Page 1:Defining The Mobile Workstation
Page 2:Eurocom D900F Panther
Page 3:Panther Guts
Page 4:MSI GT725-212US
Page 5:Inside MSI's GT725
Page 6:Practical Notes On Using Secondary Displays
Page 7:Test Settings
Page 8:Benchmark Results: 3D Games
Page 9:Benchmark Results: Encoding
Page 10:Benchmark Results: Productivity
Page 11:Benchmark Results: Synthetic
Page 12:Power Use, Battery Life, And Efficiency
Power Use, Battery Life, And Efficiency
Unlike many previous-generation gaming notebooks, Eurocom’s D900F Panther and MSI’s GT725-212US are designed to provide at least some functionality away from the wall socket. Thus, we don’t except them to use nearly as much power as a high-end desktop.
The big energy savings for MSI’s GT725 likely comes from its low-voltage Core 2 Quad processor. Eurocom’s D900F saves only around 50W compared to our Core i7 desktop motherboard test configuration.
Eurcom’s battery is rated only 13% greater capacity than MSI’s, yet the difference in run time is far less than the difference in power consumption. Charge times are similarly lengthy for both unit.
In order to assess efficiency we first had to find the average performance difference. It’s not much of a surprise that Eurocom’s Core i7-965 Extreme desktop processor has a much greater affect on performance than its G92-based graphics unit, but we were hoping for more than a 71% average performance increase.
Dividing the combined performance of each system by its average power consumption reveals that the D900F loses 12% in efficiency compared to MSI’s miserly GT725-212US.
- Defining The Mobile Workstation
- Eurocom D900F Panther
- Panther Guts
- MSI GT725-212US
- Inside MSI's GT725
- Practical Notes On Using Secondary Displays
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: 3D Games
- Benchmark Results: Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Synthetic
- Power Use, Battery Life, And Efficiency