Zepto 6024W Review — Page 2

by Reads (12,294)

Benchmarks for Zepto 6024W (Core 2 Duo T7300)

Windows Vista Experience Index

(view large image)

The 6024W scored 3.5 on the Windows Experience Index. The weak link was the graphics. All the other results are quite good (for the record, the WD2500BEVS pushes the HDD score to 5.2). By comparison, the Samsung R20 (with ATI 1250M integrated GPU) scored 3.8 while the Samsung Q70  (with the 8400M G GPU) managed 3.2 and the Samsung Q35 with the Intel 950GM integrated GPU managed 2.3. Since I find that Windows looks better without most of the graphic effects, the graphical performance is fine for me. Perhaps Intel optimised the X3100 for the WEI because it scores better for the desktop graphics than the low end of the Nvidia 8400M range.


SuperPi is often used as a test for raw CPU performance. The T7300 in the 6024W needed 59 seconds to complete the calculation to 2 million digits. This is 3 seconds faster than the T7200 in my X60plus and typical for this CPU. The speed boost over the T7200 is probably attributable to the Intel Dynamic Acceleration allowing one core to run at 2.2GHz, although the faster FSB may also be a factor.

The table below compares the 6024W’s SuperPi score with some other notebooks

Notebook Time
Zepto 6024W (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 with 800MHz FSB and 667MHz RAM) 0m 59s
Dell Latitude D830 (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo T7500, 800MHz FSB, 667MHz RAM) 0m 53s
Samsung Q70 (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 with 800MHz FSB and 667MHz RAM) 0m 57s
Dell XPS M1330 (2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T7300) 0m 58s
Lenovo ThinkPad T61 (2.00GHz Core 2 Duo Intel T7300) 0m 59s
Samsung X60plus (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7200 with 667MHz FSB & memory speed) 1m 02s
Dell Vostro 1500 (Intel T5470 1.60GHz) 1m 16s
Samsung Q35 (1.83MHz T5600 with 667MHz FSB and 533MHz RAM) 1m 16s
Samsung R20 (1.73GHz T2250 with 533MHz FSB and memory speed) 1m 23s
Toshiba Satellite P205-S6287 (1.73 GHz Core 2 Duo Intel T5300) 1m 24s
Samsung X60 (1.66GHz Core Duo (T2300) with 533MHz memory speed) 1m 29s

It has been suggested that SuperPi should be superseded by wPrime which is multi-threaded. The T7300 completed the 32M calculation in 42.385s. This is faster than the T7200 with the same clock speed. However, it is interesting to note that the 6024W with the original BIOS (ie without enabling the Santa Rosa enhancements) scored 44.632s.


Notebook / CPU wPrime 32M time
Zepto 6024W (Core 2 Duo T7300 @ 2GHz) 42.385s
Lenovo T61(Core 2 Duo T7500) 37.705s
Alienware M5750 (Core 2 Duo T7600 @ 2.33GHz) 38.327s
Hewlett Packard DV6000z (Turion X2 TL-60 @ 2.0GHz) 38.720s
Samsung Q70 (Core 2 Duo T7300 @ 2.0GHz) 42.218s
Acer Travelmate 8204WLMi (Core Duo T2500 @ 2.0GHz) 42.947s
Samsung X60plus (Core 2 Duo T7200 @ 2.0GHz) 44.922s
Zepto Znote 6224W (Core 2 Duo T7300 @ 2.0GHz) 45.788s
Samsung Q35 (Core 2 Duo T5600 @ 1.83GHz) 46.274s
Samsung R20 (Core Duo T2250 @ 1.73GHz) 47.563s
Dell Inspiron 2650 (Pentium 4 Mobile 1.6GHz) 231.714s

SiSoftware Sandra from http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/ is another software package which contains benchmarking modules and includes a database of test results.

The results graphs for the CPU tests are given below. These results suggest that the T7300 is slightly faster than the T7200. The CPU results are very similar to those I measured for the T7300 in the Samsung Q70.

(view large image)

SiSoftware Sandra CPU test results

It is also worth checking up the memory performance of the 965GM chipset using Sandra’s memory bandwidth benchmark. The measured speed is over just over 4000MB/s. This is about 700MB/s faster than I have personally measured for the 945PM chipset so it appears that the new chipset offers better memory bandwidth without increasing the bus speed. However, this bandwidth is about 300MB/s than I measured for the 965PM chipset (dedicated GPU) which may be the result of the integrated GPU sharing the memory bandwidth.

(view large image)

Sandra’s memory bandwidth test result


The PCMark05 score for the 6024W was 4,063 PCMarks. The table below compares the PCMark05 test result with some other notebooks. The result is in the same range as other notebooks with similar hardware.

