Big expectations are usually the cause of big frustrations, and if you don't think so, go back a year and remember the unusual marketing campaign of Microsoft for the UMPC aka Origami devices. When the press found that Hallo was not going to work in these devices they started to categorize them as weak machines and the next big Microsoft Fiasco.

Now I see a lot of expectations around the Samsung Q1 Ultra and I'm afraid that we are going to see the same amount of frustration in a lot of users willing to pay for this device. And this is why, the next picture shows the scores of CrystalMark ran in a Samsung Q1 Ultra using the Intel new processor A110 at 800MHz.


A Total Score of 13112, remember this number because we are going to need it later.

At home I have at this moment 3 UMPCs with 3 different processors: Samsung Q1 using a Intel Celeron at 900 MHz, a TabletKiosk eo v7110 using a VIA C7 at 1GHz and a Vega using a AMD Geodo at 500 MHz. The first two UMPC with 1 GB of RAM while Vega has only 256 MB. I ran the same benchmark tool in these 3 machines and here are the results.

Vega


10060 Total Score. Play attention to the last 3 tests that are graphic tests. Vega has better results in 2 of them. And that's the feeling I have when I use the Vega, the performance of 2D graphics is in this device extremely good. The Ultra perform better in the CPU tests and memory, but in this last one you have to keep in mind that the Vega has only 256 MB of RAM. So Vega is 1000 point short in this benchmark just because of the RAM.

TabletKiosk eo v7110


14002! But do not run into quick conclusions. This eo is not the regular eo, this eo is using a HDD at 7200 RPM and this increases the Total Score in around 2200 points. So if we want to be fair we should or could take from these 14002 that amount and we will end with a Total Score of 11802. But even with this adjustment the eo v7110 is very close to the Q1 Ultra Score. The eo has a extremely low score in the 3D Graphics test.

Q1 Celeron


Total Score of 17056. The Intel Celeron performs a little bit better than the new A110. Probably the A110 will have a better battery life but at this moment I have not found any tests that could prove that. In the 3 Graphics Tests the Q1 performs better in this benchmark than the Q1U. Is this a mistake? Lets check this other screen shot taken in that same Q1U.


And here is the same screen shot just taken from my Samsung Q1 with Vista installed.


As you can see from these two last screen shot, Vista also finds that the Celeron Processor is faster than the A110. Also, it's interesting to see how the Aero Graphics tests shows that the 945 gets a 2.0 while the 915 used in my Q1 gets a 1.9, so, is it real that we can't run Aero in our devices? We know for fact that in the earlier beta of Vista, beta testers used Aero in their machines with the 915 graphic chip. In the Graphics department the Q1U has a better Vista Score in the test relative with Game performance, and thanks to this better score the Vista Score in the Q1U is higher. But in the real life where 3D graphics are not used that much both machines will perform at the same level.

Conclusion

From all these tests and scores I can conclude that the overall performance of the Q1U will be about the same or a little bit better in a few tasks than the one we see in current Q1 and Q1p. The Q1U is not that fast ultra powerful machine that many have imagined. And I do not think that this was the idea behind the Q1U design. The idea behind using the A110 in the Q1 is or was in my opinion to get the Aero running in a UMPC and at the same time keep the battery life the same or higher and to do that they had to create a weaker processor. And that's what the A110 processor is, a weaker processor with a better graphic chip to keep the power consumption low. But not that low. I'm not expecting to see in the Q1U 5 hours of battery life using the original battery. We are not that good yet.

--
Posted By CTitanic to ULTRA MOBILE PC TIPS at 5/02/2007 06:19:00 PM

out of curiosity, for people who are thinking of buying a Q1 Ultra: is anybody going to install XP over Vista?

Would be one way to improve performance, battery would last a little longer and a lot of people still prefer XP over Vista.

You cant measure performance this way. Its 99% inaccurate.

Q1u is dual core and will blow away the previous models in CPU productivity. IMO this analysis is quite inaccurate. Crystalmarks CPU benchmark is only single thread and quite synthetic.

Also note that the Vista Score is an absolute inaccurate laughable joke. Why do people even bother looking at it. Its 100% flaud.

These performance "previews" are far from real-world reality.

grimster:

You cant measure performance this way. Its 99% inaccurate.

Q1u is dual core and will blow away the previous models in CPU productivity. IMO this analysis is quite inaccurate. Crystalmarks CPU benchmark is only single thread and quite synthetic.

Also note that the Vista Score is an absolute inaccurate laughable joke. Why do people even bother looking at it. Its 100% flaud.

These performance "previews" are far from real-world reality.

I agree with you 100% Grimster. But... so far it's the only analisys we have. Do you have any? When I usually come to say what you have said, I usually come backing up what I say with my own analisys.

What I just said about the A110 is about the same that many other are saying checking the few numbers that we have so far.

I do not why but this reminds me another conversation that we had some time ago about VIA.

Give me numbers. Prove me what you are saying. Come with something better. And I'll start to respect you a little bit.

The Q1 Ultra is NOT dual core, I wish it was.

I agree that with modern processors and chipsets that hands on is the only valid tests.

The dual core vs. non dual core has been argued especially since one of the people who saw it at a trade show said that the performance meter had 2 graphs.

When Intel officially announced the processor for the Q1U, they didnt state it was dual core.

the a100 and a110 processors are definitely NOT dual core. they are clocked down versions of the pentium m with 512kb of l2 cache.

if my understanding is correct...

ctitanic:

I do not why but this reminds me another conversation that we had some time ago about VIA.

right. and I was correct back then. The VIA flopped in performance compared to the intel solutions.

grimster:

ctitanic:

I do not why but this reminds me another conversation that we had some time ago about VIA.

right. and I was correct back then. The VIA flopped in performance compared to the intel solutions.

According to whom you were right? I wont go back to review that argument but I think that people told you that you were not right in what you were saying at that time. There is not question that Intel processor have a better performance than VIA processors. That was not the question, the question was in what percentage. You did  not proved anything on that time in the same way you are now not proving anything here. You just come to say "this comparisson is not good" but once again you forgot to say "here is a better way to analyze all this".

Those numbers leave me very optimistic about the Q1U price, there won't be much justifications to be higher than the actual Q1. With all the improvements (twice RAM memory, SD instead CF slot, native wide SVGA resolution, lower weight, higher battery capacity, aero compatibility, thumb keyboard and mouse) IMO the Q1U will be worth the consideration.

And the ULV Celeron M 900 MHz found in the Q1 wasn't slow.

Igor Sotelo:

Those numbers leave me very optimistic about the Q1U price, there won't be much justifications to be higher than the actual Q1. With all the improvements (twice RAM memory, SD instead CF slot, native wide SVGA resolution, lower weight, higher battery capacity, aero compatibility, thumb keyboard and mouse) IMO the Q1U will be worth the consideration.

And the ULV Celeron M 900 MHz found in the Q1 wasn't slow.

If you compare the Q1p and the Q1 with Celeron the overall performance of both was about the same.

About what you are saying about the Q1u you are right, that´s a possitive point.

Another one confirming what I said, this unit is slow.

Ahem.

I think it would be irresponsible for anyone to claim a device is slow after only using one for a few minutes and not knowing how the device was configured. That is why I only stated it seemed to me that opening up some programs seemed a bit slow.