Just got one!

[B. Diddy]

Aren't they faster as well, or is it a wash in that respect?

 

[CHIP72]

Yeah, that's what gives it the big edge in battery life. Haswell CPUs are more energy efficient.

I'm not sure that's actually correct; ARM-powered chromebooks also tend to be lighter than similar-sized Intel-powered chromebooks. The batteries used in ARM chromebooks may be smaller than their Intel chromebook counterparts.

 

[B. Diddy]

I'm not sure that's actually correct; ARM-powered chromebooks also tend to be lighter than similar-sized Intel-powered chromebooks. The batteries used in ARM chromebooks may be smaller than their Intel chromebook counterparts.

Hmm, that's a good point. The Haswells are definitely more energy efficient than the older Celerons, but I wonder if anyone has done a head-to-head comparison with the Exynos.

 

[UJ95x]

Aren't they faster as well, or is it a wash in that respect?

Performance should also be better. The new Sammy Chromebook isn't out yet, but that one could be better

Sent from my Galaxy S4 running SlimKat 4.4.2

 

[Aquila]

The HP 11 is an awesome device, but the Acer has a much better processor (for both performance and battery life) and a lower price tag. The HP has a better screen (by a lot), better aesthetics (IMO) and better sound performance. It's not slow by any means, but Acer is noticeably faster.

 

[dkhmwilliams]

I don't mind the screen on the Acer. And I prefer the matte loom of it. Plus the battery life and price tag make it a winner in my opinion. I have been living the Acer since I picked it up two weeks ago. It is much better than my Samsung Chromebook.

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

[CHIP72]

One great thing about all the recently-released chromebooks is that they all have some very strong points to recommend them.

*The Acer 720 is probably the best entry-level chromebook right now.

*The HP 11 is the best current choice if display, portability, and/or mobile connectivity are important to you.

*The Toshiba model is a strong choice if you want a basic chromebook with a bigger screen that looks good but is still relatively cheap.

*The HP 14, while probably the least appealing to me of the currently available and soon-to-be released chromebooks (due to its weight), is an excellent choice if you want the largest possible screen and a little more power/RAM.

Even the Samsung Series 3, while nearly 1 1/2 years old now and probably $50 overpriced (and outpaced by the cheaper Acer 720, its closest competitor), is still a good choice if you want a lightweight chromebook with a very good keyboard and trackpad.

The above listing doesn't even include Dell's just-released chromebook (which looks like it will very comparable to the 4GB version of the Acer 720), Samsung's two new chromebooks coming out next month (which both appear to be moving into the still-uncharted mid-range category), and Asus' chromebooks that will probably will come out later in the spring.

We're a far cry from where we were merely a year ago and before that, when (at least IMO) the Samsung Series 3 was really the only good and appropriately priced chromebook on the market. (The Acer 710 was too heavy and had too poor of battery life, and the original HP 14" chromebook I think was even heavier and not as fast as the current 14" HP chromebook.)

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

I'm not sure that's actually correct; ARM-powered chromebooks also tend to be lighter than similar-sized Intel-powered chromebooks. The batteries used in ARM chromebooks may be smaller than their Intel chromebook counterparts.

The HP Chromebook 11 has a 30WHr battery, while the Acer has a 14.615WHr battery (3950mAh is what Acer quotes, I converted).

HP quotes 6 hours of battery life, while Acer quotes 8.5.

That means with a battery twice as large as the Acer the HP manages to have 25% less battery life.

 

[CHIP72]

The HP Chromebook 11 has a 30WHr battery, while the Acer has a 14.615WHr battery (3950mAh is what Acer quotes, I converted).

HP quotes 6 hours of battery life, while Acer quotes 8.5.

That means with a battery twice as large as the Acer the HP manages to have 25% less battery life.

That still doesn't explain the weight difference between ARM chromebooks and Intel chromebooks.

It appears the obvious explanation for that is that the ARM processor weighs considerably less (and is probably smaller in size) than the Intel Haswell processor. That's important, not so much for chromebooks at the current time (as long as a 11.6" device doesn't weigh more than about 2.8 pounds it is probably still light enough) but because it means those ARM processors found in chromebooks can be viably used in future chromepads and chromephones. I strongly believe that when Chrome OS is better optimized for touch and more apps are baked into the OS we'll see Chrome OS replace Android on tablets and then smartphones.

