ADVENT Sienna 700 i7 Laptop £464.67 at Currys maybe less with quidco
52°Expired

ADVENT Sienna 700 i7 Laptop £464.67 at Currys maybe less with quidco

£464.67
10
Found 17th Dec 2010
Seems Currys have reduced this further now 499.97 but use 35POUND at the checkout to get a further £35 off the price. If you go through quidco you get a further 3% cashback to. Its more than decent spec for this, no standalone graphics, but an i7 for less than 450 isn't bad!!

10 Comments

Garbage machine. The only valid decent part is the CPU.
Machines at £500 need proper descrete graphics today.

Advent? £464?

Think I'll pass.

Sounds a great machine but experience says not so good. . I had one many years ago with a fast P4 in it, but was so power hungry the battery failed after 3 mths, I took it back but ahh sorry laptop batteries only have 3 mth warranty (laptop 12mths) , after many letters and about start the legal process , they agreed to give me a new battery. . but wait. . .they did not have any in stock and would order and I would have to wait. . so I waited and waited at last it arrived everything was fine till the new battery failed but this time I thought I would buy a battery on on the net, but even then was hard to find one , and when I did the price was out of this world . .in the end I bought a Lenovo . . . oh and the laptop would not power up without a working battery. . . . but maybe they are ok Now?? . . maybe . . .But !!!!!
This when laptops cost over £1200
Edited by: "iscom" 17th Dec 2010

AdmV0rl0n

Garbage machine. The only valid decent part is the CPU. Machines at £500 … Garbage machine. The only valid decent part is the CPU. Machines at £500 need proper descrete graphics today.



I agree - (although this is a lot less than £500). Not a lot of point in having one of the fastest dual-core cpus when the rest of the kit isn't up to par. A cheaper i5 with basic dedicated graphics would be a better balance.

Pity it's an Advent or despite that it'd be a decent deal

7iain7

Also probably the worst i7 cpu … Also probably the worst i7 cpu [url=http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43560]http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43560[/url]



You're right it's slower than quad core i7s when more than 1 core is used.

This is still a very fast processor (notebookcheck even rank it faster overall than the i7-740 - presumably because of it's 3.33Ghz turbo performance); even with Intel HD graphics it should drag the windows experience up to 6.5-6.7 notebookcheck.net/Int…tml

The intel graphics are included on the processor package (like the i3/i5), but even so it uses less power than the i7s (35w vs 45w TDP).






Edited by: "wombat6025" 17th Dec 2010

Too many people are pitching systems that are badly unbalanced. Having a powerful CPU and garbage graphics in 2010 is badly balanced. Its going to put limits on the persons computing, and may affect everything from games, through to apps, through to web use. Its better to hunt dowm systems that have a balance across components.

AdmV0rl0n's rules

Cheap computers - £300 - Netbooks £150
Can be somewhat unbalanced, because they are bottom end of market. Suffice for basic computers. Don't buy a netbook for more than £150 unless its an ION based unit or it has real features that make it worth the extra.
Midrange computers - £400 - netbooks £200
Need to be well rounded, and include some form of upgraded/discrete graphics. On laptops the graphics can be checked as can other components on notebookcheck. You are in many cases better off with a good core duo instead of an I3/I5/I7 if it comes with other decent components (bigger disks, more ram, gfx cards, screen size)

Lastly, the UK recession has resulted in dumping of garbage model ranges - which have a low price but are often horrible low end systems. Stop rewarding vendors for shipping the junk, you don't benefit from junk components, and if people buy them, they will keep shipping.

In terms of the 'Turbo' performance of the I3/I5/I7 people need to understand that it comes into play within single apps that require hefty processing. Many of these apps today require a graphics card as well (photoshop, games, others) - and buying a box with fast CPU but crippled in the other components is badly balanced.

Banned

< Don't want to get banned from HUKD (again) so I won't call the complainers knobs or anything worse ( changed mind and calls you all "Mike Ashleys" saving the use of the "C" word) and will just carry on using my Advent laptop which works FINE and has never given any cause to complain.

ps. And mine only cost £369

Edited by: "Pluun" 17th Dec 2010

AdmV0rl0n

Too many people are pitching systems that are badly unbalanced. Having a … Too many people are pitching systems that are badly unbalanced. Having a powerful CPU and garbage graphics in 2010 is badly balanced. Its going to put limits on the persons computing, and may affect everything from games, through to apps, through to web use. Its better to hunt dowm systems that have a balance across components.AdmV0rl0n's rules......



I tend to agree with what you say, I'm sure that if we refused to buy the dross all the suppliers would up their game.
Dedicated graphics aren't necessarily a panacea for all - if you're not interested in gaming / video editing then the GMA graphics on the i-series dual-cores are cost and battery efficient. It's a pity that even where they fit dedicated graphics companies like Dell don't enable graphics switching (so my Dell XPS chews it's battery in 90 minutes browsing the web using it's power-full/hungry GPU while the perfectly adequate GMA are still powered up in the i5 core).

I must admit quite how 'turbo' mode is effective and how windows and applications balance the number of threads and how many threads affect disk IO is a mystery to me.
I can easily see that on my i5-540 dvdshrink (one thread only) makes full use of the turbo mode with the cpu ramped up to the 3.06Ghz max and 80-100% utilised; on the other hand I'm not sure that roxio running 4 threads might not be more efficient and faster if it used less - it certainly seems very slow at even basic tasks and generally the cpu utilisation is less than 30% making me wonder if the threads are contending for disk...

Pluun

Don't want to get banned from HUKD (again) so I won't call the …< Don't want to get banned from HUKD (again) so I won't call the complainers knobs or anything worse ( changed mind and calls you all "Mike Ashleys" saving the use of the "C" word) and will just carry on using my Advent laptop which works FINE and has never given any cause to complain. :pps. And mine only cost £369



As I said - if this wasn't an Advent deal this would be hotter; it's a pity we don't have access to any reliable information on laptop brand reliability to be able to fairly compare brands.
In a US reliability survey I was looking at the worst performing brand had a 3-year failure rate over 25% - that still meant 3 out of 4 machines were still fault free after 3 years.
Edited by: "wombat6025" 17th Dec 2010

On Laptops, one of the things that will happen in most cases is IO strangulation. If you have a slow 5400rpm hard disk, and you are doing something IO intensive, no matter what CPU/MEM/gfx it has - its going to bottleneck.

Going back to what I was harping on about, its important to try and get a balanced system. I appreciate the point about GMA gfx, but 2010 computing wether we are talking about Aero - or GPU assisted flash playback, or just computing in a more general sense - means that unbalaced offerings unless very cheap need to be critiqued.

Banned

Brought of one these, and it was colected yesterday for return. One of the worse ( i suppose that what you would expect from the make)
I had mine for a week and it had problem booting up and it wouldnt switch on half the time. Otherwise it is fast for multitasking, but not good for gaming
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text