SlashGear

ASUS have previously said that, until the supply chain problems plaguing Intel’s Atom processor are fixed, their Celeron-based Eee PC 900 will continue to be sold alongside the new, Atom-based Eee PC 901.  Although the 900 is cheaper than its eventual-replacement, you could be forgiven for wondering exactly how much more performance you get for your money.  MiniPCPro have managed to pick up a new 901 and benchmarked it against the older budget notebook; turns out, the differences aren’t quite as clear cut as you might expect.

Check the video comparison after the cut

Most people are familiar with PCMark05 as a benchmarking tool for a computer’s processor.  In MiniPCPro’s test, the 900MHz Eee PC 900 managed a PCMark05 score of 1440, while the 1600MHz Eee PC 901 summoned 1496, just 96 points more.  The difference between the two actually shows up in the graphic card performance: far smoother video playback and 3D rendering from the 901, as well as better handling of moving windows around.

While a minor increase in PCMark05 score might be cause for some to hold off the 901, the other testing suggests that real-world practicality is off the scale compared to the original 900.  Whether it’s worth the price ASUS are asking, or you should spend your money on a “normal” laptop, that’s the next question; it’s too early for accurate battery life tests, which should be Atom’s strength.

[via electricpig]