Lenovo's X300 vs. Apple's MacBook Air
-
Page 1:Introduction
-
Page 2:The X300’s L7100 processor
-
Page 3:The Memory, Graphics Card and Add-Ons
-
Page 4:The X300’s Connectivity
-
Page 5:Complete and Fast Storage
-
Page 6:The Screen, Keyboard and Mouse
-
Page 7:Wireless Quality
-
Page 8:MacBook Air Comparisons
-
Page 9:Conclusion: Better Than the MacBook Air?
The X300’s L7100 processor
Let’s start with something interesting: the X300’s processor. Lenovo used a Core 2 Duo L7100 processor. This device, which could not be located on Intel’s Website, is something out of the normal fray.
A Core 2 Duo SFF
Like MacBook Air’s processor, the L7100 uses a SFF package (Small Form Factor). The advantage is simple: the processor takes up less space on the motherboard. It is soldered in place and can’t be removed or changed. Its frequency is low (1.2 GHz) and its listed TDP is just 12 W.

The Clock Speed Issue
The L7100 has a 1.2 GHz clock speed, with an 800 MHz front-side bus (FSB). However, according the results of our first tests, CPU-Z sent us back a different reading for the clock speed: 1.6 GHz (8x 200 MHz). After doing some research, and with France Delattre’s help, we uncovered the reason for this frequency change: Intel’s Dynamic FSB feature.

In reality, the processor runs at 1.2 GHz (6x200 MHz) when plugged in, but once it goes into power economy mode on a battery charge, the Dynamic FSB technology kicks in. Here lies the source of the problem: to reduce power consumption, Intel designed the processor to function like an 800 MHz processor by adding idle cycles in the FSB and raising the coefficient multiplier to x8 instead of x6. This way the FSB runs at 200 MHz (and the processor at 1.6 GHz) but an idle cycle is inserted between every processor cycle, so the Core 2 Duo functions like a device with a 100 MHz FSB instead (and thus, an 800 MHz CPU).
Why Include Idle Cycles?
Intel uses this technique because it is easy to implement, but more so because it can be activated quickly. Really modifying the FSB’s frequency would clearly be a more elegant solution but it would also mean changing all of the FSB’s synchronized clocks (memory, PCI-Express, PCI etc.). Plus, even when possible, changing the FSB on the fly requires the insertion of more than just idle cycles.


In the end, even if CPU-Z and other benchmarks indicate that the actual frequency is 1.6 GHz, you have to keep in mind that the processor is really acting like an 800 MHz model. Let us take note that special versions of CPU-Z allow you to label the frequency as “relative,” as you can see in the images.
The air is so limiting (you can't even change the battery- its an ultraportable without flexible battery options!
Don't get me wrong; I think the X300 is a fantastic machine. It's a bummer that they didn't give it a good screen, and I hope that some of the quality issues with recent Lenovos don't manifest with this one, because it's an amazing engineering accomplishment. It has several features (especially WWAN and much better expandability/connectivity) that I really wish the MBA hadn't compromised on. Then again, aesthetically there's no comparing the two; the MBA is simply an amazingly desirable object, where the X300 just comes across as...competent. Whether that matters to you or not is purely personal.
The MBA is 4400 AUD with the solid drive, I can get a Mtron 64GB for about 1400 AUD, making my Sony cost about 3900 AUD. Battery life? My non-extended battery can play two DVD's without needing a charge, (barely) or just about enough time to get me from SYD to HI :-)
they should have installed vista on the macbook or MAC OSX on the x300
that would give a proper benchmark of the hardware.
I'm not a Mac fan so that's not my issue here. Still I can't see the point of using Microsoft Word as a measurement for comparison. Microsoft does tweak their Office suite to load very fast even on older hardware (it's integrated with system to operate with high priority). If Microsoft Word would have loaded faster on the Mac, yes then I would immediately send a bug report to Microsoft about it! The Photoshop comparison is much more relevant since we're talking about an equally third party software. Just as you added "the two systems with the different operating systems are not directly comparable..." in the section about boot up speed, the same applies to Microsoft Word.
These kinds of details add either a favourable or unfavourable mark of quality to a article.
(PS. your site generates a lot of script errors if checked DS.)
the comment that a matte screen is a drawback is somewhat myopic IMO, and obviously you don't even use your laptops in well lit bright environments, let alone outdoors. Glossy screens are great for dark environments, but for most people they aren't buying these laptops for DVD colour vibrance (that's why you would buy an LEDlit Glossy laptop), you want it to be functional.
Also, while I appreciate the comment on VGA being a drawback, the connector footprint for DVI is bigger, to me the combo of choice is what I have for mine, VGA+HDMI, you have the best of both worlds and no silly uncommon compromise like mini-DVI other macbooks.
I think like one of the posters above said, it's about an asthetic versus functional laptop. I wouldn't want an Air of work, but I'd want one for travel (either that or a Sony UMPC).
It would've been interesting to add something more Air-ish like the Toshiba R500.
I expected to read a blow by blow account of pro's and con's of the Lenovo's X300 compared to the Apple MacBook Air.
Instead 90% of the discussion was about the Lenovo's X300 and it was compared to.. well nothing! Only when benchmarking the system was there a comparison.
I expected a fair account of "The Lenovo doesnt have firewire, which is a downside compared to the macbook, however conversely, the Lenovo runs a solid state HDD."
I mean the title of the article is "Lenovo's X300 vs. Apple's MacBook Air" but the discussion and conclusion referred to Pro's and Con's to some immaginary system that was a dream.
This should be Labelled "Our love of the Lenovo with some benchmarks to compare to Apple to get attention of apple fans stirred up".
What a waste. The Discussion and conclusion should directly refer to the Topic/Hypothesis. If you were in school, you'd get a FAIL.
Given the size of that machine, integrate the CDROM would cost way more than 20 if they keep the same style. I have seen one of those MBA, and that was insane, for the first time I have saw a laptop with its body thinner than the LCD. The CDROM would even cost less than 20 but consider that device takes up a good fraction of space and unable to scale down due to the size of the disk, the only option to house CDROM inside the machine is to make other components "step aside". In the case of ultra-portable, the size of machine is already 'notebook' include CDROM would make even less space for CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD/PSU/etc. If apple include stander size CDROM in MBA, the result will be at least 2x expansive while perform at least 0.5x less that what it is now.
Also that aerodynamic exterior of the MBA means its utilizable space is even less that what I see. Just think it as an expanded ipod that looks like a computer
Given the size of that machine, integrate the CDROM would cost way more than 20 if they keep the same style. I have seen one of those MBA, and that was insane, for the first time I have saw a laptop with its body thinner than the LCD. The CDROM would even cost less than 20 but consider that device takes up a good fraction of space and unable to scale down due to the size of the disk, the only option to house CDROM inside the machine is to make other components "step aside". In the case of ultra-portable, the size of machine is already 'notebook' include CDROM would make even less space for CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD/PSU/etc. If apple include stander size CDROM in MBA, the result will be at least 2x expansive while perform at least 0.5x less that what it is now.
Also that aerodynamic exterior of the MBA means its utilizable space is even less that what I see. Just think it as an expanded ipod that looks like a computer