Microsoft intros Surface Book 3 - its most powerful laptop ever

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I won't spend the time hunting the more negative reviews out on the flex/build quality, but it's fine if you and some reviewers disagree, flex & build quality will always be subjective to some degree. Plus, it's an ugly thing when opened up.

The G14 is noticeably larger than the Blade Stealth 13 2020 for example that I am looking at - the Asus is 179/222/324mm and 1.6kg, and the BS is 153/210/304 and 1.4kg - that's quite a big difference to me. It's also running the 25w ice lake CPU, and early reviews i've read have not hit any noticeable throttling issues...but I guess we'll find out as they make their way into consumers hands this month, or when Gamers Nexus get hold of one.

Sure, the G14 is going to be a LOT faster, but then it's also quite a lot bigger. It's a different type of machine in my opinion....good value for what it is, but high end ultrabook it isn't.

Compared to the Surface Book 3,the G14 is a better laptop.

Most reviews were positive - I can show more and more which shows the build quality is fine,so I think you are just being very picky - reviews don't seem to show this as badly made. It uses a magnesium/aluminium alloy body. Magnesium alloy is not used in cheap laptops.

The fact is I wouldn't buy any "gaming" laptop costing over £1000 with 4C/8T CPU. Not when Intel considers a 4C/8T CPU a sub £150 jobby in its new range. A GTX1650TI vs an RTX2060 also is a massive difference. The difference in size isn't massive,and the Blade Stealth uses a smaller display,so it's actually not as impressive as it seems,ie,13" vs 14".

Its 2cms wider,1cms longer and 0.25cms thicker,and 200G. 200G is a bar of Cadbury's nut chocolate. That is not heavy.

I have a Dell E5470(carbon fibre reinforced plastic lid and MIL-STD 810G tested) which is heavier(1.8kg),and bigger at 33.5x23.1x2.3 cm than the G14.Only has a Skylake quad core and integrated graphics. I have it in a cheap laptop sleeve,in a small normal rucksack and I have travelled fine on 12 hours flights with it! The G14 is lighter and smaller! So that is the amount of progress in under 4 years. Wish I could justify a gaming laptop!


https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/21/2...e-release-date

The question, of course, is how this machine will stack up against the AMD-powered Asus ROG Zephyrus G14. The model we tested was $1,449, just a bit heavier, and able to run Red Dead Redemption II just fine on high settings. That’s currently the portable gaming laptop to beat, and the Blade Stealth 13 may be our first look at whether Intel is up to the challenge.

https://www.engadget.com/asus-zephyr...190037967.html

The Zephyrus G14 made a strong impression the instant I picked up its shipping box -- it was so light, I seriously thought ASUS had forgotten to pack the laptop. But no, it was there -- it just felt impossibly compact for a 14-inch machine, weighing in at 3.5 pounds. Most slim gaming notebooks these days typically come in around 4.5 pounds -- the only notable exception is Razer's Blade Stealth, which gives up a lot of power to reach 3.1 pounds. The Zephyrus G14 doesn't feel noticeably heavier than the Blade Stealth, and given ASUS's vastly superior hardware, I didn't mind the extra weight.

Also another advantage of the AMD machine is the Vega integrated graphics is quite solid:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ZephyrusG14...ated_graphics/

You can switch off the RTX2060 and uses the integrated IGP instead,which is better than what Intel has AFAIK.

[Spud1]

so I think you are just being very picky.

I am, but if spending circa £2k+ I think that's not unreasonable

To be honest, for me even a 13" laptop is bigger than I really want - my ideal machine would be the size of my Surface Pro (12") but with enough power to play some games at around 60fps/1080p. That's why I see even a 14" as a bit compromise, and if i was going to that size i'd just buy a 15" machine with a 2080MQ and 8 core CPU....but I've no interest in something that big or heavy. If it can't fit on my sofa arm, it's too big.

I was happy to make a big compromise with the Surface Book as that could replace my surface pro too and I could get it part funded by my company...but the completely disappointing specs rule that out. The BS2020 version (not their first attempt in 2019 with the bad keyboard layout) seems to be the only thing that fits the bill at the moment, and despite my hesitation around their build quality its likely to be the one for this year..

[[GSV]Trig]

I see you can get a free pen if you pre-order..
I'm a huge Surface fan, but I really can't justify one..

[lumireleon]

THUNDERBOLT port is nearing its death....USB-C is the way to go BUT surface port is like the failed visual basic language project.

[3dcandy]

I'm gonna keep saying it till they listen! A surface book 15 with the quadro GPU and an 8 core chip would be a very fancy way of doing CAD & FEA on the go

Well until you can a cpu with 8 core and built in gpu that can basically run at 15w (current lowest ryzen 8core is 35w) that isn't happening anytime soon on the surface book range... remember the cpu is in the 'screen' not the chassis.

