Saw this today in the store looks like a reasonable deal for someone after a cheap laptop. I also noticed this is on the Dicksmith website as well, with the same expiry date as well. Of course do your research first peoples to see if the deals that good but on face value it dosent seem to bad.
free delivery is like cream on the cake. i'm getting tempted to buy as i was planning on getting a laptop for work in a few months, but some of these latest sub $400 deals have been very compelling.
i think the Acer 730/732 at $499 is a better deal because you get an i3-370m, 3 usb (vs. 2) and hdmi out…
But those are 15.6 inch laptops. The one advertised here is 14 inch.
not necessarily, really depends on use of laptop
i.e.
You wouldn't want to be lugging a 17" laptop to uni when you could efficiently carry a 13"/14" laptop that does about the same job for the uses needed, even a 10" netbook would be sufficient enough
Issh, you start with a 7" EEEPC for a while, then a 10" netbook, then 11" sub-notebook, then 12" lappy, 14" lappy, 15.6" lappy, 17" gaming lappy…getting stronger all the time…before you know it you're piggy-backing a Tianhe-I & benchpressing Deep Blue! ;)
I can almost hear the Rocky Theme music playing now!!! :)
I can see it now, the Maxibon laptop shaped dog toy. :)
heck, it seems that bigger hardware is coming back in fashion. maybe i'll buy a gigantic 1950s mainframe computer and lug it around at uni. atleast i would get the whole room to my self to study because this elephant would need the whole space. "anyone seen a powercord around here?".
I'm gonna get a 13" for uni.
Yep. Thats my story.
13" is best size
good size:weight ratio, good for school
I have to absolutely agree with you there. 13" is the best compromise between portabliity and ease of use. Sometimes they claim a "full size keyboard" on less than 13" but it's just not possible.
It's no wonder Apple have done so well with their MacBooks, why don't other manufacturers follow their lead with some decent performing and priced 13" PCs?
13" is good size; easy to handle, can be inserted into most places, enough to satisfy
13" is good size; easy to handle, can be inserted into most places, enough to satisfy
i giggled a bit
I started out with 7" eee then 9" then 10" and am going to go back to normal laptop now just need more screen real estate i think the age of netbook is dying with these cheap and chearful laptops
usually you get a 10.1" notebook at that price so good deal here
no hdmi?!
Yeah, pity no HDMI, otherwise would have been a great deal for a 14" notebook.
That is, unless you really need HDMI. Heck I don't even have a TV or monitor in my house that supports HDMI. Still using older video connection technologies.
You need HDMI to connect any kind of external digital display - even if it doesn't have HDMI (such as a DVI LCD monitor). Otherwise using VGA is hopeless…
Pretty good for what you get even though it has a crappy processor (in todays standards).
Hmm… I wonder if I should get another laptop and use it as a box torrent….
torrent in a box?
i'm imagining so much illegally pirated goodness in a unassuming little brown box of sorts.
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250:
Seller in my books.
This one has Intel HD graphics. Yes, HD 4250 is better, but not by much.
Maybe not much relative to a (desktop) GTX 590 or a 6990, but relative to each other, the difference is an important one.
Hmm… Possibly, depending on your definition of important.
http://starredreviews.com/ati-radeon-hd-4250-vs-intel-gma-hd…
The ATI radeon hd 4250 has slightly better performance than the Intel HD graphics. […]
In general, the performances are comparable and none are good for playing high end games in high setting.
At the end of the day there is little difference between the two GPUs in real-life performance. Whether or not one performs significantly better than the other will ultimately depend on which CPU it's paired with and how much RAM is installed.
possibly, but to me, those numbers make it look like the dedicated graphics are better when there's more to calculate and not having dedicated memory (that is also of higher speed than RAM) comes into play more. But I do not have 2 identical laptops here to test this out, so your inference could be very much correct :)
ed: also I think a Core i series processor performs better with its inbuilt graphics compared to the pentium.
Blah, the GMA? Must be a different 640 I was looking at. :(
The Radeon HD4250 is not a dedicated graphics card - it shares memory with the chipset (and I believe is only used with AMD chipsets, not Intel). I have the HD4350 on my Compaq 621 with Intel Pentium CPU ($479), which I believe is better and a true dedicated chip (though hardly that fast either).
