[ultrabook] Can I do any better for my money?

Fluorescence

Right, so I'm in the market for an ultrabook, and have roughly €1000 to spend, preferably less.

At the moment, the best configuration for my money I can find is from PcSpecialist, but I'm finding it difficult to get reviews re build quality. The following specs apply to the 14" "ultranote", and comes to £650 total (including vat and delivery).

Intel® Core™i5 Dual Core Mobile Processor i5-3360M (2.80GHz) 3MB

8GB SAMSUNG 1600MHz SODIMM DDR3 MEMORY (2 x 4GB)

Intel® HD Graphics 3000/4000 Video Memory Technology up to 1.7GB

128GB KINGSTON V200 SSD, SATA 6 Gb (300MB/R, 190MB/W)

2 x USB 3.0 PORTS + 1 x USB 2.0 PORT AS STANDARD

I don't see myself getting any better for that kind of money but I'd love to be proven wrong If anyone knows of any better Ultrabooks for less than a grand, please let me know. Else, what do ye think of this build? I'm hoping it won't be redundant for at least 2 years.

Thanks in advance for any help

Torqay

It doesn't get much better for under 1.000 Euro, not with a "real" SSD.

Unless you get this Lenovo and add a 128 GB SSD yourself. However, the Core i7 3517U (max 17W TDP) is significantly slower than the Core i5 3360M (max 35W TDP) but it makes for a better battery life. I'd say we can discard the GT 610M as it is rather pointless.

Fluorescence

o

Torqay wrote: »

It doesn't get much better for under 1.000 Euro, not with a "real" SSD.

Unless you get this Lenovo and add a 128 GB SSD yourself. However, the Core i7 3517U (max 17W TDP) is significantly slower than the Core i5 3360M (max 35W TDP) but it makes for a better battery life. I'd say we can discard the GT 610M as it is rather pointless.

I may have a slight personal grudge against Lenovos... :P

Hmmm, tbh battery life is somewhat more important to me than speed. Though when I reconfigured my above quote to include the i7 3517U it works out to be £636. And really, any quadcore is gonna be tough on battery anyway.

Decisions decisions

Torqay

Fluorescence wrote: »

o

I may have a slight personal grudge against Lenovos... :P

Hmmm, tbh battery life is somewhat more important to me than speed. Though when I reconfigured my above quote to include the i7 3517U it works out to be £636. And really, any quadcore is gonna be tough on battery anyway.

Decisions decisions

the i7 3517U is a dual core ultra low voltage (ULV) CPU, quad core models have a Q in the model no.

Fluorescence

Torqay wrote: »

the i7 3517U is a dual core ultra low voltage (ULV) CPU, quad core models have a Q in the model no.

So they do, my bad :pac:

Torqay

I just checked the prices for the Ultranote again, £620 (€775) for a Core i7 3632QM (quad, 6MB cache), 8 GB RAM (2x4) and 128 GB SSD. (Delivery not included)

Fluorescence

Pretty good deal alright - I'm ordering this week. It'll be almost 3 weeks by the time it finally arrives so I can't leave it much longer

Torqay

Although the power efficiency is no match for the ULV (17W) dual core processors, at max 35W TDP and without dedicated graphics the battery life should be satisfactory. Let us know how it goes.

I'm surprised they don't offer any ULV processors at all for their Ultrabook. Funny enough, the dual core i7 3520M (also 35W max TDP) costs a lot more than the 3632QM (£53)

cunnifferous

Torqay wrote: »

Although the power efficiency is no match for the ULV (17W) dual core processors, at max 35W TDP and without dedicated graphics the battery life should be satisfactory. Let us know how it goes.

I'm surprised they don't offer any ULV processors at all for their Ultrabook. Funny enough, the dual core i7 3520M (also 35W max TDP) costs a lot more than the 3632QM (£53)

How much slower (processing power) are the ulv processors compared to the m ones?

Torqay

cunnifferous wrote: »

How much slower (processing power) are the ulv processors compared to the m ones?

There really isn't much between a regular Ivy Bridge Core i3 3110M and the ULV i5 or i7.

Fluorescence

No fast track building option for the i7 3632QM. :mad:. Think I'm just gonna go with option #2 which is to buy the lenovo u410 with the TB hard-drive and 32 SSD. Not as nice as the PC Specialist but at least I can have it in my hands within a day.

Media999

I just took delivery of a vortex 3. It arrived in a few days without fast track delivery. i7, 8gb Ram, 7970m and 120gb Intel SSD + 1tb - 1500 bucks

Laptop is shockingly fast and amazing build quality. Not the same i know but if you need any questions answered just ask.

I will never buy a Laptop with a brand name on it again.

Fluorescence

Media999 wrote: »

I just took delivery of a vortex 3. It arrived in a few days without fast track delivery. i7, 8gb Ram, 7970m and 120gb Intel SSD + 1tb - 1500 bucks

Laptop is shockingly fast and amazing build quality. Not the same i know but if you need any questions answered just ask.

I will never buy a Laptop with a brand name on it again.

Really? Might chance it so... Though I can get fast-track if I go with i5 3360m. Damn decisions. It's impossible to get similar spec on a pre-built brand machine for anywhere near the same amount of money alright.

I might price the parts separately and see if it's worth building myself.

Media999

Ordered on the 28th; Arrived on the 3rd.

6 days wasnt bad when they originally said 11 working days.

cunnifferous

Media999 wrote: »

Ordered on the 28th; Arrived on the 3rd.

6 days wasnt bad when they originally said 11 working days.

Whats the build quality like on the pc specialist laptops. Was looking at their ultrabook model, which i thought was an aluminium case but turns out to be 'aluminium brushed' plastic. How sturdy are they?

Media999

All i can do is compare it to other laptops i have here.

Its definitely the best quality of the lot. I have a HP G6000, Dell Studio and Dell Inspiron.

Its a really minimal look. Hard to explain but its like a matt black with rubbery feel as opposed to shiny black and plastic feel on all the other laptops. No brand name on the cover.

Pictures absolutely do not do it justice. If you go to their forums you could always look for comments on the quality. If it was bad you would definitely see comments on it.

Its a clevo case which is the case used by a lot of the custom Laptop suppliers.

just looking at their site the new case is only shipping since 3rd October so youll have to rely on the pictures but it looks fairly similar to mine.

edit - Id say its a lot more solid than the laptops mentioned aswell. Build quality is actually a major plus point of this laptop rather than a negative. Dont be worried about that id say.

Fluorescence

In the end, I ordered a vaio T11 from Sony, it's due to arrive Friday/Monday. For €769, this was the spec I got, which is decent for the price. I'm happy out anyway

Intel® CoreTM i5-3317U, 1.7GHz
8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3-SDRAM
128 GB SATA Flash SSD2
29.4cm LCD 1366 x 768
Intel® HD Graphics 4000 (not enthusiastic about this, tbh)

It also has 2 USB ports (1 2.0 and 1 3.0) and an SD card reader.

Thanks everyone for your help! I'll let ye know how it performs when I get it if ye're interested

Torqay

A friend just got back from Hong Kong last night, he bought a T430u there (wants me to fit a SSD). Sweet little machine, paid like 850 yoyos for it. Same CPU, 8 GB RAM and a GT 620M.

Media999

One thing i was surprised about when i got my laptop was how good the Intel® HD Graphics 4000 was. Its not amazing but it plays MW2 on high settings.

To save power my laptop switches between the 4000 and the 7970m. Its really easy to compare the games on both GPUs.

HD 4000 MW2 @ 35fps high, Torchlight @ 60fps ultra, Starcraft 2 is about 35 on high. All very playable
7970m MW2 @ 120fps ultra, Torchlight @ 60fps ultra vsync, Starcraft 2 is 110 on ultra

4000 gets a decent framerate on a lot of Games. Id say an Ultrabook with 8gb Ram, i7 and 4000 would be a lot better than you think for the odd game.

If anyone wants me to test any game just let me know and ill look into it.

