Can Surface Pro 3 Replace Your Ultrabook? Specs Compared

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
As with the previous two models, the surface is very expensive. I would rather have a laptop with a dedicated GPU for less than their i7. The below link will direct you to a Asus - 15.6" Touch-Screen Laptop - Intel Core i7 - 8GB Memory - 1TB Hard Drive - Aluminum/Black with dedicated GPU. Far better laptop for half the price.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-15-6-touch-screen-laptop-intel-core-i7-8gb-memory-1tb-hard-drive-aluminum-black/3703007.p?id=1219093053506&skuId=3703007&st=pcmcat287600050003_categoryid$abcat0502000&cp=1&lp=1
 

That's a poor, nearly invalid, comparison. A big point to the Surface, and ultrabooks in general, is the size and weight. Yes, I can get an i5, 4GB RAM, and a 1TB HDD in a laptop for $500, but that's going to be a 15" plastic chassis that weighs nearly 6lbs. Try stuffing those same specs into a premium material chassis, cut the weight by half, and see what you can find. The Surface Pro has actually been priced well since its release when comparing its internals, size, weight, and overall fit and finish to the rest of the market.

I think the biggest letdown of the Surface 3 is the single i3 model. I think an i3 / 128 GB model would sell well, maybe even an i3 / 256 GB model. But I'm still hoping for a Bay Trail Surface at some point. Give it a nice 12" IPS screen ( would really like a 1920x1200,) a 128 GB SSD, and price it around $500. I don't think you could keep them in stock.
 
I really wanted to jump on the ultrabook bandwagon, but the prices have just been too high for me. The same goes for the Surface Pro. I'd be willing to pay maybe a $100 premium for having a good touch screen interface, which puts the Surface at a better price than the competition. However, it's still at least $200 too expensive for me.

That being said, the Surface Pro just keeps getting better and is certainly the best tablet on the market. Maybe by this time next year the prices will have come down to a point where I'll buy one. 64GB would be enough space for me, but how much space does the OS take. I'd want at least 50GB free space to play with.
 
No it can't cause Surface runs garbage video chip in form of HD4400. I can get ultrabook with AMD A10 cpu -> much better thing.
Click to expand...

You can't get an Ultrabook with an AMD processor. That's an Intel proprietary platform. You might have an "ultra light" computer with AMD.

Have you even used any of the new Intel HD2XXX, HD4XXX or HD5XXX chips? I have an AiO desktop with an HD2500. It plays most FPS and sandbox games at 720P with refresh rates higher than 50FPS.
 

Try again. I think you're missing a big point. Ultrabooks and similarly small laptops aren't intended for gaming. They're for productivity on the move.

Taking a look on Newegg right now, the best I can find is an A6 / 64 GB SSD for $700 and A6 / 128 GB SSD for $890. Neither of which offer more than 5 hours battery, 802.11 ac wireless, high resolution screen, or a weight under 3 lbs. Now perhaps I may have missed the one you're talking about, so can you please point me to a laptop that runs an A10, has a touchscreen with a resolution of at least 1920x1080 ( IPS panel preferred, ) and weighs less than 5 lbs?
 
I'll be watching the surface 3 pro pretty closely over the next few months, I need a new computer for college and this seems sooo close to what I need. I would order it right now if the keyboard cover was $50 as opposed to $130, but I guess I'll have to see what August brings
 
As with the previous two models, the surface is very expensive. I would rather have a laptop with a dedicated GPU for less than their i7. The below link will direct you to a Asus - 15.6" Touch-Screen Laptop - Intel Core i7 - 8GB Memory - 1TB Hard Drive - Aluminum/Black with dedicated GPU. Far better laptop for half the price.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-15-6-touch-screen-laptop-intel-core-i7-8gb-memory-1tb-hard-drive-aluminum-black/3703007.p?id=1219093053506&skuId=3703007&st=pcmcat287600050003_categoryid$abcat0502000&cp=1&lp=1
Click to expand...

The article has been updated to show that the i7 Pro 3 has a better GPU than we originally thought.
 
No it can't cause Surface runs garbage video chip in form of HD4400. I can get ultrabook with AMD A10 cpu -> much better thing.
Click to expand...