Well aware of this, but I have used multiple laptops with a MO4250 and it's as good as you'll get in an onboard, and I've yet to find a reasonably priced 14" with dedicated.
still on the hunt for a decent and cheap lappy too. why are you so specific about a 14" screen? does it really matter if it is an inch bigger? I actually prefer a full size 15" screen because it is more diversible for text reading and movies,but ultimately speed and price are the main factors, not size. prolly wouldn't go below 12" though. hate netbooks.
I just much prefer 14".
- I already have a 15"
- 14" is more comfortable to use
- Fits perfectly into the slot on my desk
- Small enough to put in my handbag without being a netbook. 15" doesn't fit comfortably.
ok, fair enough. i'm about to buy it right now. seems like a great deal and perfect for my needs.
I want to but can't afford it at the time being, my boss screwed up my last pay and have been basically surviving on whatever cash I find around the house and in old bank accounts I forgot about. :P
sounds like you need to check out ozbargain's sister site - ozbroke.com
badum tsh!
Screen Resolution : 1366 x 768
Hmmmm, the vertical resolution is disappointing.
(for better or for worse) That's more or less the standard resolution for laptops on the cheap and even quite up to $1200 (or thereabouts, where you start getting more screen options)
Yeah, I can never understand the whinging over the res on low-end lappys…as you say, it is what it is! Hell, it'll do 720p or 1080i HD video, can't complain there for a general use portable!
You get all the excuses over "screen real estate", but honestly on a display under 15" jumping up a few pixels in either direction ain't gonna make too much difference! ;)
It's a shame because the old 15.4" (16:10 ratio) screens, which were larger than 15.6s btw, typically had vertical resolutions of 900 pixels (or 17% more).
Yep that's certainly true, but changing AR as well is a different kettle of fish altogether to merely upping the res at that same size/AR, which is what a lot of guys are wanting! ;)
My 2nd monitor at work is an old 17" 4:3 1280x1024 BenQ LCD I swiped off the IT dept…it's great for most of the document/report formats I work on! :)
A 17" LCD with that resolution would be 5:4 aspect ratio.
It's a shame because the old 15.4" (16:10 ratio) screens, which were larger than 15.6s btw, typically had vertical resolutions of 900 pixels (or 17% more).
Typical resolution for a 16:10 laptop screen is 1280x800—only 32 vertical pixels more than 16:9 aspect ratio. Much less than 17% difference. You can still get 16:10 ratio but you are limited (some Dell Latitudes for eg).
Sorry about that, you are correct. I was thinking of my old 17" notebook.
@MrZ, yep you're 100% right, I never even calculated…just assumed they were so close in shape the AR was the same as the old CRT TVs! ;)
Realistically though, my point is still valid about the diff between that & 16:9 displays, coz we both know comparing ARs of 1.25:1 to 1.33:1 would be really splitting hairs! ;)
Yeah, people got conned by those 17" LCDs big time. Most would have believed they were the same shape as their old 17" CRT. I never went for it.
The majority of 17" LCDs were 1024x768 resolution (4:3). The majority of 19" LCDs were 1280x1024 (5:4).
that's ok. it downscales nicely to 720P for HD glory in BR rip movies and limited gaming on this machine.
Same vertical resolution as an old 17" CRT running 1024x768, which I used to run until a couple of years ago. Never had any problems with it.
Actually, 1366x768 is a very handy resolution if you plan to run older games that don't have a widescreen mode or support custom resolutions. You can run them at 1024x768 and maintain the same height, just with black borders on the sides.
Pentium processor? No thanks.
Your only other option at this price point is a T3500 Celeron… which is even worse. And you're looking at a Toshiba and not an eMachines / Compaq.
As a budget business machine or for students this is excellent value.
The guy didn't even look at the specs - the chip has 3MB L2 which is huge for this price point. The Celeron and low-end Pentiums only have 1MB. The CPU is basically a rebranded Core 2 Duo.
The power of marketing.
The uninformed don't read specs, they just make assumptions about a name or brand.
It seems like the name "Pentium" is the old dog in the room nowadays as Intel seems to be fading away from using it in latest high end processors.
Damn, back in 2005 I was dying to be able to afford a whiz-bang Pentium IV computer but was still stuck with my slower Pent 3 and Celeron machines.
If you look on cpubenchmark, today's Pentium outperforms the majority of C2D processors.