Fluorescence

Media999 wrote: »

One thing i was surprised about when i got my laptop was how good the Intel® HD Graphics 4000 was. Its not amazing but it plays MW2 on high settings.

To save power my laptop switches between the 4000 and the 7970m. Its really easy to compare the games on both GPUs.

HD 4000 MW2 @ 35fps high, Torchlight @ 60fps ultra, Starcraft 2 is about 35 on high. All very playable
7970m MW2 @ 120fps ultra, Torchlight @ 60fps ultra vsync, Starcraft 2 is 110 on ultra

4000 gets a decent framerate on a lot of Games. Id say an Ultrabook with 8gb Ram, i7 and 4000 would be a lot better than you think for the odd game.

If anyone wants me to test any game just let me know and ill look into it.

Really? You've just made my day, thank you I had resigned to gaming via console only! Might be ok to run my stash of old games after all.

how much does the pcspecialist ultrabook weigh? and battery life?

Fluorescence

glasso wrote: »

how much does the pcspecialist ultrabook weigh? and battery life?

Battery life isn't fully known yet as it's a brand new laptop. Best bet is to check out the pcspecialist forums to see if anyone's bought one yet and tested it.

Media999

glasso wrote: »

how much does the pcspecialist ultrabook weigh? and battery life?

Depends on parts.

Also note that the ultrabook is only released so no one really has it yet here.

Try the PCspecialist forums.

I have a 15" vortex 3 with 2 hard drives and 7970m. It weighs less than a HP 15" G6000 and 15" Dell Inspiron which i also have here.

if thats anything to go by its about the same as any other ultrabook that has a discdrive and isnt really small.

Id say using an SSD drive instead of a standard drive would make it lighter,faster and better on battery. Also the efficient Intel 4000 graphics would do the same.

Torqay

glasso wrote: »

how much does the pcspecialist ultrabook weigh?

Not exactly a lightweight at 2.3 kg, a bit less with a SSD I suppose. Remember, it comes with an optical drive too.

Torqay

Torqay wrote: »

Not exactly a lightweight at 2.3 kg, a bit less with a SSD I suppose. Remember, it comes with an optical drive too.

How can it be called an ultrabook then???? Would have to be under 2kg to be considered an ultrabook imo....
I imagine that it's not all that sleek either (thickness)?

Torqay

glasso wrote: »

I imagine that it's not all that sleek either (thickness)?

Actually, they weight is now listed as 2.15 kg. They don't give exact dimensions, but judging from the images, the body looks pretty sleek to me. Just about thick enough to allow for the connectors.



From the list of laptops that are officially classified as Ultrabooks by Intel, some are pretty close to 2 Kg (and they probably don't have an optical drive). It goes without saying that none of these models can possibly compete with the performance of the UltraNote, if configured with the quad Core i7 3632QM.



Now compare this to the top of the range "ultrabook processor":



Bottom line: you're getting a genuine power house in an ultrabook body with 8 GB RAM and a real SSD for less than 800 yoyos. Yes, it is a bit heavier and you may not get 8 hrs battery life but still a pretty good deal.

Photographers for example appreciate all the processing power they can get, working huge raw material with a mediocre dual core CPU and 4 GB RAM isn't exactly a joyful experience.

Torqay

Torqay wrote: »

Actually, they weight is now listed as 2.15 kg. They don't give exact dimensions, but judging from the images, the body looks pretty sleek to me. Just about thick enough to allow for the connectors.
Bottom line: you're getting a genuine power house in an ultrabook body with 8 GB RAM and a real SSD for less than 800 yoyos. Yes, it is a bit heavier and you may not get 8 hrs battery life but still a pretty good deal.

Photographers for example appreciate all the processing power they can get, working huge raw material with a mediocre dual core CPU and 4 GB RAM isn't exactly a joyful experience.

fair enough - you can probably divide the battery life by 3 for the qm i7 vs the other one in a laptop- it's all a tradeoff....
I do think that it's a bit disingenuous to have the word ultra in the name at all...