There are a few that can be configured that way but then the clocks are so low it's a silly idea. 15w chips are pretty underpowered when you get to 8c. Better for a decent 4c part I reckon

[DanceswithUnix]

No Ryzen 4000 - meh! The Asus G14 looks better than the top spec model in terms of weight and price:

https://www.ebuyer.com/937319-asus-r...xoCOIgQAvD_BwE

Wow they really do sting you for the smaller case don't they. The G15 on there is £100 less with an SSD twice the size.

There are a few that can be configured that way but then the clocks are so low it's a silly idea. 15w chips are pretty underpowered when you get to 8c. Better for a decent 4c part I reckon

Except if you are only using 4 cores then they boost, so those low clocks are only going to be sustained workloads.

If it can't fit on my sofa arm, it's too big.

That's kind of where I'm at. I have a work laptop, a rather expensive Dell, and when it comes down to it I pick up my ancient HP with the 11.6" screen and use that because even with the now glacial dual Jaguar core E-350 APU it's just so damned portable. Wish I could find a reasonably priced modern replacement.

[eek]

Trig;304]I see you can get a free pen if you pre-order..
I'm a huge Surface fan, but I really can't justify one..

After the cracked screen and £500 repair bill on my last Surface Book 2, my replacement laptop will be the new Dell XPS 9500.

I really can't see anything else is an option at the moment I've tried Razer but their build quality is meh

[jnutt]

Missed out on the Ryzen 4000. Could have been so much better.

[philehidiot]

THUNDERBOLT port is nearing its death....USB-C is the way to go BUT surface port is like the failed visual basic language project.

Hey, some of us liked Visual Basic. in fact, I still use a pacemaker programmer with software made in Visual Basic. It runs Windows NT 4 as well.... memories...

[Xlucine]

There are a few that can be configured that way but then the clocks are so low it's a silly idea. 15w chips are pretty underpowered when you get to 8c. Better for a decent 4c part I reckon

The 4800U actually clocks higher than intel competition at the same power level. Zen2 is just that good, at anything less than 25 W/core it runs substantially faster than intel cores and has higher IPC. Normally you'd expect a comparison like this to boil down to slow&wide vs fast&narrow (in which case slow&wide will give better perf/watt, at the expense of more silicon area) but AMD is managing to run their chips fast&wide against intel slow&narrow at the same power level.


From here: https://next.lab501.ro/notebook/engl...core-i7-10710u
The 9880H that's beaten by the 4800U is a 45 W intel 8-core chip. Here's how the average clock speed compares between the 4800U and a similar 6 core intel chip, from the same review:

[3dcandy]

The 4800U actually clocks higher than intel competition at the same power level. Zen2 is just that good, at anything less than 25 W/core it runs substantially faster than intel cores and has higher IPC. Normally you'd expect a comparison like this to boil down to slow&wide vs fast&narrow (in which case slow&wide will give better perf/watt, at the expense of more silicon area) but AMD is managing to run their chips fast&wide against intel slow&narrow at the same power level.


From here: https://next.lab501.ro/notebook/engl...core-i7-10710u
The 9880H that's beaten by the 4800U is a 45 W intel 8-core chip. Here's how the average clock speed compares between the 4800U and a similar 6 core intel chip, from the same review:

I was just sayin... they aren't interested in AMD though

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was just sayin... they aren't interested in AMD though

What you can always have a Razer Blade which is 200G lighter,and 2CM x 1XM bigger,or the heavier Surface Book 3 which weighs more with only a 13" screen.

The Surface Book 3 13" actually weighs more than the 14" G14 - what a marvel of engineering!

This reminds of all the laptops with Pentium 4 CPUs when the Athlons were in their prime. I still remember having one of those as I didn't know much better....!

The 4800U actually clocks higher than intel competition at the same power level. Zen2 is just that good, at anything less than 25 W/core it runs substantially faster than intel cores and has higher IPC. Normally you'd expect a comparison like this to boil down to slow&wide vs fast&narrow (in which case slow&wide will give better perf/watt, at the expense of more silicon area) but AMD is managing to run their chips fast&wide against intel slow&narrow at the same power level.

............................

But you can have 4C and nearly have the GPU processing in an Intel laptop,which has a smaller screen at the same price. Oh,it also weighs the same,and is not any difference in size.

Wow they really do sting you for the smaller case don't they. The G15 on there is £100 less with an SSD twice the size.

Yes,but it's even worse with the Microsoft Surface 13" and Blade Stealth 13" - they have half the cores,and nearly half the dGPU processing power for a similar price. They even are roughly the same weight and size,but also have smaller 13" screens.

So the G14 is expensive,but it makes a lot of the Intel 13" laptops look even worse.

If you then look at the proper semi-ruggedised Intel 13" laptops such as the Lenovo X1 Carbon for example,its more like £2000 for a top spec model with no dGPU.