The article has been updated to show that the i7 Pro 3 has a better GPU than we originally thought, the HD 5000.
 

Try again. I think you're missing a big point. Ultrabooks and similarly small laptops aren't intended for gaming. They're for productivity on the move.

Taking a look on Newegg right now, the best I can find is an A6 / 64 GB SSD for $700 and A6 / 128 GB SSD for $890. Neither of which offer more than 5 hours battery, 802.11 ac wireless, high resolution screen, or a weight under 3 lbs. Now perhaps I may have missed the one you're talking about, so can you please point me to a laptop that runs an A10, has a touchscreen with a resolution of at least 1920x1080 ( IPS panel preferred, ) and weighs less than 5 lbs?
Click to expand...

You aren't going to find one. AMD's thermal envelope (25W minimum, 35W average) is to high for the A8/A10/FX mobile to have it in that form factor. Intel's i7, i5 and i3 mentioned in this article all have a maximum thermal of 15W! Even AMD admitted that for mobile computing they recommend C, E, R series in the tablets and hybrids. I have seen some A4 and A6 in these configurations, but they leave something to be desired for performance.
 
It might not run Crysis, but it can run BF4 very well. OK it's not a dedicated gaming laptop that is thicker than a tree-trunk, but it will run most of your Steam collection in some form or other - but for the size it is definitely a replacement for a laptop or office PC for most people.
 
Yet another flop by Microsoft.

Joining the ranks of Zune, their first attempt at tablets, Windows Mobile, Surface 1 & 2 [lost billions].

Microsoft just doesn't get it, this products is till wrong at so many levels. Glad I sold my MSFT stock, no growth in this company in the foreseeable future.
 
I like the Surface form factor. As a guy who has had to walk miles with his hardware and run up flights of stairs to make presentations, it would fit my lifestyle well. Truthfully though I can do the same thing with an Asus Transformer. You don't need great graphics to make a power point presentation. The other nice thing about the Transformer is that when you break it, you don't get as upset. I would like the pen though.
 
Yet another flop by Microsoft.

Joining the ranks of Zune, their first attempt at tablets, Windows Mobile, Surface 1 & 2 [lost billions].

Microsoft just doesn't get it, this products is till wrong at so many levels. Glad I sold my MSFT stock, no growth in this company in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

MSFT stock rose from $30 to $40 in the past year... they already have way over 2/3 of Apple's mobile market in Europe... they sold far more XBox Ones than Xbox 360s despite the terrible PR (yes, SONY sold more PS4s still - internal growth is undeniable regardless of how you look at it). And the Surface _PRO_ has been highly praised in the "productivity tablet" segment.

Your argument is invalid.
But I'm glad you sold your stock.
 
Alex, I lack actual benchmarks to back my words, but I would expect these 2 CPUs to be significantly unpaired on performance... I mean, we are talking about a 30% increase in frequency. (no other performance-offsetting specifications are provided)

Surface Pro 3's
Intel 1.9 GHz Core i5-4300U

MacBook Air's
Intel 1.4 GHz Core i5-4260U

Yet in the article you claim that CPU performance is on the level between the 2 machines. Actual benchmarks to validate this claim would be highly appreciated.
 
I like the surface but it will not replace my development PCs due to upgradeability (yes it can be disassembled but I'm not but on regluing the screen). In each laptop I've owned I've upgraded both hard drive and memory (hard drive mostly due to HDD crashes but also due to needing more space).
 
I pre-ordered the i5 256GB model, and it's mainly as a desktop replacement (yes, laugh!), for everything other than video import and encoding, since most everything I do these days doesn't really require lots of power.

But I'm still curious about the i7. I read a bit about it recently, and it seems oddly balanced in terms of CPU processing, GPU processing, and TDP balancing. For example, the HD5k really bumps up the temp output on the chip, and that tends to force the CPU cores to downclock a lot to balance. I.e., even with double the processing cores in the GPU, overall performance might not benefit because the cores can downclock even below the speed of the i5 counterpart (4600U). That, coupled with the i7 having a lower base and is also just a dual with HT, I don't quite understand what real benefit it brings, definitely not when considering the price premium over the other models.
 