Torqay

glasso wrote: »

fair enough - you can probably divide the battery life by 3 for the qm i7 vs the other one in a laptop- it's all a tradeoff.

I don't think it would be that bad. the 3632QM is a 35W max TDP CPU just as the regular Core i3 and i5 chips, the Core i7 models ending with a "0" are specified as 45W max TDP. And the CPU is not the only factor. I'd estimate maybe 75% of the battery life of a laptop with an ULV processor (17W max TDP) and the same battery capacity.

glasso wrote: »

I do think that it's a bit disingenuous to have the word ultra in the name at all.

Quite so... but I have said in other threads that the UltraNote is not an ultrabook by Intel's definition. There are differences, mainly the optical drive and the weight that goes with it and PS Specialist does not offer ULV processors.

well I'd like to see real-world battery life numbers and hold one of these laptops to see what they're like. pretty appealing at the price and i'll be in the market for a laptop in the next few months. could deal with just over 2kg but want 4 hours min battery life. optical drive I would rather sacrifice for the benefit of weight - should be a config option imo.

Torqay

glasso wrote: »

but want 4 hours min battery life.

I'd say this is valid for all CPUs, as they only offer 35W max TDP processors for the UltraNote. Btw, the 62 WH battery is not listed as an option in the configurator.

glasso wrote: »

well I'd like to see real-world battery life numbers and hold one of these laptops to see what they're like. pretty appealing at the price and i'll be in the market for a laptop in the next few months.

I suggest you keep an eye on their forum and watch out for reviews when the first machines have been delivered in the coming weeks.

oceanclub

Torqay wrote: »

I'm surprised they don't offer any ULV processors at all for their Ultrabook. Funny enough, the dual core i7 3520M (also 35W max TDP) costs a lot more than the 3632QM (£53)

Given the latter processor has a Passmark score far in excess of the former, any reason why? Would it be because the latter, as a quad-core with a lower clock speed, may be slower in some real-life situations?

P.

Torqay

No, the quad Core i7 range is far superior to any dual core processor. The 3520M, is a 35W max TDP processor (as is the 3632QM) and a particularly unattractive choice at this price. Why is the 3520M so expensive? Beats me...

oceanclub

Torqay wrote: »

No, the quad Core i7 range is far superior to any dual core processor. The 3520M, is a 35W max TDP processor (as is the 3632QM) and a particularly unattractive choice at this price. Why is the 3520M so expensive? Beats me...

Thanks for that. The Ultranote looks really tempting, though it's a shame that it won't take even a lower-end dedicated graphics card. Still, since it won't be my main games machine, the HD 4000 isn't a dealbreaker. Will be interesting to see reviews after it's released on the 29th.

P.

oceanclub

oceanclub wrote: »

Thanks for that. The Ultranote looks really tempting, though it's a shame that it won't take even a lower-end dedicated graphics card. Still, since it won't be my main games machine, the HD 4000 isn't a dealbreaker. Will be interesting to see reviews after it's released on the 29th.

P.

HD4000 with a decent i7 and 8gb ram will give reasonable performance on current games - playable rates on mid settings I would say.

Torqay

oceanclub wrote: »

Thanks for that. The Ultranote looks really tempting, though it's a shame that it won't take even a lower-end dedicated graphics card.

Some ultrabook makers have thrown in a GT 610M which doesn't really makes sense (more like a sales pitch, "Wow, Nvidia graphics"!):

First benchmarks position the HD Graphics 4000 (in a fast quad core desktop CPU) on a level with a dedicated Nvidia GeForce GT 330M and therefore above the AMD processor graphics Radeon HD 6620G.

Many games play fairly reasonable at low/medium settings on a HD 4000.

Intel HD 4000 also controls up to 3 independent displays, so in theory, you can hook up 2 monitors (1 VGA, 1 HDMI).

Spipov

i would have loved to get one of those, unfortunately a screen of 1366x768 just doesnt cut it anymore... disappointed!

oceanclub

Spipov wrote: »

i would have loved to get one of those, unfortunately a screen of 1366x768 just doesnt cut it anymore... disappointed!

