MSI Wind U123 netbook pretty lame as audio machine

[kensuguro]

I broke my netbook with a bad bios flash, but just got it back from the factory. I ran the default demo file from Ableton Live, and shockingly, but yet not surprisingly, the U123 chugged and chugged at over 70%. I ran ASIO4ALL hoping the internal Realtec HD soundcard would handle things smoothly. The live demo project is pretty compact but has multicomp and limiter on master channel, and it's got like 5 tracks of va stuff I think. (I can barely see anything on the tiny screen)

I still haven't tested using a proper usb audio interface, so I'll follow up when I get the chance. I've heard reports of people running 1 instance of pianoteq just fine...

[siriusbliss]

Live is a memory hog, so probably not a good test.

I run Magix Samplitude Music Studio and Music Maker on my Dell Inspiron Mini with no problems.

I would try testing the PC with 'lighter' DAWs to see if performance improves.

Greg

[valis]

My understanding is that the Atom is basically an extension on the Pentium-M architecture with some slight tweaks and then core features simplified and built on a smaller (faster) process to get thermal envelopes down to 2-3W for the cpu. Older single core atoms are going to be especially anemic (as they will constantly have to serve the interrupt requests to feed the audio device) but even newer dual core models aren't too much stronger than my aging 1.6Ghz 6 year old laptop in my experience.

One upshot with your MSI wind is that I believe the U120 series has the Atom 280 with the fsb increased from 533 to 667mhz, and you can have up to 2GB of ram. Correct me if I'm wrong on that count.

[valis]

For reference sake, have a look where the Atom 230 & 330 fall on anandtech bench:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2

230 is the same as the N270 (but for 'nettops' or thin-clients) and the 280's slightly faster fsb & clockspeed really only gain a few % over the 230/N270.

I was actually disappointed with the performance I found as I had wanted to have a nice small portable for use when dj'ing so I didn't have to worry about losing a laptop to some mishap. However finding that I get essentially the same performance as my 5 year old laptop I can't justify even the meager expense for these yet...just on looks alone.

[cortone]

Valis,

I'm not sure that's true about the Atom inheriting from the Pentium M, check this:

http://www.intel.com/technology/atom/mi ... ecture.htm

This implies that it is a new architecture. In marketing-speak, anyway.

I have a 2003-era laptop with a Pentium M (pretty sure it's a 1.2G, possibly a 1.4G), and we also have an Atom-based netbook (I don't remember what, but I think it's also a 1.2G, definitely first-generation), and I'm always amazed at how much quicker it is at everything than the old laptop. There is undoubtedly many impacts of an old Windows install and all the crud that has built up though.

Cory

[kensuguro]

The u123 is snappy as hell when using it for normal tasks. It's just Live that's slow. I'll be back with more tests.

[astroman]

afaik Ableton uses an audio-engine based on granular algorithms to perform it's tricks.
A comparison to plain .wav files would be interesting.
On desktop CPU it's probably less of a penalty

cheers, Tom

[valis]

Depends on the timestretch mode when it comes to the audio clips (loops). "Beat" mode is relatively pain-free, the further up the ladder you go in sound quality the heftier it gets (of course). But the clip-handling/timestretch isn't where the real cpu load comes in imo, it's when u start using vst's and some of ableton's internal sound generation resources.

[valis]

Valis,

I'm not sure that's true about the Atom inheriting from the Pentium M, check this:

http://www.intel.com/technology/atom/mi ... ecture.htm

This implies that it is a new architecture. In marketing-speak, anyway.

I have a 2003-era laptop with a Pentium M (pretty sure it's a 1.2G, possibly a 1.4G), and we also have an Atom-based netbook (I don't remember what, but I think it's also a 1.2G, definitely first-generation), and I'm always amazed at how much quicker it is at everything than the old laptop. There is undoubtedly many impacts of an old Windows install and all the crud that has built up though.

