Review: AMD FX 6100 Black Edition

Overview

When is a six-core PC processor not a six-core PC processor? When it's AMD's new FX 6100 Black Edition.

Long before AMD released its fancy new FX chips, we had a feeling a fisticuffs was brewing over the definition of what constitutes a processor core.

Now the FX has arrived and the gloves are off.

It all comes down to the radical new approach to simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) taken by AMD with the new Bulldozer architecture.

Intel's been doing SMT for a bit in the form of Hyper-Threading and fair to say Chipzilla's take can be called SMT lite.

It hasn't spent a lot of transistors in enabling each of its processors cores tow run two software threads in parallel. So a multi-threading performance boost of around 15 to 20 per cent is a pretty decent outcome.

AMD reckoned it could do better and verily cooked up the Bulldozer module. This little techno-beasty packs a pair of execution units. But much of what you'd normally consider a processor core is shared.

So has that Bulldozer module got enough power to give this six core processor a chance?

Benchmarks

The very least you'd hope from this latest 'six-core' processor from AMD is that it would beat the previous generation of hex core chips, here represented by the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T.

Sadly it's well off the pace the previous generation sets.

Most tragic of all is just how weak it is in gaming terms. The older processor has it licked.

3D Rendering performance

Video encoding performance

CPU gaming performance

Verdict

On paper it's hard to say whether a Bulldozer module it one hell of a single-core solution or truly deserves to be counted as two cores.

In practice, however, it's all too clear.

A single Bulldozer module doesn't deserve dual-core status. For proof, observe how this triple-module, supposedly six-core, AMD FX 6100 Black Edition chip compares with AMD's own Phenom II X6 1100T.

That's a true six-core chip and one that isn't exactly famed for world-beating per-core performance. Put simply, the 1100T owns and it owns in every metric save memory bandwidth.

As if that wasn't enough, comparisons with Intel's quad-core chips make the AMD FX 6100's six-core status look even sillier.

The non Hyper-Threaded Core i5-2500K mugs it in every test. Meanwhile, the Core i7-2700K is in another league.

What's more, in terms of overclocking, having one less active module compared to the FX 8150 doesn't appear to deliver much benefit. We didn't get significantly higher clocks out of the 6100.

If that makes the AMD FX 6100 sound pointless, it's not quite as bad as that.

AMD has priced it keenly. At £128, you can make an argument for it as a cheap multi-threading chip. The allure becomes even greater when you factor in the possibility that you might be able to flick a BIOS switch and enable that hidden Bulldozer module.

The same applies doubly to the dual-module FX 4100. However, there are absolutely no guarantees and it will take a few months and a bit of forum trawling before we have a feel for how successful FX buyers are finding their module-unlocking exploits.

Until then, we'll put a hold recommendation the AMD FX 6100 Black Edition.

At stock clocks and with the final module hidden, it's not terribly exciting. However, if it turns out that most of all 6100s will happily run with the final module enabled, it might just be worth a roll of the dice.

If that happens, we'll be more than happy to upgrade the 6100's status to buy.

We liked:

In multi-threaded terms the AMD FX 6100's performance isn't bad, still lagging behind the previous top hex core CPU from AMD.

We disliked:

Again it's the weak single-core performance of the Bulldozer architecture that makes for one massive technological sad-face.

We'd like to say positive things about the possibility of unlocking those dormant cores, sadly though we simply can't say how likely it is to happen.

Final word:

An interesting option, but only if the module-enabling prospects turn out good.

]]>

LG Prada 3.0 photos leak, bring black back

Looks like LG hopes that the LG Prada 3.0 will be the new black as far as smartphones are concerned, as leaked press shots show the fashion phone sporting a monochrome look.

The images don't give much away – we can see 3G connectivity, a stylised black-and-white Android overlay and a rear-mounted camera housed in a rather boxy form with a textured back panel.

However the leak comes with a little specification frosting: we're looking at a dual-core 1GHz processor, HD screen, Gingerbread 2.3, 8GB storage, HD video recording, a microSD slot, 8MP autofocus camera and NFC capabilities.

Prada-mark

The sneaky source that sent the pics to German site BestBoyz also let slip that there'll be some Prada-branded accessories alongside the handset, including a docking station and a case.

Given that the last images we saw of the Prada-branded handset were rather sketchy, this is the first time we've seen the phone in sharp focus.