 

[Aquila]

I strongly believe that when Chrome OS is better optimized for touch and more apps are baked into the OS we'll see Chrome OS replace Android on tablets and then smartphones.

That would be very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see some merging both directions, and perhaps even soonish... but as it stands today, ChromeOS is barely ready for touch and strongly requires a keyboard for things like Docs, etc to be used effectively. Of course there are bluetooth options, but it feels like we're quite a bit away. It could almost be far enough away that totally new technology changes how we think about what the bridge means.

 

[pounder001]

Thanks for all of the information - Just purchased a C720 with 32gb it was only $50 more than the 16gb on AMZN

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

That still doesn't explain the weight difference between ARM chromebooks and Intel chromebooks.

It appears the obvious explanation for that is that the ARM processor weighs considerably less (and is probably smaller in size) than the Intel Haswell processor. That's important, not so much for chromebooks at the current time (as long as a 11.6" device doesn't weigh more than about 2.8 pounds it is probably still light enough) but because it means those ARM processors found in chromebooks can be viably used in future chromepads and chromephones. I strongly believe that when Chrome OS is better optimized for touch and more apps are baked into the OS we'll see Chrome OS replace Android on tablets and then smartphones.

ARM doesn't require active cooling. So no fans.

The physical size of the chips isn't going to be enough to make a measurable difference in weight.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[CHIP72]

That would be very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see some merging both directions, and perhaps even soonish... but as it stands today, ChromeOS is barely ready for touch and strongly requires a keyboard for things like Docs, etc to be used effectively. Of course there are bluetooth options, but it feels like we're quite a bit away. It could almost be far enough away that totally new technology changes how we think about what the bridge means.

The issue with Chrome OS on all-touch devices is its touch capabilities (I think it either doesn't have pinch to zoom or it is limited). Having said that, I don't think a keyboard is necessary for Chrome OS to work; what IS necessary is enough horsepower to have a desktop-class browser. When you think about it, the fundamental differences between laptop form factor devices and tablets (and smartphones) besides the obvious UI difference are 1) browser quality (which relates to the processor and operating system demands) and 2) the need for apps. With the first item, the browser quality is one of the primary reasons why a lot of people (including me) like chromebooks better than tablets. With the second item, I'm of the opinion that a laptop form factor device doesn't really need apps (and by apps I mean the apps typically downloaded from a ecosystem's app store); "apps", which are essentially pre-packaged shortcuts, were created because information entry on a touchscreen device is a pain. If Chrome OS can address these three things (touch capability, apps, and browser quality) on a touchscreen device, there's no reason why Google can't create chromepads and chromephones and have an OS that can be used in all device form factor types. (The last of those three items goes back to why chromebooks' ability to function effectively with a "mobile" processor is important; they show a high quality browser can be powered by the kind of processor found in tablets and smartphones.)

In addition to the above, if you think about it you'll realize that in the long-term it makes more sense for Google to focus on Chrome OS rather than Android as their primary operating system. To be frank, Chrome OS functions miles better than Android does (or at least it has based on my user experience.) More importantly Android, like Windows, MacOS, iOS, WP8, and BB 7/10, belongs to the device-based operating system paradigm originated on personal computers in the 1970s. Such operating systems need a high amount of resources to enable continued high performance, and eventually they either need to be replaced or require users to upgrade their devices when the modified operating system is no longer supported on their devices. These limitations aren't good for the consumer, but the consumer will accept them if there aren't better alternatives. By contrast, Chrome OS is a cloud-based operating system where most of the "power" for the device is located on remote servers and the device functions more like a thin client end terminal. Such devices don't have nearly as intensive of resource requirements. More importantly, the operating system updates are performed at the server end, so the updates are both simpler and easier to implement on the device (both from the manufacturers' and users' points of view) and enable the device to function efficiently for a longer period of time. You can't have an effective cloud-based system unless there is a high capacity and reliability communications infrastructure in place. However, that kind of infrastructure is exactly the direction the world is headed as internet-based communications become increasingly common and fast.