Cory

The Atom shares the full Core2 instruction set & many of its features which stem back directly to the Pentium-M, so in that sense I often see it referrred to as a "Pentium-M based low power cpu with an in-order pipeline that supports hyperthreading and multiple cores". At the same time it's a new architecture in the sense that they're returned to the Pentium (plain Pentium/P2/P3) days of in-order execution to simplify the pipeline and they've focused primarily on low-power through extensive re-engineering, both of which mark a departure from the later netburst & Pentium-M derived products. They also introduced a new policy with the Atom which will carry to newer products (and already has to Nehelem based cpu's) in that any additional features must bring at least the increase in performance equal to their power penalty. Ie, a 1% increase in performance can cost no more than 1% increase in TDW in normal usage.

I guess the most accurate thing to say would have been it's a new architecture that draws on several previous Intel technologies, both from the Core2 (P-M) instruction set and the pre-netburst (pre-P6) core architectures. But now I'm being pedantic, I'll just grant you your point

For your 2003-era laptop I would wonder how it differs with your netbook in a few ways: Harddrive (SSD in the netbook?), front-side bus speed (mine is 400mhz but has larger cache on the cpu than Atom which helps with audio tasks) and the overall system bus choice. Ie, if the older laptop is an anemic intel Integrated graphics chipset with choked memory bus and an ancient PATA 4200rpm HD that may only have 4-8MB cache and very slow read speeds, etc etc, the certainly the netbook will feel faster.

One thing I have done is maxed my ancient laptop out on ram (2GB) with the fastest speed/CaS latency I could get and put a relatively recent 5400rpm 16MB cache HD in it. Not SSD speeds but it made the machine considerably snappier than the 40GB 4200rpm/512MB machine it used to be.

[braincell]

I believe the problem is caused by the integrated graphics chip. This and low memory dogs cheap notebook computers. You get what you pay for. I'm sure Firefox and Word will run pretty well. I keep hearing of people buying these and then saying "Vista sucks" because it is so slow. It's actually a crappy computer IMHO. You get what you pay for. Just say "NO" to integrated graphics.

[siriusbliss]

Depends on the timestretch mode when it comes to the audio clips (loops). "Beat" mode is relatively pain-free, the further up the ladder you go in sound quality the heftier it gets (of course). But the clip-handling/timestretch isn't where the real cpu load comes in imo, it's when u start using vst's and some of ableton's internal sound generation resources.

Yes.

Greg

[cortone]

Valis,


Thanks for the point, but we can just call it even. I wasn't really trying to score anyway, I'm more a defensive player (go where the skill-set is, that's my motto).

I'd really have to dig into the old laptop to remember, but I know it is not integrated graphics, the card I purchased was near top-end for laptops at the time. I'm certain it's a 5400RPM drive at least, and I may have stumped for a 7200 because it's usually worth the bucks. The netbook is a PATA, I'm waiting for at least a year and probably two for the SSD prices to drop into my thrifty-scot range. I'm impressed by the performance of those though, and am eager for them to get affordable. RAM is definitely low, but I'm sure the many years of usage with only occasional clean-ups is as much of a factor. It's on my list of things to add to my list of things to do...

Braincell, this was not a top-end processor for the times, but I did work to max out most of the other features, and it wasn't cheap. It was only intended for the basic net usage and some photo work, which it is continuing to do while I dream of a better laptop. Integrated graphics is still a problem, but not nearly so much as it was up to about 2005. Very true about Vista, it's performance is good on a properly-built system, and rarely good on an attempted upgrade. That said, it's still a HOG for resources, it's just that new systems have those resources. If MS did their part like the chip companies did, our systems would be screamingly fast, even with middle- and low- end hardware. Most of the processor advancement is absorbed by OS and App bloat.

Cory

[valis]

Well the issue with the Atom isn't the IGP (though only the current gen netbooks are doing ok at HD video codecs & are still only capable of running games from 4-5 years ago with topped out settings). Seriously look at the benchmarks here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2

We weren't discussing how 'snappy' it felt in general usage remember, this is about using a netbook for audio-related tasks. If you look at the benchmarks there you'll see the Atom 230/330 are dead bottom in almost everything (these are the same as the N270, as mentioned above.) These cpu's are in-order execution with a very low IPC (instructions per cycle) even compared to the Pentium4 (which was out of order & had a deep pipeline to compensate for its low IPC with higher speeds.) Of course they'll get there eventually, another die shrink ought to facilitate things speeding up...

Intel's initial literature for the Atom included cellular devices and media players in their target market for the chips. They're still too big for that but as luck would have it the netbook thing took off.