But it won't be the last, as we're expecting to see the LG Prada 3.0 (variously known as the LG Prada K2) at a swanky event co-hosted by the two companies in London this evening.

So stay tuned and prime those credit cards, fashionistas. TechRadar will bring you all the details as they're announced from the event this evening – including, we hope, an LG Prada 3.0 UK release date.

]]>

Review: Novatech nSpire 2760 Black Edition

There's not a lot that surprises us, and when we unboxed the Novatech nSpire Black Ed 2760, we feared the worst.

A flimsy chassis and the lack of style that we've become accustomed to on high-end laptops indicated another lacklustre machine, but it appears that we were mistaken.

Under the hood is an Intel Core i7 2460M processor, which stormed our benchmark tests, scoring among the highest figures we've seen in our labs. This was also helped by the 8GB of RAM that makes this laptop positively sing.

Next up is the impressive Nvidia GeForce 555M graphics card, which is easily capable of playing HD movies and the latest games. It got strong scores in our lab tests, and while you might not be able to play Battlefield 3 on full settings, with the detail turned down, you shouldn't have any problems.

Battery life also impresses, with our power hungry tests achieving a very strong 222 minutes. This means you could work away from the power for over four hours, and even watch an HD movie on the move.

While there's enough juice for working on the move, at 2.8KG we wouldn't recommend the Novatech as a portable laptop. It's bulky, heavy and cumbersome, and not one for a day on your back.

TechRadar Labs

Battery Eater '05: 222 minutes
Cinebench: 18842
3DMark 2006: 11654

Screen burn

However, for all the impressive tech that's packed inside, the poor build quality of the exterior does more than let this machine down aesthetically.

We tested a number of movies on the Novatech, and found the screen appalling. There was no vibrancy to the colours, it was grainy when playing back HD content, and there was substantial screen tearing. We hope this was just a problem with the review sample, but as the issue is caused by a disparity between the graphics card and screen refresh times, we think this is simply a gulf in quality between the two items.

The poor build quality manifests itself elsewhere too. The grey plastic wrist rest flexes when you push it, as does the lid. The keyboard is awful, with little refinement given to the black plastic keys. They're barely cushioned and feel loose and spongy to the touch.

The trackpad is better and we much prefer it to the current trend of single buttons which are a nightmare to master.

What we have with the Novatech is a fantastic powered laptop, admirably capable of dealing with most things you can throw at it. There's limitless performance power, great graphics and it even has a decent battery life as well.

Unfortunately, we're still yet to be surprised by a laptop, and the Novatech is no exception; a model hobbled by cost saving and corner cutting, that more than explains its low price. It's impossible to really enjoy movies or games on the poor screen, and if you have £750 to spend, we'd recommend saving up the extra for quality machines like the Dell XPS 15z.

]]>

Review: AMD FX 4100 Black Edition

Overview

We've been waiting for AMD's brand new architecture for ages, and then Bulldozer turned out to be fairly underwhelming. Can the cheaper, quad-core AMD FX 4100 Black Edition rectify any of its wrongs?

Multi-threading and parallelism are all the rage. Put simply, more cores equals more fun, right?

Not, as it happens, when it comes to games, as seen in the AMD FX 8150. Despite the hype, the fact is PC games still don't scale all that well across multiple processor cores.

On the one hand, that's a disappointing state of affairs given the massively multi-core hoopla the likes of Intel have been pedalling for the last five years or so.

On the other, it also presents an opportunity for fanatical gamers to save a few quid.

After all, if it's just games that gets you going, we'd argue there's only so many cores you actually need.

Consider, therefore, the AMD FX 4100.

We can't be absolutely sure about this without official confirmation, but we reckon it's based on the very same two-billion transistor processor die as the range-topping FX 8150.

The difference is that two of the 8150's four Bulldozer modules have been nuked from orbit.

Benchmarks

The benchmarks don't make for particularly good reading for the AMD FX 4100 Black Edition.

Sure the multi-threaded application performance shows improvements over the equivalently-priced Intel Core i3 2100 Sandy Bridge CPU, but the single-core and gaming performance is rather poor.

That said the Bulldozer FX 4100 processor does overclock, which sadly the Intel chip cannot.

