose 4.2 hours so that the "Percentage" looks higher?

My 3 year old 17" Gateway gaming laptop (with Nvidia GeForce 8800 GPU) topped 3 hrs battery life when the battery was new; not while gaming of course, but for web browsing. I think the average for laptops with integrated graphics is something like 4-5 hours. Your laptop must have a very small battery.


numbers
By Screwballl on 9/2/2009 6:24:38 PM , Rating: 3
its alla numbers game... in real world testing of my own, on my Compaq CQ60-211DX (Intel Celeron 585 single core), 2GB DDR2, 160GB SATA drive playing a DVD movie with only the basics running in the background:

Vista Ultimate (SP2): 2 hours 2 minutes
Vista Home Basic: 2 hours 12 minutes
Win7 Ultimate RC build 7100: 3 hours 18 minutes
XP Pro SP3: 3 hours 27 minutes

On the desktop with nothing else running, just idle, I see anywhere from over 4 hours with XP, 3 hours 58 minutes in Win 7 and 2 hours 57 minutes with either version of Vista.

All these times were tested over a weeks period with Vista first, Win 7 second and XP third and included starting the computer from a cold boot, completely turned off.




RE: numbers
By Starcub on 9/7/2009 8:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
With my Gateway P-6860FX (no Robson module) I actually get much better battery life in Vista than I do in XP. However, I've set up file indexing identically in both OS's. By default, XP does not do the indexing that Vista does. My guess is that the power saving is done mostly by not loading as many services at boot time. This could also account for the seemingly faster 'boot to productivity' times in Win 7.

I found the claim of increased playback time on DVD interesting. However, given the similarity between Vista and Win 7, I suspect that once I get Win 7 set up the same, battery life will be similar in Win 7, though I haven't tested it yet.


Intel will eliminate AMD
By maddoctor on 9/3/2009 1:27:43 AM , Rating: 1
I hope it can be happen. I want a simple choice for technology, that is Intel. No more AMD, NVIDIA, ARM and all semiconductor desginer. I want it all owned by Intel. I love their monopoly because they always innovate.




RE: Intel will eliminate AMD
By Hare on 9/4/2009 3:35:13 PM , Rating: 3
You are a moron. When someone has monopoly that's exactly when the innovation stops and they start squeezing more money out of mediocre stuff. Competition is always best for the consumer.


Intel and AnandTech ...
By MarcLeFou on 9/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By SoCalBoomer on 9/2/2009 12:08:46 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think it's that - AMD is really behind the ball right now. They're not making products that even come close to Intel's. . . which sucks as I'm a HUGE AMD fan and rooting for them to get back even and ahead.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By monomer on 9/2/2009 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, AMD is not really in a great position. They've just become competetive again in the mid-range, though we'll see how long this lasts for when Lynnfield is released.

While it's troubling that they really don't have an answer for Nehalem at the high end, what's even more disturing is that they're not even in the same league when it comes to mobile processors.

The Turions are a joke when it comes to mobile performance against the Intel C2D, and their roadmaps don't seem to have anything competitive in the pipeline. Notebooks make up over half the market for new systems sold, and AMD has basically just handed it to Intel for the foreseeable future.

Oh well, hopefully ATIC will keep them in cash until Bulldozer comes around and they may be able to get back into the game.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By StevoLincolnite on 9/2/2009 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on the Market segment, they are doing fairly well in the server markets.

On the Consumer market though, they are doing alright in the low-end and mid-range segments.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By Inkjammer on 9/2/2009 12:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. AMD's server and desktop chips are rather nice (especially since the Phenom II) but they have yet to produce a solid mobile processor in quite a few years. Even in the day, the Turion and Turion X2 were battery drainers and, dollar for dollar, lacked performance given Intel's comparable chips. They've just not had a solid mobile chip to compete head to head.

They seem to be making a comeback on mobile graphics somewhat, but still lack that killer CPU to make a complete AMD mobile platform.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By PrezWeezy on 9/2/2009 1:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they are doing fairly well in the server markets.


Should read they were doing fairly well. Now that the Nehalem server chips have hit there is nothing that AMD has on Intel in servers. The Intel chips are far faster and use less power than AMD chips.

And the only reason they do "ok" on the consumer side is that they just keep dropping the price to compete with whatever chip they can. That's why they are posting loss after loss. Their saving grace seems to be that ATI graphics are doing amazingly well currently and nVidia can't touch them. Although they still haven't made money back from the buyout, if I'm correct, it shows positive growth.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By maddoctor on 9/3/2009 1:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
AMD have expected to die soon. I hate this debates. Intel will be always leader and will leads anything in technology with everything is Intel Inside. Yeah.. I love it.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By anotherdude on 9/2/2009 2:47:11 PM , Rating: 3
The Intel 'bias' started with the introduction of the Core2Duo back in 06, or whenever that was. It was only then that Intel passed right by AMD, who had held the performance crown for a few years before this itself. If you had hung around any hardware site back then, Anandtech or otherwise, you would have seen a strong preference for AMD which was the performance darling everywhere. It all hinges on performance - though some preference may linger on due to loyalty, such as it did for AMD for some months after it was clear the C2D was killing it - many AMD fanboys simply could not accept this fact.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By dark matter on 9/2/2009 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Whilst not an AMD fanboy I do agree with the sentiments. What killed it for me was the socket change from AMD. I originally had the 939 chipset and a single core.