Notebook PCMark05 Score
Zepto 6024W (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 and Intel X3100 GPU) 4,063 PCMarks
Zepto 6625WD (2.4GHz T7700, Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT 512MB) 5,123 3DMarks
Dell XPS M1330 (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300, 8400M GS) 4,571 PCMarks
Samsung X60plus (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7200, ATI X1700) 4,555 PCMarks
Samsung Q70 (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 and 8400M G GPU) 4.491 PCMarks
Lenovo ThinkPad T61 (2.00GHz Core 2 Duo Intel T7300) 4,084 PCMarks
Samsung R20 (1.73GHz T2250 and ATI 1250M chipset / GPU) 3,498 PCMarks
Samsung X60 (1.66GHz Core Duo T2300, ATI X1400) 3,456 PCMarks
Samsung Q35 (1.83GHz Core 2 Duo T5600, Intel 945GM) 3,059 PCMarks
Fujitsu Lifebook A6010 (1.66GHz Core 2 Duo T5500, Intel GMA 950) 2,994 PCMarks
Lenovo Thinkpad R60 (1.66 Core Duo T2300E , Intel 950) 2,975 PCMarks

The detailed PCMark05 test results for the 6024W are:

(view large image)


The 6024W managed a score of 910 3DMarks for 3DMark05. The test was run at 1024*768 resolution with no anti-aliasing. This result is typical for the Intel X3100 GPU and is about double the score for the previous generation of Intel GPUs (945GM) although it is behind the 1151 3DMarks which I measured for the Samsung R20 with the ATI 1250M integrated GPU. It is possible that a future driver will unlock additional hardware features and improve performance.

Notebook 3DMark05 Score
Zepto 6024W (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 and Intel X3100 GPU) 910 PCMarks
Zepto 6625WD (2.4GHz T7700, Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT 512MB) 6,047 3DMarks
Samsung X60plus (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7200, ATI X1700 256MB) 4,150 3DMarks
Dell XPS M1330 (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300, NVIDIA 8400M GS) 3,079 3DMarks
Samsung X60 (1.66GHz Core Duo, ATI X1400) 2,264 3DMarks
HP dv6000t (2.16 GHz Intel T7400, nVidia GeForce Go 7400) 2,013 3DMarks
Samsung Q70 (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 and nVidia 8400M G GPU) 1,939 3DMarks
Samsung R20 (1.73GHz T2250 and ATI 1250M chipset / GPU) 1,151 3DMarks
Lenovo ThinkPad T61 (2.00GHz Core 2 Duo Intel T7300, X3100 GPU) 911 3DMarks
IBM Thinkpad T43 (1.86GHz Pentium M, Mobility Radeon X300) 727 3DMarks
Samsung Q35 (1.83GHz Core 2 Duo T5600, Intel 945GM) 447 3DMarks
Fujitsu C1320 (2GHz Pentium M, Intel 915GM) 410 3DMarks

The detailed results for 3DMark05 are:

(view large image)


The 3Dmark06 score for the 6024W was 561 3DMarks. This test was run at 1280*768 with no anti-aliasing. This is slightly faster than the ATI1250M GPU in the Samsung R20 and much faster than the previous generation of Intel GPUs. However, it is only about half the performance of the Nvidia 8400M G.


Notebook 3DMark06 Score
Zepto 6024W (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 and Intel X3100 GPU) 561 PCMarks
Zepto 6625WD (2.4GHz T7700, Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT 512MB) 3,017 3DMarks
Asus F3sv-A1 (Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0GHz, Nvidia 8600M GS 256MB) 2,344 3DMarks
Alienware Area 51 m5550 (2.33GHz Core 2 Duo, nVidia GeForce Go 7600 256MB  2,183 3DMarks
Fujitsu Siemens Amilo Xi 1526 (1.66 Core Duo, nVidia 7600Go 256 MB) 2,144 3DMarks
Samsung X60plus (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7200, ATI X1700 256MB) 1,831 3DMarks
Asus A6J (1.83GHz Core Duo, ATI X1600 128MB) 1,819 3DMarks
Samsung Q70 (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T7300 and nVidia 8400M G GPU) 1,069 3DMarks
HP dv6000t (2.16 GHz Intel T7400, NVIDA GeForce Go 7400) 827 3DMarks
Samsung R20 (1.73GHz T2250 and ATI 1250M chipset / GPU) 476 3DMarks
Samsung Q35 (1.83GHz Core 2 Duo T5600, Intel 945GM) 106 3DMarks


(view large image)



Cinebench is a good rendering benchmark tool based on the powerful 3D software, CINEMA 4D. Its rendering tasks can stress up to sixteen multiprocessors on the same computer. It is a free benchmarking tool, and can be found at http://www.cinebench.com. It has been recently updated from version 9.5 to 10 and I have included some results below for both versions. Cinebench also includes an OpenGL benchmark which will be of interest to those people who use software which uses OpenGL.