A 1440x900 screen on a 16" never bothered me, so I'm presuming that size on a 14" would be fine. I'm also thinking that a HD 4000 would have a harder time filling anything bigger anyway.

P.

Spipov

oceanclub wrote: »

A 1440x900 screen on a 16" never bothered me, so I'm presuming that size on a 14" would be fine. I'm also thinking that a HD 4000 would have a harder time filling anything bigger anyway.

P.

not really. a hd4000 can easily drive a 27" apple display (from a macbook air), so 1600x900 would have been nothing difficult really.

i am looking for an ultrabook with high resolution screen, but there arent many.

zenbook prime - some issues

macbook air - still the contender (i get education discount, so its 1099 ish new for me) - and i would say i would wait until apple's tuesday announcement to see if they will break my heart again with a great machine thats going to cost too much - ie retina 13inch macbook pro.

Lenovo X1 Carbon - seems like a very good contender - about 1299 euros to spec from lenovo, though i can see there are some build issues with them from some forums, and there is a 2 week minimum waiting to get it.

Samsung 9 series - never a fan of samsung laptops.


otherwise i am a little stumped as to what is available. ideally would like to keep the budget around the 1000 euros mark give or take some money on + or - of it.

oceanclub

Spipov wrote: »

not really. a hd4000 can easily drive a 27" apple display (from a macbook air), so 1600x900 would have been nothing difficult really.

Normal usage, certainly, but I was thinking when gaming; the more pixels you, the more horsepower you need.

P.

Torqay

See what HD 4000 can do for gamers (scroll down for gaming benchmarks)

Torqay

Spipov wrote: »

Lenovo X1 Carbon - seems like a very good contender - about 1299 euros to spec from lenovo, though i can see there are some build issues with them from some forums, and there is a 2 week minimum waiting to get it.

The ThinkPad T430u is a nice alternative (should be well below €1,000) although the X1 looks damn cool, I must admit.

Spipov

Torqay wrote: »

The ThinkPad T430u is a nice alternative (should be well below €1,000) although the X1 looks damn cool, I must admit.

screen 14.1 at 1366x768 unfortunately.

Media999

If anyone wants me to test a game on a HD4000 i will do. I can switch between a 7970m and HD4000. Ive a Vortex 3 from this crowd.

As ive said in other threads im surprised at how capable the HD4000 is. Ive forgot to switch it off a couple of times in non demanding games and didnt even notice. Starcraft 2 on ultra seems fine about 30fps for example. Mass effect 3 is fine on high rather than ultra. Same on a lot of games really. this is all on 1080p, not sure if that makes a difference.

Fluorescence

Just tested Fable 3 on high settings on my new Sony Vaio T11 tonight (with Intel HD 4000). FPS stayed at 30 for the most part, went up to 38 at one point and lowest it got was 27. Very smooth. I was pleasantly surprised. Might try something a bit more punishing over the weekend to see how it fares.

oceanclub

Bit more info on the Ultranote; the screen used may be (not definite), the LGD028E:

https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?20136-Ultranote-Queries&p=170273&viewfull=1#post170273

Google throws up only a few titbits; seemingly a decent screen (used in other brands) but with a narrow viewing angle.

P.

Media999

Vortex 3 is an LG screen and its pretty much the best 1080p ive ever seen. As ive said already side by side with a 15" Macbook it looks a lot better. LG is a good choice and i see why they stick with them.

CrakeTree

Hi Media999, I understand the new branded Ultrabooks with the ULV chips produce no noise and very little heat. How is the Vortex III on these fronts?

Media999

CrakeTree wrote: »

Hi Media999, I understand the new branded Ultrabooks with the ULV chips produce no noise and very little heat. How is the Vortex III on these fronts?

Ive been playing GTA IV for about 5 hours (lazy day) and air is still cool coming out the back.

Can hear the fan when Graphics kick in but it wouldnt turn me off it and make me not buy it. Cant hear it when not playing games.

Dell studio laptop i have here is noisier.