When I needed a dual core it was cheaper for me to buy a socket AM2 motherboard than source a 939 dual core, plus I could then run DDR2 memory.

I was planning to get a quad core, but at this point Intel were seriously beating whatever AMD were making. And worst of all was that I know needed a socket AM2+ or a socket AM3 motherboard. The numerous socket changes from AMD really pissed me off.

In the end I got rid of my X2 4800 and moved to a Core2Duo E8400. One swift increase in the FSB and I was running at 3.6Ghz without it breaking a sweat.

Sorry to say this but Intel make good CPU's compared to AMD. Although it does bug me that AMD never got the credit it did for its Athlon chips because Intel basically got into bed with the OEMs. Used to annoy me that the average Joe thought Intel Pentium 4 were the bees knees and thought the Athlon was second best.

But then I guess that means AMD were poor at PR compared to Intel. Still no point buying mediocre parts out of love or loyalty, AMD's business acumen isn't my problem.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By ClownPuncher on 9/2/2009 7:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
As opposed to Intel currently selling LGA 775, 1156, and 1366? I would have to say AMD is far better for drop in upgrades right now with AM2+ compatibility on their AM3 chips.


By StevoLincolnite on 9/3/2009 12:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
Especially when some motherboards support the AM3 processors on an AM2+ board.

I got myself the Asrock A780GMH-128 (Great board by the way), whacked in 4gb of DDR2 memory and a shiny Phenom 2 X3 720 Black Edition Triple core processor, great cheap rig.

Both companies have had there fair share of Socket changes, AMD had a stupidly long period during the Socket A days, ranging from 500mhz processors to the Athlon XP 3200+, which I found rather impressive.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 1:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again but there seems to be a strong bias at anandtech and dailytech for Intel products these days.
Well, I think you are right, and I think it is for at least two reasons:

1. They have 80-90% market share. Subsequently, you might expect them to have 3-5X the coverage here at DT.

2. They have the higher-performing products in nearly all market segments at the moment. Since DT is a bit of an "enthusiast" site, you expect more emphasis on the company with the higher-performing products.

I do notice on other sites AMD gets a lot more coverage - disproportionately so if you ask me. Articles talking about a certain mid-range processor that is "value priced" is not that interesting to me. While some enthusiasts probably do shop for "value," most actually shop for "performance at a reasonable cost" in my experience.

Finally, I do think that if the tables were turned, and AMD had a much larger or fast-growing market share, were coming out with exciting new products, were winning lots of benchmarks, DT would focus more attention there, since people would want to read about it more.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By Inkjammer on 9/2/2009 1:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to turn the tables just look at the ATI Radeon 4000 series. They got tons of coverage across the internet (even on Anandtech) because they had the higher performance part for the cost. And they got that coverage for a good reason.

ATI has the GPU edge overall (even though Nvidia has the majority). The best, fastest and most cost effective for the average user gets the most coverage.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By MarcLeFou on 9/2/2009 8:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
All valid points.

However, what I take issue with is not that there's alot of intel reporting, its that there's so few AMD reporting. AMD is by far not as active (nor as exciting) as Intel is right now so its to be expected that they have more coverage but noteworthy news about AMD does not get posted, except for quarterly results.

For example, there was a news story posted by another website today after my comment about AMD 6-cores coming in Q3 10. That's something I might be interested in and certainly enthusiast focused. It's certainly more relevant than most ipod and global warming articles posted around here.

There's also the fact that AMD seems to get held to a higher standard than Intel. Back when Phenom originally launched, AMD had a bug that appeared in a certain situation and got crucified for it (and rightly so) but when Intel had a similar issue recently, it suddenly wasn't that bad and was barely mentionned in the article reviewing the product. Double standard is what I'm talkng about.

This article here is a good example and reeks of PR stunt. A good article would have been to compare power savings gains on win 7 fom Intel and AMD or at least question a bit the setup of the systems. The last time I remember Intel being dealt with with reserve here was actually the original Conroe test results at CES (or whatever event Anandtech got a quick first glimpse of it).

I like this site. That's why I come here on a regular basis but I used to see it as a reliable source of info I could make decisions from without feeling the need to double check the info at other sites. That's not as true as it once was anymore.

PS : This is also meant as a reply to other intelligent comments in this thread. Simpler than replying the same thing 10 times.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By MarcLeFou on 9/2/2009 8:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Huh

Right after posting this comment, I went to the dailytech webpage by accident and the article about AMD 6-cores was starring me right in the face.

I use Anandtech as the gateway to this site so its odd the news isn' published in yesterday's news over there.


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By bruce24 on 9/2/2009 6:05:28 PM , Rating: 1
re: all we hear about AMD are its mistakes while downplaying their good products.

I know they just ignore all the great power efficient re-hashed mobile K8's still made in a 65nm process. I just don't understand why?


RE: Intel and AnandTech ...
By maddoctor on 9/3/2009 1:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
They will launch Tigris based platform for notebook that combines 45 nm CPU with 785G chipsets.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki