Asus Eee PC 904HD

2008-09-14 07:33:49

#1

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

I have been looking for a small and mobile entertainment device for a good while.
I just noticed that the new Asus Eee PC 904HD arrived here with very reasonable price of 336€.

Operating System
Genuine Windows® XP Home

Display
8.9"

Intel CPU & Chipset
Intel® Celeron M 353 (900MHz. pretty much same as atom cpu)

Wireless Data Network
WLAN: 802.11 b/g

Memory
1~2GB (DDR2)

HDD Storage
HDD 80GB

Camera
0.3M Pixel

Audio
Stereo speaker
Digital Array Mic

Battery
5.4 hrs*(Genuine Windows® XP Home)
4.6 hrs*(GNU Linux)

Weight
1.40 kg

Infusion
White, Black

I could get a GPRS USB stick for free with it and a wireless connection would cost me 9.8€ / month.

I'm just a bit worried... should I take the next step and finally get it?
wireless internet connection, movie and music player etc. sure sounds VERY tempting. especially in army.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-09-14 07:34:36)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 07:46:20

#2

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

How can a 900Mhz Celeron be the same as 1600Mhz Atom?

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-09-14 07:47:52

#3

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6464|Winland

.Sup wrote:
How can a 900Mhz Celeron be the same as 1600Mhz Atom?

The Atoms are incredibly inefficient clock-per-clock.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-09-14 07:53:44

#4

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

Freezer7Pro wrote:
.Sup wrote:
How can a 900Mhz Celeron be the same as 1600Mhz Atom?
The Atoms are incredibly inefficient clock-per-clock.

yep.

https://www.mydigitallife.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/intel_atom_benchmark.JPG

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 07:53:45

#5

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

Freezer7Pro wrote:
.Sup wrote:
How can a 900Mhz Celeron be the same as 1600Mhz Atom?
The Atoms are incredibly inefficient clock-per-clock.

Benchmark link

2008-09-14 07:57:02

#6

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

http://laptopcom.blogspot.com/2008/05/2 … -core.html

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 08:13:06

#7

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
http://laptopcom.blogspot.com/2008/05/2nd-test-atom-vs-celeron-m-353-vs-core.html

Oh so you are comparing Celeron to the weaker Atom-1.3Ghz. I see, well i have the 1.6Ghz Atom.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/articles … 4&pg=5

2008-09-14 08:23:08

#8

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

.Sup wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
http://laptopcom.blogspot.com/2008/05/2nd-test-atom-vs-celeron-m-353-vs-core.html
Oh so you are comparing Celeron to the weaker Atom-1.3Ghz. I see, well i have the 1.6Ghz Atom.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/articles … 4&pg=5

ummm... wat

the score of 1.3ghz atom is 1159
the score of Celeron M ULV 353 900MHz is 1441

add 300mhz to the atom and the score is about the same!

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 09:52:53

#9

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
.Sup wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
http://laptopcom.blogspot.com/2008/05/2nd-test-atom-vs-celeron-m-353-vs-core.html
Oh so you are comparing Celeron to the weaker Atom-1.3Ghz. I see, well i have the 1.6Ghz Atom.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/articles … 4&pg=5
ummm... wat

the score of 1.3ghz atom is 1159
the score of Celeron M ULV 353 900MHz is 1441

add 300mhz to the atom and the score is about the same!

Its equal in CPU score but Celeron is bad in other tests. Besides it takes twice as much power and overheats 10 times more. Not a good buy imo.

2008-09-14 09:54:29

#10

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6730|cuntshitlake

.Sup wrote:
Its equal in CPU score

Yes

.Sup wrote:
but Celeron is bad in other tests

No shit? Other tests have nothing to do with CPU.

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2008-09-14 09:56:28

#11

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

.Sup wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
.Sup wrote:

Oh so you are comparing Celeron to the weaker Atom-1.3Ghz. I see, well i have the 1.6Ghz Atom.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/articles … 4&pg=5
ummm... wat

the score of 1.3ghz atom is 1159
the score of Celeron M ULV 353 900MHz is 1441

add 300mhz to the atom and the score is about the same!
Its equal in CPU score but Celeron is bad in other tests. Besides it takes twice as much power and overheats 10 times more. Not a good buy imo.

uh... it clearly doesn't overheat 10 times more and the battery life is only about 30 mins less than with the atom.

and it can handle eveything as well as your atom does. including HD movies which play equally on both. And I save some money too.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 09:56:29

#12

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

DeathUnlimited wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Its equal in CPU score
Yes
.Sup wrote:
but Celeron is bad in other tests
No shit? Other tests have nothing to do with CPU.

Why did you skip this part of the quote out "Besides it takes twice as much power and overheats 10 times more. Not a good buy imo."?

Its heavier too and has less HDD space.

Last edited by .Sup (2008-09-14 09:57:22)

2008-09-14 10:00:37

#13

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6730|cuntshitlake

.Sup wrote:
DeathUnlimited wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Its equal in CPU score
Yes
.Sup wrote:
but Celeron is bad in other tests
No shit? Other tests have nothing to do with CPU.
Why did you skip this part of the quote out "Besides it takes twice as much power and overheats 10 times more. Not a good buy imo."?