I'm sure they can kit you out with a blazing fast AMD v140 chip at this price point bro! :p
if you do some research you will find this is actually an i3 chip without hyperthreading ie only 2 processes at a time instead of 4 not much difference for everyday use. better than a core 2 duo chip not quite as good as i3 light years ahead of celery(celeron) chip
They also don't have the SSE 4.1 / 4.2 instruction set. It's a shame that all of Intel's mobile CPUs now have a TDP of 35W. I used to have a P8600 (2.4 GHz) Core 2 Duo notebook which had a low 25W TDP. Current mobile chips are way too power hungry and run too hot.
yeah i agree but that s the trade off ppl want more computing power when they dont need it instead of more battery power which would be used by more ppl
meh, i always run off AC anyway. If you're a power saving junkie that wants to save the environment buy a netbook or EeeePC.
eeepc lacks prcessing power
The thing is more and more people use laptops for desktop replacements (and expect performance to match) so power usage is not an issue. If you want something with longer battery life then you can get that too (ULV models, netbooks, MacBooks, etc).
I like how there are no glossy black plastic on this computer =]
Agreed. My P500 pisses me off because it looks so dirty after a kid uses it for 30 seconds.
Is anyone actually buying this?
Anyone calculated the figures against the HN 40% promo?
nothing from hn is comparable - cheaper one is basically a glorified netbook model up is significantly more
yeah, i didn't seem to find this model on their website. specs are great for the price. buy online and free shipping. the RAM is also expandable to 8GB. gonna hit it now.
I found this HN SS deal from a few weeks ago(it was $394) : http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/41659
very similar specs but i think this is better because it is Intel P6200 and not AMD E240 processor which is faster. Anyone can confirm this?
amd is comparable to older atom eg n450 - ie netbook single core processor
ok, thanks for this. definitely sounds like the HN deal was hyped up as the processor was weak in that machine.
Order placed. Only costed me $349 with a $50 gift card that I already had. Sweet deal. Can't wait to get it :)
Well done. Yeah, the P6200 is light years ahead compared to the AMD. The E240 is only single core, 512KB L2 cache.
Hearing this makes me super glad I didn't buy the HN machine with the low end AMD processor.
Really depends what you want it for, but for a basic use low-end laptop, this definitely surpasses the AMD
Depends what you prioritise, really. You sacrifice a huge amount of screen area with this machine (a 15.6" display is 24% larger). The pixels will be extremely small. And seeing as you can't game with it, is the faster CPU that much more useful?
Yes, the P6200 will be much more useful than an Intel Atom eqivalent. Even for certain everyday tasks there will some noticeable difference. You can also game on it, just not high end games with high settings obviously.
Actually, a 15.6" screen is 22.41% larger. It may sound a lot but look at the visual representation at my link—you will see that the difference is not "huge".
http://www.displaywars.com/14,1-inch-16x9-vs-15,6-inch-16x9
ATM I'm typing on a 16:10 1440x900 14" screen, so the pixels on the 14" Toshiba are not going to be small in comparison!
I'm right with Camelgrass on that one, those low end AMD chips are dogs, they shouldn't be in notebook class machines at all!
IIRC, they actually do bench slower on some tests than the Atoms you find in netbooks, seriously! :o
can this replace an ipad?
really depends on your use
the ipad is simple because
-Quck boot times
-Easily portable here and there(more [portable than netbooks)
I went into my local DSE today to check it out(after I purchased online) whilst I was shopping for groceries. They didn't even have the sale price advertised and I had to inform the sales clerks about it because they were clueless. Really poor/lazy retailing, I know what would happen if their area manager dropped in for inspection and saw missing price tags!
But anyways, the build quality felt fine and the placement of ports and other inputs/outputs was in a easy to access spot on the machine. Couldn't really 'play' with it as they had it locked to some Intel screen saver advertising the specs. Definitely the best bang for your buck laptop on offer in the store.
I did play this today at my local DSE, they placed the model at the front entrance with big advertised price of $399, together with other Toshiba models on sale as well.
The Windows Experience Index is 3.8 with the desktop graphic being lowest, all the others scores above 5 inclduing gaming graphic and CPU processing, definitely a great buy.
I wouldn't take much notice of Windows Experience Index. It may give you a general idea but it by no means accurately measures system performance.