Alex, I lack actual benchmarks to back my words, but I would expect these 2 CPUs to be significantly unpaired on performance... I mean, we are talking about a 30% increase in frequency. (no other performance-offsetting specifications are provided)

Surface Pro 3's
Intel 1.9 GHz Core i5-4300U

MacBook Air's
Intel 1.4 GHz Core i5-4260U

Yet in the article you claim that CPU performance is on the level between the 2 machines. Actual benchmarks to validate this claim would be highly appreciated.
Click to expand...

What I did say was that the overall specs were comparable, but, yes, you are right that the CPU in the i5 Air is slower than the Surface's. However, the Air has HD 5000 graphics over the Pro 3's HD 4400. Either way, I think you'd find that in day to day use the Air & i5 Pro 3 are going to perform at the same level.
 
Yet another flop by Microsoft.

Joining the ranks of Zune, their first attempt at tablets, Windows Mobile, Surface 1 & 2 [lost billions].

Microsoft just doesn't get it, this products is till wrong at so many levels. Glad I sold my MSFT stock, no growth in this company in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

MSFT stock rose from $30 to $40 in the past year... they already have way over 2/3 of Apple's mobile market in Europe... they sold far more XBox Ones than Xbox 360s despite the terrible PR (yes, SONY sold more PS4s still - internal growth is undeniable regardless of how you look at it). And the Surface _PRO_ has been highly praised in the "productivity tablet" segment.

Your argument is invalid.
But I'm glad you sold your stock.
Click to expand...


1. I sold MSFT at the higher mark of the price range you mentioned, and stock is about potential future growth and MSFT doesn't have it.

2. Are you even kidding, you're mentioning Microsoft and Apple in the same sentence regarding mobile? You have zero understanding of business if you think MSFT is remotely as successful as AAPL in this space. MSFT is so far behind on way too many levels.

Please, please do show MSFT profits from mobile versus AAPL and lets see whose points are invalid. Dare you buddy.

3. Microsoft XBOX lines since the beginning to now has made marginal profit for them. Sony's Playstation line has made dramatically more profits and as a strategy for the company has been way more of a success. Microsoft knew they'd lose hundreds of millions early on with the first iterations of the Xbox too bad they didn't have the same strategy for the Surface and instead overpriced junk and ended up losing a billion while getting zero market share and penetration unlike the Xbox.

Microsoft either comes out with products too early on and doesn't produce the products customers actually want (first iteration of tablets and mobile over a decade ago)

or come way after the market is created and established by competitors than try to overprice their products. (Zune, recent mobile phones, Surface tablets)

Xbox is somewhat a success, from a marketing and customer perception they've done well. From a business perspective they haven't done that well.
 
I could in no way justify this over a laptop. I pay less and get so much more, including a metal frame yes. There are PROS and CONS on both sides, it is all personal choice at this point.
 
I like where Microsoft is going but I need to make a statement to your comparison between the Surface and Acer S7. First it is hard to find a model to pick but I bought my S7 392-9439 on microsoft store for 1350 - a student discount...You chose a lower model that is more expensive. The 392-9439 comes with the QHD screen and I am getting the advertised battery life which is more then I can say for most ratings. On top of all that the acer is running a RAID-0 SSD setup which is blazing fast(possibly overkill as well) All of this for 1350 right now on the microsoft store. Food for thought. My only complaint is that the super thin ultrabook does not flip completely over like the lenovo yoga or others.
 
I like where Microsoft is going but I need to make a statement to your comparison between the Surface and Acer S7. First it is hard to find a model to pick but I bought my S7 392-9439 on microsoft store for 1350 - a student discount...You chose a lower model that is more expensive. The 392-9439 comes with the QHD screen and I am getting the advertised battery life which is more then I can say for most ratings. On top of all that the acer is running a RAID-0 SSD setup which is blazing fast(possibly overkill as well) All of this for 1350 right now on the microsoft store. Food for thought. My only complaint is that the super thin ultrabook does not flip completely over like the lenovo yoga or others.
Click to expand...

We did want to compare the Pro 3 to machines running Windows 8 Pro, so that is why I chose that model. However, you are right that there are some good deals to be had on the S7, and it is one of my favorite Ultrabooks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom