Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Surface Pro 2 Gets Teardown Treatment

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 25 comments

Before you buy, check out what's inside the Surface Pro 2!

It's been just days since Microsoft's second generation Surface hit the market, its release timed with Windows 8.1. We went hands on with the device at Microsoft's event in September. But until we've had time to finish our review testing, we rely on the likes of iFixit.

 

The iFixit team has torn into the Surface Pro 2 and notes that Microsoft has switched from a Micron/Marvell SSD to SK Hynic HFS128G3AMNB 128 GB mSATA 6.0 Gbps SS. There’s also a Core i5-4200U CPU, 2 GB of Mobile DDR2 RAM (four ICs for 4 GB in total) an Atmel MXT154E Touchscreen Controller, an Atmel UC256L3U 32-bit AVR Microcontroller, a Marvell Avastar 88W8797 Integrated 2x2 WLAN/Bluetooth/FM Single-Chip SoC, an MXIC MX25L4006EZNI 4Mbit SPI Flash, a Texas Instruments TPS5162 (ACTIVE) 2-Phase DCAP+ Step-Down Controller, a Texas Instruments TPS51367 Integrated FET Converter, a Winbond 25Q128FVSQ Serial Flash, Winbond 25X05CL Serial Flash, and a Winbond 25X40CL1G 4 Mb Flash.

In total, the guys at iFixit found more than 90 screws along with a battery that is stuck to the rear case and a glued down display. This is combined with an LCD and digitiser that are fused, all of which combined scores the Surface Pro 2 a 1 out of 10 on iFixit’s repairability scale. Still, if you do want to repair one of these at home, you can check out iFixit’s guide here.

Follow Jane McEntegart @JaneMcEntegart. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Display 25 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -1 Hide
    CaedenV , October 24, 2013 8:11 AM
    ... I thought the pro2 used LPDDR3? The rest of it isn't exactly unexpected. MS is not exactly known for making things that are fixable.
  • 2 Hide
    sean1357 , October 24, 2013 8:23 AM
    i5-4200U dual-core (4 threads) 1.6Ghz looks very good to compare with A7 dual-core 1.3Ghz. They all run 64bit..

    I want to see the performance of these two????
  • 4 Hide
    the1kingbob , October 24, 2013 8:27 AM
    Why is the source Toms; shouldn't it be iFixit?
  • -1 Hide
    rishiswaz , October 24, 2013 9:08 AM
    I hope that the DDR2 was a typo, I thought Intel processors don't have DDR2 support in the IMC anymore.
  • -4 Hide
    therogerwilco , October 24, 2013 9:15 AM
    These Ifixit guys should rename their site to ITriedToFixIt. They're such a joke. They prefer glue to screws.
    Screws ALWAYS > glue.
  • -1 Hide
    therogerwilco , October 24, 2013 9:17 AM
    Sean1357, my Surface Pro 2 scored 44,000+ on 3dmark (mobile version from Windows Store) The Ipad 4 scored 10,000+. Another A7 (I think Samsung product) scored ~12,000+
  • 0 Hide
    jimmysmitty , October 24, 2013 9:18 AM
    Quote:
    ... I thought the pro2 used LPDDR3? The rest of it isn't exactly unexpected. MS is not exactly known for making things that are fixable.


    I am pretty sure its LPDDR3 as well since the i5-4200U only supports DDR3.

    Probably a typo.
  • 0 Hide
    jimmysmitty , October 24, 2013 9:21 AM
    That has to be a typo. The i5-4200U only supports DDR3 and LPDDR3.

    Either way the Pro 2 looks nice. I would like to see battery life.

    Sean1357, This is a full blown x86 CPU so the Apple A7 wont beat it in raw performance. Battery life it may but not in performance.
  • -1 Hide
    InvalidError , October 24, 2013 9:24 AM
    Quote:
    I hope that the DDR2 was a typo, I thought Intel processors don't have DDR2 support in the IMC anymore.

    DDR2 on Haswell certainly sounds highly unlikely since Intel has not made DDR2-based mainstream CPUs in two or three generations already.
  • -1 Hide
    jimmysmitty , October 24, 2013 9:49 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    I hope that the DDR2 was a typo, I thought Intel processors don't have DDR2 support in the IMC anymore.

    DDR2 on Haswell certainly sounds highly unlikely since Intel has not made DDR2-based mainstream CPUs in two or three generations already.