Eg. my system has an Intel Core i5 2.67GHz, Intel HD Graphics (same GPU as the Dick Smith system but with my notebook it has access to 1562MB memory, compared with only 763MB with the Dick Smith notebook) and 4GB RAM. Desktop graphics measures 4.2 and gaming graphics 4.8. So going by Windows Experience Index the Dick Smith laptop is better for gaming compared to my notebook? If anything they should measure the same, and if rating the system as a whole my notebook should perform a little better for gaming.
yeah, the windows rating system is flawed. pretty much only useful to noobs or people that don't understand computers.
pretty good for the money…
Just went and got one of these from Gawler Place Dick Smith (Adelaide) about 5 minutes before the shop closed.
Very, very impressive for the price. Couldn't care less that it doesn't have HDMI - it has a fantastic textured plastic case, a brilliant 14" display, is nice and small and compact, and seems quite powerful.
Its not a graphics powerhouse but I have a Dell XPS M1730 with two 9800M GTs in SLI for mobile gaming :)
This deal ends midnight tonight online so if you want a cheap laptop, I thoroughly recommend you hit 'Buy'! free delivery is a great deal too.
Enjoyed reading about your sheer delight and comments with this machine. It kind of reaffirmed my buying decision :)
Anyone who bought a $400 laptop and expects to play the latest DX10/11 games on it is kidding themselves. As I'm getting more involved with graphics design for work it should be sufficient for running the Adobe CS4 suite, and when I'm not doing this a bit of net surfing, movies, and older games(DOS Box, SNES emulation, and pre 2005 PC titles).
Will keep my PC as it has better graphics card and more storage, but this machine can keep up with it mostly, especially the CPU is almost as fast as my core 2 duo.
I bought mine at 8:30am this morning because I was concerned about stock shortages, aka "the ozbargain effect".
it will be quicker than your core 2 duo
Even more than a high end, overclocked model? Incredible to realise this and at a 1/3 of the price I paid for my PC about 3 years ago. The Intel HD graphics look quite capable too.
Did you end up buying one?
It won't be quicker than an over-clocked high-end C2D (no hyper-threading). But compared to a similarly clocked C2D it should be quicker.
If you want to run Adobe CS4, it would be worth adding a 2GB RAM module to make 4GB total (although only about 3.5GB will be usable if 32-bit Windows).
Missed this one last weekend. Dick Smith went back to $577 Monday and now down to $429 online. I might pop in to DS Macquarie or Top Ryde on the weekend sometime to have a look. I would be interested in comments on people who bought one last week. My main concerns are whether the keyboard is any good ( My wife is very fond of the keyboard our old 5yr old Acer 14" Celeron notebook), and for me whether it has an extra dimm slot for memory upgrade.
Cheers
One snippet of info I'm trying to find - whether the integrated graphics chipset is an Intel HD 2000 or 3000. I think I read somewhere that the 2000 is reserved for desktops and 3000 for all laptops. If so, that is a double plus for gaming performance. Either chipset has commendable graphics rendering capabilities but it would be nice to confirm this.
It'll be an Intel HD Graphics (GMA HD) core built into the processor chip. Intel HD Graphics 2000/3000 is for the new Sandy Bridge processors. Mobile processors can have either the 2000 or 3000 version, while desktops only come with the 2000 version.
Thanks for clarifying that. You seem to know alot about PCs :)
Dissapointing that it is the older chipset, but you can't have everything. I did read somewhere that Intel made a stupid decision to only put the HD 3000 into the high end i5/i7 models, which mostly have their own dedicated GPU which is more powerful, negating the use for the integrated graphics and therefore not being used. All models should have been juiced up with the 3000.
I miss the days when a laptop didn't need a GPU - all games were 2D and would generally run just as well on a laptop as a desktop. My first was in 1997 - a P133MMX with 12.1" DSTN and it would run AOE like a treat at 800x600 - and that was a new game on an entry-level machine.
I guess the one major consolation then is that you can go back and relive all those games from the golden era of PC gaming(late 90s/early 00s). I don't look at the amount of games I can't play on this, but rather what games I can play from the dawn of PC gaming up until more recent Dx8/9 titles. Firstly, this laptop will not be primarily used for gaming so it isn't a huge concern. Secondly, I love old school gaming i.e the era before 3D and even DOS games from the early 90s so it isn't a problem. If anything, games this old require more CPU power, which this machine possess, to run the emulation software and video memory being largely irrelevant.
It doesn't negate the integrated graphics, it's still used when the power-hungry discrete graphics isn't required. I get your point though.
http://dicksmith.com.au/product/XC7796/satellite-c640-00k-no…
Free delivery
Check this as well
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/42041