(view large image)


Cinebench 9.5 Benchmark Zepto 6024W (2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo) Samsung Q70 (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo) Samsung R20 (1.73GHz Core Duo) Samsung X60plus (2.0GHz Core 2 Duo) Samsung Q35 (1.83GHz Core 2 Duo)
Rendering (Single CPU) 349 CB-CPU 335 CB-CPU 256 CB-CPU 322 CB-CPU 299 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU) 623 CB-CPU 624 CB-CPU 474 CB-CPU 582 CB-CPU 528 CB-CPU
Cinebench 10 Benchmark          
Rendering (Single CPU) 2116 CB-CPU   1520 CB-CPU 1976 CB-CPU  
Rendering (Multiple CPU) 3903 CB-CPU   2851 CB-CPU 3623 CB-CPU  
OpenGL Benchmark 711 CB-GFX   543 CB-CPU 3227 CB-GFX  

Battery, Power Supply and Cooling System

The power supply is a large 90W (19V, 4.74A) unit made by Liteon. It is larger than the equivalent PSUs provided with Samsung notebooks and is less efficient. There is a power drain of 5W from the mains socket when the PSU is plugged in but not connected to the notebook. The Samsung PSUs drain no more than 2W under the same conditions. I suspect that the same inefficiency applies under use – I see a power drain from the wall socket of around 35W under light usage. 90W is an unnecessarily large PSU for a notebook with integrated graphics and it adds to the travel weight. The good news is that the power connector is a standard size. I have another PSU which worked with my Asus W3A and it also works with the Zepto.

The 6-cell battery is rated at 10.8V, 4.8AH, 51.84WHr which is quite low by current standards. I purchased two batteries and the internal battery data of neither reflects the capacity on the label. What is worse, the nominal capacity (as reported by RMClock) is declining with use. I have asked Zepto about this but not received any explanation. It appears that the battery is either not fully recharging or is getting erroneous calibration data.

(view large image)

Left to right: Battery 1 mid August; battery 1 mid-September, battery 2 (hardly used)

Zepto’s datasheet for the 6024W indicates a battery life of up to 3.5 hours, which should not be impossible for a notebook with an integrated GPU. However, I have been unable to get to 3 hours in real use. At the moment I can see three possible factors for the missing battery time: (a) I suspect that the bigger cache of the T7300 causes higher CPU power leakage (assuming Zepto tested with a CPU with 2MB cache); (b) Zepto tested with the backlight on the minimum setting which is designed for owls, not humans; and (c) 10% of my battery capacity has disappeared already. The charts below show power drain at a reasonable (3/8) brightness and at the minimum brightness. Under light usage and adequate brightness the power drain is normally between 16 and 17W. On minimum backlight the drain can go below 15W. I am planning to install Turbo Memory which should add a few minutes by allowing the hard disk to power down.

(view large image)

A further interesting feature is the battery has significant capacity remaining when it has 0% charge remaining. The screen shots below were taken five minutes apart and the computer ran for another minute or two before stopping. However, running a fuel tank on empty is never to be recommended and Zepto need to sort out the battery calibration.

(view large image)

What about heat and fan noise? Heat is not a problem in this notebook. It has integrated graphics but a generous cooling system designed for a powerful GPU. However, the fan is noisier than on the Samsung notebooks I have been using although it is only noticeable in a quiet room. I think this is because the fan is just under the keyboard with no intermediate material to block the noise. An intermediate soundproofing layer would be desirable.  At higher temperatures the fan speeds up and the noise gets obtrusive. The default fan operation is to start at 55C and stop at 45C with at least two higher fan speeds available.

Warranty and Customer Support

Zepto provide a one year collect and return warranty as standard. This can be increased to 2 or 3 years for reasonable cost at the time of order. Zepto are a small enough company to maintain close contact with users and three of the Zepto staff are active particpants in the notebookreview Zepto forum. As a result, problems and possible improvements get acknowledged and discussed. At the moment further improvements to the BIOS for the 6x24W series is in progress. There have been a few instances of people having problems with their Zepto notebooks.


The 6024W is, overall, a well-designed and well-built notebook. The keyboard and audio need improving while the fan could do with some soundproofing. Overlook those niggles and you have a good performance in a strong chassis with a bright WXGA+ display.

So where does the 6024W fit in the market? The Zepto website suggests school, office and professional use, which sums it up quite well. I can’t be the only person who wants a medium-sized notebook with above-average screen real estate and not too heavy.  However, if you don’t want the WXGA+ display then there is much better value to be found elsewhere in the same size range.


  • Solid and rigid construction
  • A good display with bright, uniform illumination and contrast
  • Effective cooling system
  • Reasonably light for the class
  • A good choice of operating systems (or none at all)
  • A powerful range of BIOS options (if only they were documented)


  • Poor keyboard action and looseness
  • Noisy fan at times
  • Heavy power supply
  • Mediocre audio
  • Battery life not meeting expectations



All content posted on TechnologyGuide is granted to TechnologyGuide with electronic publishing rights in perpetuity, as all content posted on this site becomes a part of the community.