3D Rendering performance

Video encoding performance

Gaming performance

Verdict

What we can say for certain is that the FX 4100 is based on AMD's latest 32nm Bulldozer architecture.

It has two modules and therefore a grand total of four pseudo cores. It runs at 3.6GHz nominally, sports a 3.8GHz Turbo frequency and packs 12MB of L2 and L3 cache memory, combined.

And it's happiest in an AM3+ socket paired with DDR3 memory up to 1,866MHz.

But here's the real kicker. It's yours for just £100.

So, that's healthy clocks, four threads and AMD's very latest CPU architecture. Quite an attractive package. But not, as it turns out, terribly fit for gaming purpose.

The problem is the new AMD Bulldozer microarchitecture. If anything, its strongest suit is multi-threading. And that means you want as many of those modules switched on as possible.

What Bulldozer doesn't deliver, however, is decent per-thread performance.

For proof, first observe the single threaded benchmark results. The 3.6GHz (3.8GHz with Turbo) FX 4100 may be clocked significantly higher the similarly priced 3.1GHz Intel Core i3-2100, but the latter is absolutely off the map in terms of single or few-threaded performance.

The FX 4100 needs three minutes and 44 seconds to churn its way through Cinebench R10 in single-threaded mode. The i3-2100 needs just two minutes and 51 seconds.

Of course, what really matters is actual game performance and here Bulldozer's per-thread gutlessness duly rears its head.

The 67 frames per second average the AMD FX 4100 Black Edition achieves in the World in Conflict test may sound pretty reasonable, but it obscures the fact that the frame rate can, and does, drop well below 30 when the on screen action goes into overdrive.

Meanwhile, the merely dual-core Core i3-2100 cranks out 80- frames per second and generally keeps cooler under pressure.

In our testing, the 4100 didn't deliver significantly better overclocking headroom than the full eight-core Bully.

We liked:

To be honest, apart from the price, there really isn't a lot to like about this even weaker spin of the Bulldozer architecture.

We disliked:

We'd hoped for a lot more from this brand new AMD Bulldozer architecture, but the weak single-core performance, behind even the old Phenom II processors, makes us sad.

We could have forgiven it some of those failings if the gaming performance wasn't just as poor.

Final word:

The best that can be said about this dual-module Bulldozer, then, is that it's not far behind its triple and quad-module brethren in games.

If only they weren't all off the pace.

Review: AMD FX 6100 Black Edition

Overview

When is a six-core PC processor not a six-core PC processor? When it's AMD's new FX 6100 Black Edition.

Long before AMD released its fancy new FX chips, we had a feeling a fisticuffs was brewing over the definition of what constitutes a processor core.

Now the FX has arrived and the gloves are off.

It all comes down to the radical new approach to simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) taken by AMD with the new Bulldozer architecture.

Intel's been doing SMT for a bit in the form of Hyper-Threading and fair to say Chipzilla's take can be called SMT lite.

It hasn't spent a lot of transistors in enabling each of its processors cores tow run two software threads in parallel. So a multi-threading performance boost of around 15 to 20 per cent is a pretty decent outcome.

AMD reckoned it could do better and verily cooked up the Bulldozer module. This little techno-beasty packs a pair of execution units. But much of what you'd normally consider a processor core is shared.

So has that Bulldozer module got enough power to give this six core processor a chance?

Benchmarks

The very least you'd hope from this latest 'six-core' processor from AMD is that it would beat the previous generation of hex core chips, here represented by the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T.

Sadly it's well off the pace the previous generation sets.

Most tragic of all is just how weak it is in gaming terms. The older processor has it licked.

3D Rendering performance

Video encoding performance

CPU gaming performance

Verdict

On paper it's hard to say whether a Bulldozer module it one hell of a single-core solution or truly deserves to be counted as two cores.

In practice, however, it's all too clear.

A single Bulldozer module doesn't deserve dual-core status. For proof, observe how this triple-module, supposedly six-core, AMD FX 6100 Black Edition chip compares with AMD's own Phenom II X6 1100T.

That's a true six-core chip and one that isn't exactly famed for world-beating per-core performance. Put simply, the 1100T owns and it owns in every metric save memory bandwidth.

As if that wasn't enough, comparisons with Intel's quad-core chips make the AMD FX 6100's six-core status look even sillier.

