Everex to take on the Eee PC with $400 VIA laptop

Californian PC maker Everex is making headlines once again. This time, it’s not the company’s $199 desktop PC or its planned $275 full-sized notebook that are generating publicity, but rather an upcoming ultra-portable system akin to Asustek’s recently launched Eee PC.

LinuxDevices has the scoop on the upcoming Everex sub-notebook, which it says will bear the somewhat less catchy name of CE1200V. The CE1200V will reportedly have a 7″ 800×480 display—just like the Eee PC—as well as a 1.2GHz VIA C7 processor, 512MB of RAM, a 30GB hard drive, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, a 4-in-1 card reader, a DVI display output, and a 1.2-megapixel webcam on some models. In other words, think an Eee PC with a hard drive instead of a solid-state drive and a VIA processor instead of an Intel one.

On the software side of things, LinuxDevices says the CE1200V will come with the same Ubuntu Linux-based gOS operating system as the $199 PC. gOS offers a lightweight Enlightenment E17-based user interface as well as a suite of web-based Google applications.

Pictures of the system posted by LinuxDevices suggest the CE1200V is based on the NanoBook UMD Reference Design VIA unveiled at Computex. That would imply a similar weight (1.87 lbs or 850 g) and similar battery life (around five hours), although Everex is expected to price the CE1200V at $400, making it $200 cheaper than VIA’s $600 target for the NanoBook reference. Such specifications could make the CE1200V a more mobile alternative to the $350-400 Eee PC, which weighs 2 lbs and is rated for 3.5 hours of battery life at most.

We’ll probably find out sooner rather than later. Everex is supposedly scheduled to unveil the CE1200V during the Consumer Electronics Show, which starts on January 7. Systems are expected to become available the following week on January 15.

Comments closed
    • stmok
    • 12 years ago

    In simple terms, the C7 processor is basically a C3 “Nehemiah” one with an improved “front-end”. At most, its about 10% faster clock for clock compared to a C3. (Hence the reason why I multiply by 1.1 in the following).

    Generally, for VIA C7 FPU performance compared to PIII class CPU, divide speed by three, then multiply by 1.1 to give you a rough idea of equivalent speed.

    ie: A 1.2Ghz VIA C7 chip is approx like a 440Mhz PIII in FPU performance.

    Integer performance…(divide 2 and multiply 1.1)

    ie: A 1.2Ghz VIA C7 chip is approx like a 660Mhz PIII in the integer dept.

    For a 2Ghz C7 (TDP is about 20W at Max load). It’ll be like a…
    FPU: 733Mhz PIII
    INT: 1.1Ghz PIII
    (That isn’t too bad)

    If VIA ever makes a 3Ghz model…
    FPU: 1.1Ghz PIII
    INT: 1.65Ghz PIII
    (Getting better!)

    I wonder what happens when they hit 4Ghz?
    FPU: 1.467Ghz PIII
    INT: 2.2Ghz PIII
    (That’s more like it!)

    If they can make a 3Ghz or a 4Ghz model fanless in a super small form factor, that would be AWESOME! (Perfect for most of my family members!)…But considering it takes VIA’s CPU division quite a while to bring out something new, I expect it’ll be something like a 5 year wait!

    Bare in mind, VIA processors have a faster Bus solution than PIII, so when you compare them from a user perspective, you’ll notice the VIA being smoother for general computer use. You’ll start noticing performance will drop off when FPU heavy apps are used.

    Always remember, the VIA processor line is designed for economy. Its a simple design with low thermal footprint, and is cheap to manufacture. (compared to equivalent Intel or AMD solutions). Think of it like a Hyundai hatchback. It ain’t the fastest thing on 4 wheels, but it gets you from A to B.

    When you take all this into consideration, and throw in Linux into the equation, such a system isn’t so bad for most people with low computing demands.

    Don’t expect it to play HD content smoothly or compress huge ZIP, RAR, etc files quickly! (This is based on my experience with a 1Ghz C3 “Nehemiah” based solution)…That’s assuming you don’t use the VIA IGP’s video accelerated features. If you do, this changes the situation around quite a bit for HD content. (It opens the door for lower res HD content. Don’t expect 1080p with a VIA solution for a long while yet!)

      • stmok
      • 12 years ago

      Scratch what I said previously. I looked up more recent benchmarks…

      A VIA C7 1.5Ghz performs approx the same as a PIII 733Mhz in both integer and FPU performance. Let’s call it a PIII 700Mhz to be conservative. (will have cleaner results when converting) :-p

      The VIA solution has about 2x memory bandwidth (using CN700 chipset) compared to PIII solution using i815 chipset.

      A C7 2Ghz (desktop) is like a PIII 933Mhz.

      So this C7 1.2Ghz solution is like PIII 560Mhz.
      (Which isn’t too bad).

      The future VIA processor is called “Isaiah” (also referred to as the “CN”). They’ve been working on it since 2004 or so. VIA claims that it’ll be 2x Integer performance and 4x FPU peformance compared to the current C7 processor. (clock for clock comparison).

      They say its coming next year, 1st quarter.

    • wierdo
    • 12 years ago

    To #8: that’s news to me. did they finally fix their FPU deficiencies to the point where their CPUs can actually perform better than a 500mhz K7 chip?

