The notebooks were subjected to several benchmarks to give an objective evaluation of their speeds, performance and applicability. The main benchmark was BAPCo's SYSmark2002, which runs tests designed to simulate typical office usage (with programs like Microsoft Outlook, Word, Excel and PowerPoint) as well as multimedia work such as Web design (using Dreamweaver) and video encoding (Windows Media Encoder). SYSmark2002 provides a good overall measure of system performance when handling day-to-day tasks.
We also executed our standard set of video tests using 3DMark2001SE Pro and Quake 3: Arena. While these notebooks aren't powerful enough to supply decent frame rates in 3D games, these tests show overall rendering performance, and the results vary between notebooks.
This month we also introduce BAPCo's MobileMark 2002. It runs similar tests to SYSmark2002, albeit in a slightly less demanding fashion. More importantly, it tests battery life by running one of two workloads ('strenuous' and 'light') until a system is out of battery power.
Each notebook was tested using the 'Portable/Laptop' Windows XP power scheme (the notable exception being Protac's i-Buddie 'desknote', which has no battery). This scheme throttles notebook performance up or down, depending on how much processing power is being requested.
Note: Apple's iBook runs a different OS so we were unable to benchmark it: this is why it does not appear in any of the graphs.
The results
As the graphs here amply demonstrate, the notebooks in this Labs vary significantly in their capabilities. Some are mediocre when it comes to performance and suitable only for basic office tasks (although they usually compensate for it in other areas). There were also some true budget beasts, which managed to clock up some staggering benchmark scores. Overall system performance (graphed above) gives a fairly clear picture: the fastest notebook was almost three times the speed if the slowest.
The most surprising aspect of testing for this Labs was the fact that seven out of the 11 notebooks incorporated desktop processors. Desktop processors are usually available in higher clock frequencies than their mobile counterparts, but they also run at higher temperatures and tend to drain the battery at a faster rate.
On the other hand, it's specifically because they don't have these optimisations that desktop CPUs are cheaper for manufacturers to buy. This in turn keeps notebook prices down and performance up.
We started this Labs expecting to see a clear division between notebooks that offered performance and scaled back on features, or turned this around and offered a lot of features but reduced running speeds.
It never really turned out that way. While there were a few that conformed to our predetermined ideas, most of the notebooks here have a good mix of aspects from both camps – many systems proved that you don't have to settle for second-rate performance just because you're on a budget.
Give the price cap, we placed more emphasis on the value and features rather than just raw performance, which is why (given the graphs) you may be surprised at our choices. Ultimately it's all about a well rounded unit that fits your needs and budget, and you should find that here.