    The last generation to support DDR2 was the 45nm Core 2 series as it had a motherboard based MC. Once they went to a IMC (with first gen Core I) they moved to DDR3 only.
  • 1 Hide
    back_by_demand , October 24, 2013 1:09 PM
    It is a typo guys, don't you read the rest of the site? Proofing is atrocious, if present at all.
  • -1 Hide
    damianrobertjones , October 24, 2013 1:17 PM
    Tom's Hardware STILL hasn't even bothered to run a review or article on the Surface and Surface Pro 2 release. Pants.
  • 1 Hide
    back_by_demand , October 24, 2013 1:55 PM
    Quote:
    Tom's Hardware STILL hasn't even bothered to run a review or article on the Surface and Surface Pro 2 release. Pants.


    Reason 1 - They are notoriously late at reporting anything, so an indepth review is out of the question

    Reason 2 - Other sites get one delivered early and review in advance, but Microsoft doesn't give one to Tom's because it is almost as bias against MS as Cnet

    Is it 1, 2 or both?
  • 1 Hide
    danwat1234 , October 24, 2013 3:42 PM
    LPDDR3 according to the ifixit site, so yeah, DDR2 was a typo fo sho
  • 0 Hide
    sykozis , October 24, 2013 3:54 PM
    Quote:
    Sean1357, my Surface Pro 2 scored 44,000+ on 3dmark (mobile version from Windows Store) The Ipad 4 scored 10,000+. Another A7 (I think Samsung product) scored ~12,000+


    You can't compare x86 and ARM processors. Even with benchmarks, it's not possible to get an accurate comparison. The architecture is completely different and as a result, the instruction set is completely different as well. Since neither can run software written specifically for the other (excluding web-based apps), you simply can't compare them.
  • -1 Hide
    InvalidError , October 24, 2013 4:31 PM
    Quote:
    You can't compare x86 and ARM processors. Even with benchmarks, it's not possible to get an accurate comparison. The architecture is completely different and as a result, the instruction set is completely different as well. Since neither can run software written specifically for the other (excluding web-based apps), you simply can't compare them.

    Of course you can compare them: what matters at the end of the day is how quickly they can get a given set of tasks done within a given cost, space and power budgets. It does not really matter what the architecture or instruction set is. If your architecture does not have libraries as tightly optimized as another, that simply becomes part of your platform's handicaps and one more item to add to the list of things to look into if you want your platform to perform better in that particular type of applications.

    As long as a given platform can run applications that matter to normal people or even specific crowds, benchmarking that application across all eligible platforms is as valid a benchmark as any other for their respective crowds.
  • 0 Hide
    stevejnb , October 24, 2013 4:45 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Tom's Hardware STILL hasn't even bothered to run a review or article on the Surface and Surface Pro 2 release. Pants.


    Reason 1 - They are notoriously late at reporting anything, so an indepth review is out of the question

    Reason 2 - Other sites get one delivered early and review in advance, but Microsoft doesn't give one to Tom's because it is almost as bias against MS as Cnet

    Is it 1, 2 or both?


    Demand, do you have any notable evidence of this anti-MS bias from the reporting side? Serious question - I just don't think I've seen much - and what I have seen, I've seen mirrored in articles about the other big players in the industry. They make some snarky "biased" comments about MS, Google, Apple from time to time, but I don't see a systematic singling out of one to be targeted. I actually thought their coverage of the initial Surface events was pretty good - and most of the other stuff you can just chalk up to Tom's being slow.
  • -1 Hide
    rishiswaz , October 24, 2013 5:56 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Tom's Hardware STILL hasn't even bothered to run a review or article on the Surface and Surface Pro 2 release. Pants.


    Reason 1 - They are notoriously late at reporting anything, so an indepth review is out of the question

    Reason 2 - Other sites get one delivered early and review in advance, but Microsoft doesn't give one to Tom's because it is almost as bias against MS as Cnet

    Is it 1, 2 or both?


    Demand, do you have any notable evidence of this anti-MS bias from the reporting side? Serious question - I just don't think I've seen much - and what I have seen, I've seen mirrored in articles about the other big players in the industry. They make some snarky "biased" comments about MS, Google, Apple from time to time, but I don't see a systematic singling out of one to be targeted. I actually thought their coverage of the initial Surface events was pretty good - and most of the other stuff you can just chalk up to Tom's being slow.


    To me the bias is not as much in the content in the articles but rather the amount of positive vs the amount of negative articles for every company.
  • -1 Hide
    stevejnb , October 24, 2013 6:03 PM
    Fair enough rish. Even in that case though, I don't see a ton of really negative articles about MS. The comments and the general user mindset of "we'll crucify MS for doing something even if we give other companies that do it a free pass" is all but impossible to miss, but I haven't really noticed a higher concentration of negative articles about MS. I don't really count them, but I notice a *definite* tech bias for Apple and against MS on NBC, while not really here.
  • 0 Hide
    rishiswaz , October 24, 2013 6:24 PM
    That is funny because if you didn't know Microsoft and NBC worked together to create MSNBC...
Display more comments