The non Hyper-Threaded Core i5-2500K mugs it in every test. Meanwhile, the Core i7-2700K is in another league.

What's more, in terms of overclocking, having one less active module compared to the FX 8150 doesn't appear to deliver much benefit. We didn't get significantly higher clocks out of the 6100.

If that makes the AMD FX 6100 sound pointless, it's not quite as bad as that.

AMD has priced it keenly. At £128, you can make an argument for it as a cheap multi-threading chip. The allure becomes even greater when you factor in the possibility that you might be able to flick a BIOS switch and enable that hidden Bulldozer module.

The same applies doubly to the dual-module FX 4100. However, there are absolutely no guarantees and it will take a few months and a bit of forum trawling before we have a feel for how successful FX buyers are finding their module-unlocking exploits.

Until then, we'll put a hold recommendation the AMD FX 6100 Black Edition.

At stock clocks and with the final module hidden, it's not terribly exciting. However, if it turns out that most of all 6100s will happily run with the final module enabled, it might just be worth a roll of the dice.

If that happens, we'll be more than happy to upgrade the 6100's status to buy.

We liked:

In multi-threaded terms the AMD FX 6100's performance isn't bad, still lagging behind the previous top hex core CPU from AMD.

We disliked:

Again it's the weak single-core performance of the Bulldozer architecture that makes for one massive technological sad-face.

We'd like to say positive things about the possibility of unlocking those dormant cores, sadly though we simply can't say how likely it is to happen.

Final word:

An interesting option, but only if the module-enabling prospects turn out good.

Review: Novatech nSpire 2760 Black Edition

There's not a lot that surprises us, and when we unboxed the Novatech nSpire Black Ed 2760, we feared the worst.

A flimsy chassis and the lack of style that we've become accustomed to on high-end laptops indicated another lacklustre machine, but it appears that we were mistaken.

Under the hood is an Intel Core i7 2460M processor, which stormed our benchmark tests, scoring among the highest figures we've seen in our labs. This was also helped by the 8GB of RAM that makes this laptop positively sing.

Next up is the impressive Nvidia GeForce 555M graphics card, which is easily capable of playing HD movies and the latest games. It got strong scores in our lab tests, and while you might not be able to play Battlefield 3 on full settings, with the detail turned down, you shouldn't have any problems.

Battery life also impresses, with our power hungry tests achieving a very strong 222 minutes. This means you could work away from the power for over four hours, and even watch an HD movie on the move.

While there's enough juice for working on the move, at 2.8KG we wouldn't recommend the Novatech as a portable laptop. It's bulky, heavy and cumbersome, and not one for a day on your back.

TechRadar Labs

Battery Eater '05: 222 minutes
Cinebench: 18842
3DMark 2006: 11654

Screen burn

However, for all the impressive tech that's packed inside, the poor build quality of the exterior does more than let this machine down aesthetically.

We tested a number of movies on the Novatech, and found the screen appalling. There was no vibrancy to the colours, it was grainy when playing back HD content, and there was substantial screen tearing. We hope this was just a problem with the review sample, but as the issue is caused by a disparity between the graphics card and screen refresh times, we think this is simply a gulf in quality between the two items.

The poor build quality manifests itself elsewhere too. The grey plastic wrist rest flexes when you push it, as does the lid. The keyboard is awful, with little refinement given to the black plastic keys. They're barely cushioned and feel loose and spongy to the touch.

The trackpad is better and we much prefer it to the current trend of single buttons which are a nightmare to master.

What we have with the Novatech is a fantastic powered laptop, admirably capable of dealing with most things you can throw at it. There's limitless performance power, great graphics and it even has a decent battery life as well.

Unfortunately, we're still yet to be surprised by a laptop, and the Novatech is no exception; a model hobbled by cost saving and corner cutting, that more than explains its low price. It's impossible to really enjoy movies or games on the poor screen, and if you have £750 to spend, we'd recommend saving up the extra for quality machines like the Dell XPS 15z.

]]>

Review: AMD FX 4100 Black Edition

Overview

We've been waiting for AMD's brand new architecture for ages, and then Bulldozer turned out to be fairly underwhelming. Can the cheaper, quad-core AMD FX 4100 Black Edition rectify any of its wrongs?

Multi-threading and parallelism are all the rage. Put simply, more cores equals more fun, right?

