Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 116562	2011-03-09 21:01:00	Samsung SF510 PC World Review	SolMiester (139)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1184802	2011-03-09 21:58:00	Having read the review I linked above, I'm a bit mixed. While I don't think anything is necessarily "bad" about the approach in the article, I am confused why so much emphasis was put on gaming performance for a non-gaming laptop. It comes with a GPU that was entry level two generations ago, and it's categorised by Samsung as one of their "Thin & Light" models, not a performance series. Honestly, if anyone was buying this for gaming, they really are going down the wrong track. I like that you've pointed out that it can handle HD media, GIMP etc fine - though I'd have been interested in some more multitasking and media/productivity tests. How easy are it's connectivity features to use? Samsung talk up it's Allshare/Easyshare type features heavily in their marketing for this product, but I don't see it mentioned at all in the review. Does the "powerless sleep" feature really allow a ~3second startup? How about image quality, rather than pure framerate - is the LCD panel good? Clear, crisp colours etc? Unfortunately, I would have to say that while I think the review is well-written, I don't think you've reviewed the product for the same type of user that Samsungs public marketing material are aiming the product at. Perhaps you thought it was an RF510, instead of SF510? Heh :/ If you're expecting gaming performance in that pricerange, look to the Asus N53 series. You can get one with an i5 Sandy Bridge and a GT4xx/5xx M series GPU for about $100 more than the SF510.	inphinity (7274)
1184803	2011-03-09 22:10:00	I haven't read the review myself, so I can only go off comments in this thread. But given that it is a mid-spec laptop marketed for it's battery life, connectivity and startup times (as well as the already discussed visual style), I would assume that any review and testing would have focussed on these features, as well as general office productivity and media performance, right? It's entirely possible that's exactly what was discussed - as above, I haven't read the review myself. But that would be the topics I would expect to find information on about this laptop. Is it the review here (pcworld.co.nz)? Yes!	SolMiester (139)
1184804	2011-03-09 22:23:00	If you don't need the portability, opt for a desktop - this laptop is never going to match up. If you say so. :) You didn't specify which graphics chip it had... 1gb NVIDIA could be anything really, 310M to 335M or could be anything really... Also, resolution, why did you test on 720p when the native resolution isn't 1280x720? In fact on first read I assume that was the native resolution anyway... iCore 5, was it the latest Sandy Bridges? Or is it over a year old? No weight? No battery time... Not even taking the specs into account, I’d expect to do pretty much whatever I wanted if I were willing to sink nearly $2000 into a laptop. Going by that logic, I should be able to play Crysis at 1920x1080 on this: www.laptop.co.nz ?	Cato (6936)
1184805	2011-03-09 22:29:00	Just read the review - I enjoyed the chatty, personal style, but would have to agree with some of the comments above re: reviewing it based on the market it's targetted at . Start with "The manufacturer has designed this machine with ABC ("gaming", "general office work", "graphics editing", "video editing" etc) in mind, . . . " Then the review could clearly identify shortfalls (or features) for that particular market segment, all the better to help them make a purchasing decision . As inphinity suggests, there isn't much point in testing for gaming performance if it's not designed for gaming in the first place . Perhaps that could be a side-point after the main review: "Although not specifically designed for gaming, we found it adequate ('poor', 'surprisingly good') for playing games like XYZ . . . " Nothing wrong with commenting on the looks of a machine - I enjoy bling as much as the next geek, but it's secondary to the performance of the machine itself . Personally, between two very similarly specced machines, I would go for a brand name (reputation: Asus, Toshiba) followed by the looks . . . Just some feedback, Siobhan - I don't want your job!! :D (Although I wouldn't mind playing with all the toys you get to play with!)	johcar (6283)
1184806	2011-03-09 22:44:00	I think games are a perfect way to test for performance (i havent read the article) they usually stress a pc more than any other normal activity EDIT: you not going to say "man this runs office 2010 awesome!"	Gobe1 (6290)
1184807	2011-03-10 00:50:00	I've read the review a couple of times (in the mag and online). I admit I'm a bit biased as a serious pc gamer but I found it useful tho I agree its probably off track (Samsung dont seem to advertise it as a gaming pc at all). Looks really gamey with the fins and shape - kinda hoped it was a gaming machine. Maybe Siobhan did too. I like that pc world always tests at 1280x720 and 1920x1080, so you can compare benchmarks easily. Too many different resolutions to test em all. Not sure what happened to the other benchmarks tho. 3dmark and cinebench and trackmania like they usually use. Just the stalker one. Next time run the rest, but a nicely written review anyway. Sol: you might not care how laptops look, but I do. My reproductive organs are on the outside of my body, I watch sport, and i dont date guys. Sorry to break your stereotype. - ArcadeIron	ArcadeIron (16272)
1184808	2011-03-10 01:19:00	I like that pc world always tests at 1280x720 and 1920x1080, so you can compare benchmarks easily . Too many different resolutions to test em all . Almost every laptop on the market now (13"-15") has the resolution of 1366x786, this has been the case for a while . Most netbooks are moving to 1366x786 too . So why test 720p? I can't fathom the logic of not testing or benchmarking something on native resolution - which is not an uncommon resolution, because you will not play a game on the non native resolution anyway . While 1920x1080 is becoming the defacto resolution on larger laptops and most desktops . So the point is valid there .	Cato (6936)
1184809	2011-03-10 01:33:00	Oh, don't get my comments wrong, I'm not by any means saying it's a badly written review. Just that the criteria it was reviewed on do not very closely match the apparent target market for the product. I also note that several retailers (JB Hifi and the like) have this Samsung model on special at around $1399 atm. Almost every laptop on the market now (13"-15") has the resolution of 1366x786, this has been the case for a while. Most netbooks are moving to 1366x786 too. 1366x768 ;)	inphinity (7274)
1184810	2011-03-10 01:36:00	1366x768 ;) I'll just crawl into a corner and kill myself. :(	Cato (6936)
1184811	2011-03-10 03:02:00	Don't care too much for the review, what I did find rather strange was Zara sticking her nose into the forum when there is criticism of the mag, but she has shown no interest in the past in the forum	plod (107)
1 2 3