Because of the advantages offered by cloud-based operating systems over device-based operating systems (which from the consumer end of things are primarily simplicity, speed, and low cost), I personally think within 10 years cloud-based operating systems will become the norm and device-based operating systems will become the niche, provided the cloud-based operating system requirements are met. This is the exact opposite of what we have today. Google (and to a lesser degree Mozilla with its Firefox OS) is well-positioned with Chrome OS to be a leader in this paradigm shift.

 

[CHIP72]

ARM doesn't require active cooling. So no fans.

The physical size of the chips isn't going to be enough to make a measurable difference in weight.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I was essentially indirectly correct - it isn't the processor size but accessories associated with the processor (i.e. fans) that account for the weight difference between ARM-powered chromebooks and Intel-powered chromebooks. The lack of need for fans in ARM-powered chromebooks is still an important future factor RE: chromepads and chromephones.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

I was essentially indirectly correct - it isn't the processor size but accessories associated with the processor (i.e. fans) that account for the weight difference between ARM-powered chromebooks and Intel-powered chromebooks. The lack of need for fans in ARM-powered chromebooks is still an important future factor RE: chromepads and chromephones.

You were also incorrect about the battery life.

The lack of fans in ARM Chromebooks could also be hindering performance, since we know some of those chips (especially that Exynos dual) is pretty inefficient and power hungry. I would say some work still needs to be done on optimizing desktop Chrome for ARM in this manner. Android runs fine because it was designed from the ground up to run efficiently on ARM, so it's less of an issue there.

Intel is also working on low power chips, so who's to say that we won't see a future Chromebook with Bay Trail in it? Or that with Broadwell next year we'll see a Celeron that doesn't require a fan?

 

[CHIP72]

You were also incorrect about the battery life.

The lack of fans in ARM Chromebooks could also be hindering performance, since we know some of those chips (especially that Exynos dual) is pretty inefficient and power hungry. I would say some work still needs to be done on optimizing desktop Chrome for ARM in this manner. Android runs fine because it was designed from the ground up to run efficiently on ARM, so it's less of an issue there.

Intel is also working on low power chips, so who's to say that we won't see a future Chromebook with Bay Trail in it? Or that with Broadwell next year we'll see a Celeron that doesn't require a fan?

Intel chips that can run without fans and more specifically can be used in tablets and smartphones would be a good thing. It would also, as I noted in one of my posts above, potentially enable Chrome OS to provide desktop-class browser performance in a tablet or smartphone form factor. That's the real goal for all current mobile operating systems - to have desktop-class browser performance in a tablet or smartphone form factor while enabling those devices to have sufficient battery life.

 

[CHIP72]

Thanks for all of the information - Just purchased a C720 with 32gb it was only $50 more than the 16gb on AMZN

Congratulations, I think you made an excellent choice. If you haven't owned a chromebook before, I think you'll really, really like it.

 

[Algus]

With Haswell I think we've reached a sweet spot where performance isn't getting compromised at the expense of heat and fan noise. I push my chromebook with all kinds of Linux nonsense and the battery still holds out without generating an undue amount of heat or noise (though you can hear it in a silent room, unlike the Samsung 3). I'm still a huge fan of the fanless design but I wouldn't characterize device like the C720 as unduly heavy.

I was quite a fan of the ARM processor in the C7/Series 3 era last year but with the significant improvements Haswell brings over the old Ivy Bridge chips, I'm thinking the ARM chromebooks are going to have to find some other killer spec in regards to performance/battery life to win me back over. Especially since using an Intel CPU means I have access to more Linux software.

 

[pounder001]

Thanks for all of the information - Just purchased a C720 with 32gb it was only $50 more than the 16gb on AMZN

A quick update: Received yesterday coming from a standard "old" Dell laptop.
I can't believe how quick it is, as I said above it will take me some time to adjust but so far I have managed to get multiple emails set up in gmail.

 

[dkhmwilliams]

A quick update: Received yesterday coming from a standard "old" Dell laptop.
I can't believe how quick it is, as I said above it will take me some time to adjust but so far I have managed to get multiple emails set up in gmail.

I have found that I am completely dependent on the track pad gestures. I used a Windows laptop recently and when I couldn't use the Chrome OS gestures I was very disappointed. The performance is great. I do see some checkerboarding when I scroll fast through web pages and when I go forward or backward through web pages, the refresh takes a few seconds. But other than that, I have no issues. I must say that this keyboard feels really good. I do wish they were backlit though. But then again, $200.