Not, as it happens, when it comes to games, as seen in the AMD FX 8150. Despite the hype, the fact is PC games still don't scale all that well across multiple processor cores.

On the one hand, that's a disappointing state of affairs given the massively multi-core hoopla the likes of Intel have been pedalling for the last five years or so.

On the other, it also presents an opportunity for fanatical gamers to save a few quid.

After all, if it's just games that gets you going, we'd argue there's only so many cores you actually need.

Consider, therefore, the AMD FX 4100.

We can't be absolutely sure about this without official confirmation, but we reckon it's based on the very same two-billion transistor processor die as the range-topping FX 8150.

The difference is that two of the 8150's four Bulldozer modules have been nuked from orbit.

Benchmarks

The benchmarks don't make for particularly good reading for the AMD FX 4100 Black Edition.

Sure the multi-threaded application performance shows improvements over the equivalently-priced Intel Core i3 2100 Sandy Bridge CPU, but the single-core and gaming performance is rather poor.

That said the Bulldozer FX 4100 processor does overclock, which sadly the Intel chip cannot.

3D Rendering performance

Video encoding performance

Gaming performance

Verdict

What we can say for certain is that the FX 4100 is based on AMD's latest 32nm Bulldozer architecture.

It has two modules and therefore a grand total of four pseudo cores. It runs at 3.6GHz nominally, sports a 3.8GHz Turbo frequency and packs 12MB of L2 and L3 cache memory, combined.

And it's happiest in an AM3+ socket paired with DDR3 memory up to 1,866MHz.

But here's the real kicker. It's yours for just £100.

So, that's healthy clocks, four threads and AMD's very latest CPU architecture. Quite an attractive package. But not, as it turns out, terribly fit for gaming purpose.

The problem is the new AMD Bulldozer microarchitecture. If anything, its strongest suit is multi-threading. And that means you want as many of those modules switched on as possible.

What Bulldozer doesn't deliver, however, is decent per-thread performance.

For proof, first observe the single threaded benchmark results. The 3.6GHz (3.8GHz with Turbo) FX 4100 may be clocked significantly higher the similarly priced 3.1GHz Intel Core i3-2100, but the latter is absolutely off the map in terms of single or few-threaded performance.

The FX 4100 needs three minutes and 44 seconds to churn its way through Cinebench R10 in single-threaded mode. The i3-2100 needs just two minutes and 51 seconds.

Of course, what really matters is actual game performance and here Bulldozer's per-thread gutlessness duly rears its head.

The 67 frames per second average the AMD FX 4100 Black Edition achieves in the World in Conflict test may sound pretty reasonable, but it obscures the fact that the frame rate can, and does, drop well below 30 when the on screen action goes into overdrive.

Meanwhile, the merely dual-core Core i3-2100 cranks out 80- frames per second and generally keeps cooler under pressure.

In our testing, the 4100 didn't deliver significantly better overclocking headroom than the full eight-core Bully.

We liked:

To be honest, apart from the price, there really isn't a lot to like about this even weaker spin of the Bulldozer architecture.

We disliked:

We'd hoped for a lot more from this brand new AMD Bulldozer architecture, but the weak single-core performance, behind even the old Phenom II processors, makes us sad.

We could have forgiven it some of those failings if the gaming performance wasn't just as poor.

Final word:

The best that can be said about this dual-module Bulldozer, then, is that it's not far behind its triple and quad-module brethren in games.

If only they weren't all off the pace.

]]>

Review: AMD FX 6100 Black Edition

Overview

When is a six-core PC processor not a six-core PC processor? When it's AMD's new FX 6100 Black Edition.

Long before AMD released its fancy new FX chips, we had a feeling a fisticuffs was brewing over the definition of what constitutes a processor core.

Now the FX has arrived and the gloves are off.

It all comes down to the radical new approach to simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) taken by AMD with the new Bulldozer architecture.

Intel's been doing SMT for a bit in the form of Hyper-Threading and fair to say Chipzilla's take can be called SMT lite.

It hasn't spent a lot of transistors in enabling each of its processors cores tow run two software threads in parallel. So a multi-threading performance boost of around 15 to 20 per cent is a pretty decent outcome.

AMD reckoned it could do better and verily cooked up the Bulldozer module. This little techno-beasty packs a pair of execution units. But much of what you'd normally consider a processor core is shared.