Then you have Acer and AMD come out with this for under £700:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15762...ith-ryzen-4000

It's not perfect,but even then it really is showing up how bad the Intel 4C laptops are for the price,and Anandtech didn't even try and use the XPS13 for all its tests,and used larger 15" laptops for many of them which have better cooling.

If one of the OEMs makes a premium ultrabook design,Intel is going to look very,very bad.

That's kind of where I'm at. I have a work laptop, a rather expensive Dell, and when it comes down to it I pick up my ancient HP with the 11.6" screen and use that because even with the now glacial dual Jaguar core E-350 APU it's just so damned portable. Wish I could find a reasonably priced modern replacement.

He is making a massive deal out of 2 cms and 1 cms. The same goes with the weight - its literally the weight difference of a bar of chocolate.



I have travelled with my larger Dell E5470,and used it in economy perched on the food tray when on a flight. I don't even use a bag with a laptop compartment due to the hand luggage restrictions,so the bag had to be under the front seat.

The G14 is smaller and lighter and more powerful.

First it was poorly made,then it was too big,then it was too heavy.

The worst thing is compared to the Microsoft Surface 13,its not even really larger or heavier.

The Surface is 312 x 232 x 13-23mm and upto 1.64KG,and the G14 ROG is 324x222x17.9mm and weighs 1.6KG.

Look at the Blade Stealth 13 - 305x210x15.3mm and 1.41kg.

So,the actual difference is 19mm,12mm and 4.6mm and 190G. That is with a 14" screen and the other two have smaller 13" screens. The Asus has a 76wh battery,the Razer only 52wh.

Reviewers,who used both said they could even noticed the difference in dimensions or weight and would take the Asus over the Razer. So if reviewers who use both said that,then it means they don't see any realworld difference.

But in the end it's people's money after all. I just feel this is like someone buying a Core i7 7700K on the cusp,of Zen and Intel CFL.

[3dcandy]

Microsoft aren't interested in AMD....

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Microsoft aren't interested in AMD....

They were and made an AMD laptop last year,and the XBox is AMD powered.

But irrespective of this,the Surface Book 13 is overpriced. Its heavy and large. If Asus can engineer a laptop with twice the cores,and nearly double the GPU processing power,bigger screen and a huge 72WH battery into the same sized enclosure,it shows mediocre engineering on the part of Microsoft. I am not a Hipster,so couldn't give two hoots about what brand is on the laptop. Nobody is going to collapse at the size of your laptop branding if you walk into a Pret a Manger!

Intel and Microsoft is literally conning it's loyal customers by releasing stuff like this at this price. A 4C/8T CPU is under £150 in the current Intel range and these are not even proper ruggedised laptops. When Intel refresh its entire range next year,and moves off 14NM finally,then the people who bought these laptops,will feel regret. Intel like AMD will have lower power 8C CPUs,and the Surface Book 4 will probably be upto 8C.

This is one generation of laptops,I would feel confident in skipping if you really need an Intel CPU or that Microsoft/Razer branding. Intel is in a transition period with its lines,and people shouldn't get caught out when spending £1500 to £2000 on "light gaming laptops". £1500+ for a Intel Core i5-1035G7 is ridiculous pricing - I think I have seen laptops for £500 which have the same CPU.

I would compare it to people who got caught out buying P4 laptops before Intel released the first Pentium M based ones.

[3dcandy]

They were and made an AMD laptop last year,and the XBox is AMD powered.

But irrespective of this,the Surface Book 13 is overpriced. Its heavy and large. If Asus can engineer a laptop with twice the cores,and nearly double the GPU processing power,bigger screen and a huge 72WH battery into the same sized enclosure,it shows mediocre engineering on the part of Microsoft. I am not a Hipster,so couldn't give two hoots about what brand is on the laptop. Nobody is going to collapse at the size of your laptop branding if you walk into a Pret a Manger!

Intel and Microsoft is literally conning it's loyal customers by releasing stuff like this at this price. A 4C/8T CPU is under £150 in the current Intel range and these are not even proper ruggedised laptops. When Intel refresh its entire range next year,and moves off 14NM finally,then the people who bought these laptops,will feel regret. Intel like AMD will have lower power 8C CPUs,and the Surface Book 4 will probably be upto 8C.

This is one generation of laptops,I would feel confident in skipping if you really need an Intel CPU or that Microsoft/Razer branding. Intel is in a transition period with its lines,and people shouldn't get caught out when spending £1500 to £2000 on "light gaming laptops". £1500+ for a Intel Core i5-1035G7 is ridiculous pricing - I think I have seen laptops for £500 which have the same CPU.

I would compare it to people who got caught out buying P4 laptops before Intel released the first Pentium M based ones.

For this they're not - not changed the design or anything really. Yes I know they have AMD for the xbox but that's a separate decision.

And just to make us all look silly the 4000 Pro line are specced for 15w and just announced

[Xlucine]

The pro line doesn't change anything - it's the same chip as the U series in the same 15 W package, exactly the same as the previous ryzen pro lineups