Notebookcheck

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Anti-Spam: Bitte NBC eingeben / Please enter NBC:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: lubo
« on: July 29, 2013, 11:16:49 »

I think heating is a big problem for this model. It so hot from the bottom that it is impassible to work with this laptop on your knees. My samsung 900x is going to be hot even on 15% of processor is used. and on monitor you see ghosting or waving horizontally when fan is running.   
Posted by: Zi Hoon Park
« on: June 03, 2013, 09:09:29 »

Thank you for the swift reply, then does this mean I have an empty RAM memory slot, which I can upgrade my RAM memory? I thought all all 13.3 inch New Series 9 have only 1 RAM memory slot, in which memory stick is soldered into the motherboard, so you cannot upgrade. I see the screenshot of this review on CPU-Z, it clearly states dual channels for the RAM, and has so much higher graphic score, and it's probably due to dual channels of RAM. So is this review for 15 inch which has a empty slot? Well, it's says it's for 13.3 inches... I don't understand...
Posted by: Allen.Ngo
« on: June 03, 2013, 08:23:22 »

hello,

It's possible that you have 4 GB on one module. You will need an even number of modules for dual-channel
Posted by: Zi Hoon Park
« on: June 03, 2013, 00:49:20 »

i have np900x3c-a05us which has core i5-3317u with Sandisk SSD U100 and 4gb of RAM. Now my question is how come this computer on the review has dual channels of RAM on that cpu-z when mine has only single channel of RAM. My Windows Xperience index shows only 4.5 on Graphics instead of 6.5 which seems very high for the same Intel HD 4000. Does i7 CPU configurates the RAM into dual thus making the graphic score better? Or ismit just CPU-z glitch? Or does CPU play in a role of boosting graphic score?
Posted by: AstralStorm
« on: March 25, 2013, 08:13:25 »

The battery by straight computation would give ~8.5h at 5.2W. (44Wh / 5.2W) The caveat is that this power consumption test is (probably) not an average power usage, but just momentary - perhaps the laptop engages stronger power saving when idle for prolonged time.
It's just a peek at the power meter, thus not really representative of anything.

Battery tests are more representative of actual usage.
Posted by: Audio
« on: February 23, 2013, 10:14:15 »

What about the audio? Has this computer speakers?
Posted by: shake.lin
« on: December 24, 2012, 07:44:45 »

The battery life test is kinda fake.
The author says 900X3C's battery is 40Wh and the lowest idle power consumption is 5.2 Watt, then how can the Reader's Test achieve more than 11 hours? Everyone knows 40Wh/5.2W < 7.7hour
Posted by: Seaeyes
« on: November 25, 2012, 08:13:51 »

The wifi surfing test shows 900X3c achieves a considerably longer battery life than Asus UX31A and Toshiba z930 (by more than 1 hour). But 900X3c has a smaller battery (40wh vs ux31a's 50wh and z930's 47wh). Could reviewer do some in deep tests and tell us what's the reason behind it?
Posted by: Niko
« on: October 15, 2012, 00:15:09 »

Nice review. Are you guys planning on reviewing any of the Vizio laptops on the market?
Posted by: Redaktion
« on: October 13, 2012, 08:22:07 »

Facelift. Under the name 900X3C-A04DE Samsung offers the well-known 13.3 inch -Premium-Subnotebook with fresh hardware from Intel. In addition to the matte display with a resolution of 1600 x 900 pixels, an Intel Core i7-3517U Dual-Core-Processor, 4 GB of RAM, and a  256 GB SSD will be offered. Prices start from around 1500 Euro.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Update-Samsung-Series-9-900X3C-A04DE-Subnotebook.83079.0.html

 
» Impressum     Sprachen: Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Türkçe | Svenska