Its heavier too and has less HDD space.

Because we were comparing their CPU power? That's what benchmarks do. Heating and power consumption are totally different thing, not related to performance.

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2008-09-14 10:03:09

#14

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

So my point of view:
-Celeron consumes more energy, overheats more and uses an active cooling (Atom is passively cooled so no noise from the CPU)
-smaller 80Gb HDD compared to One's 120Gb
-heavier than One
-no storage expansion

Thats my opinion, I wouldn't get it. But its up too you.

2008-09-14 10:04:15

#15

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

DeathUnlimited wrote:
.Sup wrote:
DeathUnlimited wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Its equal in CPU score
Yes

No shit? Other tests have nothing to do with CPU.
Why did you skip this part of the quote out "Besides it takes twice as much power and overheats 10 times more. Not a good buy imo."?

Its heavier too and has less HDD space.
Because we were comparing their CPU power? That's what benchmarks do. Heating and power consumption are totally different thing, not related to performance.

Umm you want to make a constructive post and help Panzer with his decision or do you want to argue?

2008-09-14 10:22:58

#16

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

the reason why I would get the Celeron-M ULV is the fact that the Atom version costs 150€ more (because it has a bit larger screen too). And this one is available here which is much said compared to some models.

the Celeron eee still has better battery life than the Acer. and the eee is cheaper as well. I couldn't care less about the 40gb difference in storage. with the price difference of the two I could get 250gb external drive.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-09-14 10:27:19)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 10:41:58

#17

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6730|cuntshitlake

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
the reason why I would get the Celeron-M ULV is the fact that the Atom version costs 150€ more (because it has a bit larger screen too). And this one is available here which is much said compared to some models.

the Celeron eee still has better battery life than the Acer. and the eee is cheaper as well. I couldn't care less about the 40gb difference in storage. with the price difference of the two I could get 250gb external drive.

How much is the aspire one here?

Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2008-09-14 10:42:31)

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2008-09-14 10:46:57

#18

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

DeathUnlimited wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
the reason why I would get the Celeron-M ULV is the fact that the Atom version costs 150€ more (because it has a bit larger screen too). And this one is available here which is much said compared to some models.

the Celeron eee still has better battery life than the Acer. and the eee is cheaper as well. I couldn't care less about the 40gb difference in storage. with the price difference of the two I could get 250gb external drive.
How much is the aspire one here?

360-399€.

the 904HD is 336€ with wireless internet connection and 350€ without.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 10:49:06

#19

Benzin: Member; +576|6266

If you already have a main computer, I would recommend ditching the 904HD or the Acer. Get the ASUS 900 12G/20G or the 901.

2008-09-14 10:50:52

#20

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

CapnNismo wrote:
If you already have a main computer, I would recommend ditching the 904HD or the Acer. Get the ASUS 900 12G/20G or the 901.

I can't live with 12GB HDD space

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-14 10:56:25

#21

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
the reason why I would get the Celeron-M ULV is the fact that the Atom version costs 150€ more (because it has a bit larger screen too). And this one is available here which is much said compared to some models.

the Celeron eee still has better battery life than the Acer. and the eee is cheaper as well. I couldn't care less about the 40gb difference in storage. with the price difference of the two I could get 250gb external drive.

Its battery lasts long cos its probably a six cell battery but thats why 901 is heavier than One.

2008-09-16 10:15:01

#22

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

decision has been made. I will buy this awsome piece of hardware. In black of course.

edit: and with wireless internet

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-09-16 10:16:24)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-09-16 13:29:32

#23

Benzin: Member; +576|6266

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
If you already have a main computer, I would recommend ditching the 904HD or the Acer. Get the ASUS 900 12G/20G or the 901.
I can't live with 12GB HDD space

Dude, it's more than you think. Just buy a USB stick or an SDHC card and you're set. Like I said, if you've already got a PC or laptop that you NORMALLY use, then HDD space shouldn't be that big of a deal. You've already got big storage on your main machine, the EEE is just a mobile toy. Trust me when I say that solid state is the best thing for ultimate mobility. It saves weight, too.

2008-09-16 15:01:47

#24

Mint Sauce: Frighteningly average; +780|6553|eng

.Sup wrote:
DeathUnlimited wrote:
.Sup wrote:

Why did you skip this part of the quote out "Besides it takes twice as much power and overheats 10 times more. Not a good buy imo."?

Its heavier too and has less HDD space.
Because we were comparing their CPU power? That's what benchmarks do. Heating and power consumption are totally different thing, not related to performance.
Umm you want to make a constructive post and help Panzer with his decision or do you want to argue?

says the guy who started the arguement.

#rekt

2008-09-16 19:35:01

#25

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

Mint Sauce wrote:
.Sup wrote:
DeathUnlimited wrote:

Because we were comparing their CPU power? That's what benchmarks do. Heating and power consumption are totally different thing, not related to performance.
Umm you want to make a constructive post and help Panzer with his decision or do you want to argue?
says the guy who started the arguement.

No, I didn't.

BF2S Forums Asus Eee PC 904HD

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

.Sup wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

.Sup wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

.Sup wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Mint Sauce wrote:

.Sup wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Board footer