Choosing between Cosmos II 15.6", Skyfire IV 14" or Optimus V 15.6"

[scottm]

Hi, I'm spec'ing a laptop on the PCS site and would appreciate comments.

• Usage: software dev (running IDEs and compilers) and running CPU/memory-intensive simulations/calculations; so CPU/memory something like: i7-4810MQ with 16GB
• Also to be used for all the usual home-office stuff (office apps (partic heavy-duty spreadsheets), web, etc)
• Not gaming, and limited other need for 3D graphics etc, so don't need high-end graphics card
• Disk will be 7200rpm or maybe SSD, plus optical drive
• 14" or 15" full HD 1920x1080 non-glare screen, overall system as lightweight and compact as possible. Good non-glare screen is one of the top requirements.
• Will probably be pure Linux, might end up being dual-boot with Windows

I've narrowed it down to the Cosmos II 15.6", Skyfire IV 14" or Optimus V 15.6"
(lower-end systems don't have the features I need; the higher-end systems add features (and thus cost!) I don't need, such as better audio and graphics cards, without improving on the areas I do need, so the above three seem the best balance-point)

Questions please:

• The Optimus is the biggest, heaviest and most expensive, so will probably be first to cull from the list - unless it has some particularly useful feature for my purposes I'm missing?
• What is the weight of the Skyfire IV including battery and ODD please? The specs on the PCS website only quote the weight without these.
• What is the "typical battery life" for the Skyfire IV? (again it's not listed on the website)
• Are any of these better/worse for Linux, particularly openSUSE? eg device drivers, etc. Especially interested in experiences with the NVidia Optimus issue on Linux and UEFI booting (if these are UEFI machines?)
• Related to the above question, do any of these systems have a BIOS option to disable one of the graphics adapters (eg to run only on the embedded Intel graphics to save power and extend battery life)
• Intel's specs for the i7-4810MQ say 3.8GHz with "turbo" and 2.8GHz "base" frequency; PCS website only says 2.8GHz. Do the PCS laptops support the "turbo" mode?
• Any differences in the physical build quality of any of the above three systems, eg are any of them designed to be more rugged/durable; any of them have more of a business/professional feel rather than being a home-computer, etc?
• Are there any other base models or options I ought also to consider?

Many thanks for any information.
Scott

 

[Tom DWC]

Hi and welcome to the forums.

To start with your questions:

- Its main benefit is the decent dedicated GPU, not necessary for your requirements so I would agree, first to rule out.
- Can't give you an exact number, I would estimate 0.2-.0.3KG but probably best to check with PCS if it's important to you.
- The description estimates 1.5-3 hours. W/H isn't stated so again, you might want to check with PCS. It will vary depending on workload but it doesn't appear to offer the best battery life compared to other systems, probably due to the dedicated GPU in a smaller form factor, and the fact that it's not the most premium of chassis.
- The Ultranote and Cosmos chassis have been relatively well documented in the Linux section of the forums, it seems like people have had success configuring Linux on these systems, worth having a look there.
- Not to my knowledge, but look for Optimus technology on the chassis with NVIDIA GPUs, as these disable the GPU where appropriate and switch to the integrated graphics, to save power.
- All the PCS laptops support Turbo Boost on processors that have the functionality. The base clock will be the minimum clock speed the CPU will run at, when making use of all processing cores.
- Personal preference really. Personally the Optimus looks the most robust, but probably not the most ideal for travel. As a Cosmos owner I'd recommend it, the matte finish is preferable to gloss in my view. It's an understated and well built chassis for the money.
- The 15.6" Ultranote, it's very similar to the Cosmos but without a discreet GPU, and from looking at your usage requirements you possibly don't need it.

My advice would be to look at the Cosmos with an 840M, but if you feel you can manage with the integrated HD 4600 then consider the Ultranote. The Cosmos has acceptable battery life (4-4.5hrs light use) so I would imagine the Ultranote would improve on this slightly given the lack of a dedicated GPU. Either one with a quad core i7 and decent amount of RAM should meet your needs. It would also be worth getting an MSATA SSD as a boot drive for Windows and programs, and a HDD for storage, if budget allows. For your usage I'd prioritize this over a dedicated GPU, as an SSD really does make the entire system so much more responsive.

 

[scottm]

Tom, many thanks for your very helpful reply.

Optimus off the list, Ultranote on the list - thanks for the suggestion. Agree Ultranote looks good for my needs; only downside is it doesn't seem to support as high-end CPUs as the Cosmos. Will think on that.

You say the Skyfire is "not the most premium of chassis" - can you expand on that please? Sounds like this might be the next one to drop from the shortlist (given your positive comments about the Cosmos and Ultranote).

Yes, I'm checking the Linux section of the forum. Didn't want to post the same question in two places right away though!

Ref Optimus technology "disable the GPU where appropriate..." - the issue is that this is troublesome with Linux. NVidia only fully support it on Windows. Hence the question. I will research further.

NB Cosmos with 840M doesn't support full HD screen, but there's no extra cost for the 850M so not an issue.

Yes am thinking on speed benefits of SSD, thanks for emphasising that. That's just a config choice at final ordering, doesn't affect choice of system, so not critical just yet.

Ref asking my questions to PCS - oh, that's what I thought I was doing in this forum! My naivety, I will contact them directly.

 

[Tom DWC]

Re. The Skyfire, I should have elaborated better. I'm referring to it's price point rather than build quality, which I've never personally had any issues with having owned three PCS laptops over the years. More the fact that with the dedicated GPU and smaller battery due to its size, I doubt it's as strong as the Ultranote or Cosmos at least in terms of battery life.

The PCS forums are an unofficial channel but there's a lot of stuff that can be answered here so always worth a try first, but I'm sure support will be able to clarify your BIOS/UEFI, battery capacity/weight queries.

 

[scottm]

Tom, thanks again. Yes, potentially shorter battery life on Skyfire is a consideration.

When spec'ed the same, there is virtually no difference in price between the Skyfire 14" and Cosmos 15"

So having examined specs again and read reviews, I think the Cosmos is my best choice. Reasons (in case this helps anyone else's decision process):

• Cosmos has an IPS screen
• Cosmos has better speakers (not expecting hi-fi quality, rather the Skyfire ones seem poorly received in reviews)
• Cosmos has larger touchpad
• Cosmos has larger chassis allowing better airflow and cooling (from reviews, Skyfire seems to run very hot)

The main thing in the Skyfire's favour is its smaller (ie more portable) size, at least length x width, due of course to the smaller screen. Depth is pretty similar for both. Both are all-plastic chassis which reviewers criticise (too much flex) but at this price-point I'm not aware of any metal-chassis laptops, anywhere.

The Skyfire has a "piano black" glossy exterior which I didn't think would matter to me, but reviews consistently complain about this as it shows fingerprints and scratches too easily.

 

[scottm]

One further point to add. In my researches around the PCS forums, I found a few gripes about the PCS warranty not being as good as other companies, so wanted to comment on that.

As I'm sure we all do, I've been looking at other suppliers too to find the right laptop for me. It turns out they're all offering the same things - the identical spec, built on the same Clevo chassis as the PCS Cosmos, so this is an easy comparison. Indeed, some other companies do offer superficially longer/better warranties. But PCS offer several warranty options - if I spec-up a PCS warranty to match or better the competition, the PCS price is still lower than the competitors. So, to anyone else with similar concerns - make sure you are comparing like-for-like. The good thing about PCS is that they make everything configurable, and very transparent - making it easy to choose where to spend your money, for what's important for you. You can save money with the basic warranty if you want; or you can choose a better warranty - and probably still be saving money compared to other suppliers!