So has that Bulldozer module got enough power to give this six core processor a chance?

Benchmarks

The very least you'd hope from this latest 'six-core' processor from AMD is that it would beat the previous generation of hex core chips, here represented by the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T.

Sadly it's well off the pace the previous generation sets.

Most tragic of all is just how weak it is in gaming terms. The older processor has it licked.

3D Rendering performance

Video encoding performance

CPU gaming performance

Verdict

On paper it's hard to say whether a Bulldozer module it one hell of a single-core solution or truly deserves to be counted as two cores.

In practice, however, it's all too clear.

A single Bulldozer module doesn't deserve dual-core status. For proof, observe how this triple-module, supposedly six-core, AMD FX 6100 Black Edition chip compares with AMD's own Phenom II X6 1100T.

That's a true six-core chip and one that isn't exactly famed for world-beating per-core performance. Put simply, the 1100T owns and it owns in every metric save memory bandwidth.

As if that wasn't enough, comparisons with Intel's quad-core chips make the AMD FX 6100's six-core status look even sillier.

The non Hyper-Threaded Core i5-2500K mugs it in every test. Meanwhile, the Core i7-2700K is in another league.

What's more, in terms of overclocking, having one less active module compared to the FX 8150 doesn't appear to deliver much benefit. We didn't get significantly higher clocks out of the 6100.

If that makes the AMD FX 6100 sound pointless, it's not quite as bad as that.

AMD has priced it keenly. At £128, you can make an argument for it as a cheap multi-threading chip. The allure becomes even greater when you factor in the possibility that you might be able to flick a BIOS switch and enable that hidden Bulldozer module.

The same applies doubly to the dual-module FX 4100. However, there are absolutely no guarantees and it will take a few months and a bit of forum trawling before we have a feel for how successful FX buyers are finding their module-unlocking exploits.

Until then, we'll put a hold recommendation the AMD FX 6100 Black Edition.

At stock clocks and with the final module hidden, it's not terribly exciting. However, if it turns out that most of all 6100s will happily run with the final module enabled, it might just be worth a roll of the dice.

If that happens, we'll be more than happy to upgrade the 6100's status to buy.

We liked:

In multi-threaded terms the AMD FX 6100's performance isn't bad, still lagging behind the previous top hex core CPU from AMD.

We disliked:

Again it's the weak single-core performance of the Bulldozer architecture that makes for one massive technological sad-face.

We'd like to say positive things about the possibility of unlocking those dormant cores, sadly though we simply can't say how likely it is to happen.

Final word:

An interesting option, but only if the module-enabling prospects turn out good.

]]>

Acer Aspire AOD255-1549 review 10. 1 ", and sepcification of Laptop colored Diamond Black

Planning and purchasing a new laptop these days isn't quite simple since the laptop competitors is growing very much in the last few years. Even so, there's one laptop which would not just suit your finances, but additionally provide superb functionality. The new Acer Aspire One AOD255-1549 10.1 INCH Laptop (Diamond Black) is that laptop and it doesn't just have excellent functionality, it also has a competing price. The Acer Aspire One laptop is offered for just $ 330 online which makes it among the specials of the decade.

The Acer Aspire is a remarkable feature list which begins with the 10.1 " LED screen. It's the Acer CrystalBrite LED screen that provides out a resolution that's significantly on par with industry specifications. It has a resolution of 1024 x 600 pixels with no smashing a work and it comprises for a full knowledge. Even so, just the display isn't sufficient for making the laptop full. It has to have a effective heart which Acer Aspire One AOD255-1549 10.1 " Laptop definitely has which in its toolbox. It's a effective double core unit which is ranked at 1.5 GigaHz, which makes it nearly as quick as a netbook.

Similar to laptops with this range, the Acer Aspire One laptop has a 250 GB hard drive. One Giga Byte of memory as standard and you obtain 1.3 megapixel digital camera along with the laptop. Wi-Fi connectivity is standerd so is the Wireless bluetooth choice. There's three USB slots within this laptop. The Dell Inspiron iM 1012-1110OBK Laptop is the nearest laptop which can compete with the Acer Aspire One AOD255-1549 10.1 " Laptop. The Dell Inspiron is superior to the Acer Aspire One laptop within the power section because it includes a 1.6 GHz processor chip, however it is costed likewise.