      • d2brothe
      • 12 years ago

      They’re goal isn’t to perform better than that, (although I believe they do right now, perform much better, and are certainly plenty fast for most applications today), they’re goal is to use less power, and thats what they do, they’re by far the lowest power draw CPU in mainstream use. AMD on the other hand is trying to compete in performance…which they are not doing so well at right now.

    • PetMiceRnice
    • 12 years ago

    When I can get a “real” laptop with a 80GB or so hard drive and a screen of at least 14″ in size for $500 to $600 CDN, the Eee PC is a hard sell. Maybe some people like it for the size, but a laptop is pretty small as it is.

      • d2brothe
      • 12 years ago

      Try acer, I bet they have something for that. At the very least refurb or used can be had for that price.

        • Firestarter
        • 12 years ago

        Then try and use the Acer you just bought like one would use an Eee PC. You’ll develop a muscular physique and a warm relationship with Acer’s RMA department.

          • d2brothe
          • 12 years ago

          He asked for a 14 inch screen or more. Its not gonna be an ultra portable no matter which manufacturer you choose, as for acer’s reliability, in my experience it isn’t the worst one out there.

      • Bombadil
      • 12 years ago

      This is a viable class of devices, though I think $400 is still a little too expensive.

      These are a different category than laptops. I’ve been using an old NEC Mobile Pro 900C Handheld PC for several months. My primary use of the machine is for writing. A real keyboard is great for that, but the form factor sucks for a portable media player.

      I don’t think the 4GB of the Eee PC is a real limitation for these devices. USB and flash expansion is all that’s needed–though a removable 2.5″ SATA drive might be okay. I am only using a fraction of a 1GB CF card for storage on my Mobile Pro.

      It is hard to say what the perfect resolution for this type of device would be. I would probably pick something like 9″ to 10″ DVD resolution (854×480). The crappy 640×240 HVGA resolution on my Mobile Pro is the worst aspect of the device. The 8:3 ratio actually works very well, but 16:9 is probably the way to go now (over 16:10 or 4:3 or 5:4). 7″ 800×480 seems just a bit too narrow–probably motivated by price. Though 1280×480 could make a very compact device.

      The best performance/Watt CPU/motherboard for a device like this would be a single channel DDR AMD K8. VIA C7s and stripped-cache Dothans both pale compared to even lowly old 90nm S754 Semprons. A 0.850V or lower voltage K8 combined with a 690G chipset would be a very compelling device.

      AMD, are you paying attention?

    • flip-mode
    • 12 years ago

    It looks cool. No problem with the VIA processor – this sort of device doesn’t need a high power CPU. But I’d rather see a SSD rather than a HDD.

    SSDs are soooooo badass. I’m very anxious to see SSDs become a practical option for the average user.

      • d2brothe
      • 12 years ago

      The average SSDs cost as much as the laptop…I don’t see them drawing much attention for me right now, I’d rather have a hard drive until they come way way down in price. The main power drain in a laptop is not the hd anyhow, I can’t imagine it makes a terrible difference in battery.

        • flip-mode
        • 12 years ago

        In these style laptops I’d imagine that the hard drive is still a significant percentage of the power drain. It sure ain’t the VIA CPU.

          • UberGerbil
          • 12 years ago

          Even fast (7200rpm) 2.5″ mobile HDs use ~3W for seek and under 1W at idle. The slow drives this thing uses are probably half that — at idle, the screen backlight is going to use more power than the HD. Spin up and boot is the only time the HD is going to be a big drain unless you’re thrashing the disk with db seeks or paging or something.

          SSDs are a great tech but they’re about 1-2 years away from being a slam dunk replacement: they need more chips in parallel to be significantly faster, and they need those chips to cost significantly less. They’re on their way (and you’ll see the transition being on the mobile side next year, particularly if Apple makes a move) but we’re not there yet.

      • Rza79
      • 12 years ago

      The SSD in the Eee PC is like 2-3 times (or even more) slower than a 2.5″ HDD in transfer rate. Only in seeks it’s faster but since this is not a server or workstation, it doesn’t make sence to use one.
      Don’t get fooled by the performance of a MTron SSD. That device costs more than $1000.

    • Firestarter
    • 12 years ago

    I would gladly have traded a Intel for a VIA processor, if it came with a decent screen. However, in this configuration, it doesn’t look any more attractive than the Eee PC

      • Rurouni
      • 12 years ago

      Well, it got more storage and if the 5 hours battery life is true, than that a massive improvement over the Eee PC 3.5 hours battery life.

        • Firestarter
        • 12 years ago

        If you take that 5 hour claim with a grain of salt, it’s no better than the Eee :p

          • d2brothe
          • 12 years ago

          Well…then you better take the 3.5 hour battery claim with a grain of salt and now it is better. All battery claims are dependent on usage.

          • d2brothe
          • 12 years ago

          HTTP Error…damn computers 😛

      • d2brothe
      • 12 years ago

      I definitely agree with that, I have no problem with VIA…I like they’re CPUs even (right now they seem to be competing as well as AMD anyway, considering they focus on extremely low end), but the screen is a total deal-breaker. Ten inches should be minimum, with 1024×768 resolution at the very least. Many websites won’t display properly with less. This is just a basic requirement for anything to be slightly useful today.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This