Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Can Surface Pro 3 Replace Your Ultrabook? Specs Compared

Tags:
  • Laptops
  • Tablets
  • Microsoft
  • Ultrabooks
  • Surface
Last response: in News comments
Share
May 28, 2014 8:17:24 AM

Stay tuned for an update to this post shortly. Microsoft released more info about the i3 and i7 models in a Reddit AMA yesterday.
Score
0
May 28, 2014 9:27:20 AM

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-lapt...$abcat0502000&cp=1&lp=1
Score
-1
Related resources
May 28, 2014 10:26:02 AM

classzero said:
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.

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.
Score
2
May 28, 2014 12:35:27 PM

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.
Score
0
May 28, 2014 12:52:18 PM

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.
Score
0
May 28, 2014 12:56:06 PM

Quote:
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.


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.
Score
2
May 28, 2014 1:18:57 PM

red77star said:
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.

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?
Score
4
May 28, 2014 1:36:42 PM

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
Score
1
May 28, 2014 3:45:34 PM

Quote:
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-lapt...$abcat0502000&cp=1&lp=1


The article has been updated to show that the i7 Pro 3 has a better GPU than we originally thought.
Score
0
May 28, 2014 3:46:12 PM

Quote:
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.


The article has been updated to show that the i7 Pro 3 has a better GPU than we originally thought, the HD 5000.
Score
2
May 28, 2014 8:39:24 PM

Quote:
red77star said:
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.

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?


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.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 1:46:23 AM

If it can't even run Crysis, then it is not a laptop replacement.
Score
-1
May 29, 2014 4:13:13 AM

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.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 4:40:00 AM

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.
Score
-6
May 29, 2014 5:07:24 AM

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.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 5:24:35 AM

Quote:
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.


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.
Score
3
May 29, 2014 5:31:55 AM

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.
Score
1
May 29, 2014 5:33:25 AM

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).
Score
0
May 29, 2014 5:51:27 AM

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.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 6:09:59 AM


Quote:
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.


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.
Score
1
May 29, 2014 6:22:25 AM

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.



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.
Score
-4
May 29, 2014 8:41:13 AM

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.
Score
-1
May 29, 2014 8:50:08 AM

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.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 12:33:57 PM

Quote:
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.


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.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 8:11:01 PM

I was able to get an Hp ultrabook with i7, 8gb of ram, and a 1tb hard drive from costco for $600. Granted, it was on sale, but these prices still seem blown way out of proportion to me.
Score
2
May 29, 2014 8:30:42 PM

Gaming benchmarks please, Pro 2 vs Pro 3 i3/i5 and i7. Run Arma 3 just to bring the pain! >:) 
Score
1
May 30, 2014 3:54:50 PM

According to various benchmarking sites, the Intel HD 5000 is slightly better than a GeForce GT550M, that card appears on Tom's own graphics comparison charts as equal to a few desktop class graphics cards - most notably the GeForce 7800 GTX and Radeon 4650, which until last year I had in a gaming rig happily playing Crysis. Not in full HD, not on Ultra, but it looked good and was butter smooth. Of course there are are much better graphics cards, but that does not mean these are suddenly rubbish, they are good performers. So much so that Futuremark gives a 50\50 chance of hitting minimum specs on 1/3 of the games on the below page and a full minimum and recommended on the remaining 2/3's
http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/Intel+HD+Graphic...
This is no slouch and it will play almost all your games, as well as being a tablet, FFS!
Score
0
May 30, 2014 4:12:59 PM

Scar89 said:
Gaming benchmarks please, Pro 2 vs Pro 3 i3/i5 and i7. Run Arma 3 just to bring the pain! >:) 

We want a game, not a slideshow. ;) 
Score
0
June 20, 2014 9:31:08 PM

Quote:
If it can't even run Crysis, then it is not a laptop replacement.


The HD Graphic can run Crysis one with low setting 30+ FPS. Also they said the "surface Pro 3 Can replace your Laptop" where in that sentence did it say Gaming Laptop. If you clearly believe a gaming laptop and a laptop and also a business laptop are the same then I will not even bother explaining anything.... =.=
Score
0
June 20, 2014 9:47:33 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.



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 laugh at this. First you claim at the first post MS has no growth at all in the company. Yet he explain it very well, microsoft growth in it product as a whole is doing great, xbox is selling better then previous, window phone is starting to shine, the surface is growing as well. So... He proved you wrong on the first post MS is a growing company. Who cares about if sony ps4 is selling more or the iphone is selling more mobile (started earlier). Like who cares MS is growing making profit from it that more important on a business view.

and you're view or your score sheet that MS is loosing all these profits are so flawed. I dare you to show me where you're getting all these score margin and i'll show you mine from an actual trusted place rather then mouthing off. Cause clearly you got shut down from your first post and is trying to desperately recover =.=
Score
0
June 20, 2014 10:45:03 PM

Any gaming laptop would make a great business laptop from the standpoint of performance or power, just they tend to be heavy bricks. People are forgetting this is as thin as most smartphones. The stats back it up though, it will replace most ultrabooks, and if you work in an office most PCs as well. Is it a specialised gaming laptop? No, but it will still do a great job.
Score
0
June 24, 2014 11:59:42 PM

I was going to buy a mid range pro 3, then I looked at the cpu/apu choices and got angry..... You cant get an i3 with multithreading with an HD 5100 (iris) gpu. To finally get a ok gpu you have to buy the i7 which sounds ok until you realise how much it throttles to handle the heat of extra cores negating the point of the extra cores in the first place. Its like intel think its a desktop cpu they are selling, no one cares about 10-30% more cpu power in a tablet when the bottom of the range cpu is all you need anyway in a tablet, need more, jump on your desktop and smash the performance out of the park compared to a 2k tablet and it wont go flat.
They should have gone with 1 cpu choice and various gpu choices plus capacity. Or buy the apple air for 1k and get the HD 5000 for $800 less. That to me is a massive fail when it could have been done right.
Score
1
!