No Samsung Series 9 Ultrabook with Discrete GPU?

T

Trackr

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,786
Shopping for an Ultrabook, I find the Samsung Series 9 to have everything I'm looking for.

Except for one thing that only 2 low-end Acer models seems to have - a Discrete GPU.

I'm talking about something like a GT 640M. It doesn't take a lot of power.

This leaves me with an HD 4000, which I've come to believe is about as powerful as a GT 220.

Any one have any input here?
 
What screen size are you looking at specifically?

There is the Series 7 Chronos (15.6 inches) with the 8870M and the Series 7 Ultra (13.3 Inches) with the 8550M coming out by March supposedly. You can find out more here.
 
Ultrabooks mean low TDP parts, thus the Ultrabook form factor makes it inherently difficult to add a discrete GPU. Your best bet for decent GPU performance in an small thin form factor is Haswell or AMD's new Richland APUs. Maybe in a few months we'll see more?

I wouldn't ever recommend an Ultrabook to anyone, though. Instead of adding things to differentiate the platform they're just getting worse. Intel recently announced that all Ultrabooks must come with added bloatware (McAffee antivirus is now required) and all Ultrabooks must have a touch interface as well, adding additional cost and it also means that you won't be able to get a decent matte display.

Just buy an ultraportable.

- The series 7 Chronos is a good recommendation. They're Ultrabook thin and roughly equal in weight at the 15.6" form factor but provide better battery life and a full 35W quad CPU along with a pretty good discrete GPU.
 
ASUS UX32VD has discrete graphics as I recall. Might be worth a look.
 
Rune75 said:
ASUS UX32VD has discrete graphics as I recall. Might be worth a look.
Click to expand...

It's no better than the HD4000. It's a GT620m which is a renamed GT530m which is a Fermi product that performs roughly on par with a 35W HD4000.
 
Rune75 said:
He wants a unicorn, I gave him one.
Click to expand...

And Intel wonders why Ultrabooks can't even manage to get 1/8th of their estimated sales figures :D

Dear Intel,

Address your pricing disparity and add something that people want.

Sincerely,
World
 
Rune75 said:
He wants a unicorn, I gave him one.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're comparing it to a unicorn. A GT 640M in a Series 9 15" Ultrabook is entirely possible.

The GPU you linked to is 40nm. The GT 640M is 28nm.
 
Trackr said:
I don't know why you're comparing it to a unicorn. A GT 640M in a Series 9 15" Ultrabook is entirely possible.

The GPU you linked to is 40nm. The GT 640M is 28nm.
Click to expand...

Node means nothing, it's about TDP, cooling and form factor. Thin but 35W TDP means a problem for an Ultrabook (read: thin) form factor. The GT640m LE (underclocked version) in the Acer Ultrabook actually throttles and has issues with heat dissipation.

So for all intents and purposes, he's right, you are looking for a unicorn.
 
xBanzai89 said:
What screen size are you looking at specifically?

There is the Series 7 Chronos (15.6 inches) with the 8870M and the Series 7 Ultra (13.3 Inches) with the 8550M coming out by March supposedly. You can find out more here.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused. The Series 7 is referred to as a "Desktop Replacement".

Where as, I'm looking for the lowest-TDP CPU and Discrete GPU.

Honestly, a Series 9 that is ever so slightly thicker with a GT 640M would be in my cart on Newegg in 5 seconds.
 
pelo said:
Node means nothing, it's about TDP, cooling and form factor. Thin but 35W TDP means a problem for an Ultrabook (read: thin) form factor. The GT640m LE (underclocked version) in the Acer Ultrabook actually throttles and has issues with heat dissipation.

So for all intents and purposes, he's right, you are looking for a unicorn.
Click to expand...

Can we not call it that? Computers are mathematical - either it's possible or it's not.

If you're right, and a 15.6" Ultrabook cannot handle even a GT 640M LE, then I will have to do with an HD 4000.

It's just difficult, because a GT 640M is about 4x as powerful.

I feel silly spending >1,000$ and getting no gaming ability whatsoever..

If only, like I said, there was a slightly less "Ultrabook-ish" laptop, that is a bit thicker, perhaps even enough for me to fit my M4 128GB inside of it, and with a GT 640M.

I don't mind if it gets hot, by the way. It has Optimus, so on the road, it will use the HD 4000, and when I want to game/render, I'll place it on a table, or a cooling surface.
 
Trackr said:
I'm a bit confused.
Click to expand...

You are.

Trackr said:
Honestly, a Series 9 that is ever so slightly thicker with a GT 640M would be in my cart on Newegg in 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

Unlike the previous TimelineX generation that throttled the CPU to avoid overheating, the M5-481TG seems to throttle/downclock the GPU to 270 MHz. This proved acceptable in my initial testing with Heroes of Might and Magic VI and Metro 2033, as gameplay was decently responsive, even at the highest settings. (Caveat, New Game/Load/Quit screen of Metro 2033 had black bands when using DirectX 11, changing to DirectX 10 fixed this -- probably a driver issue). In my opinion throttling and not the greatest ever panel are the true downfalls of this laptop, and account for my 1 star deduction. Other than that, I think this one is a keeper for a while!
Click to expand...

And you want to stick a full GT640m, a 35W TDP chip, into a Samsung Series 9-sized (or slightly thicker) form factor? It hits 112F when gaming and that's with GPU throttling.

The Ultrabook form factor wasn't ever made for discrete GPUs. The GT640m you're asking for is a 35W part yet Intel's own specified ULV chips are half that at 17W, and that's for both the on-die GPU and CPU.

It's akin to Shaquille O'neal trying to fit into a child's shoe. Or in other words, a unicorn.

Your problem isn't with the lack of options but with the Ultrabook form factor itself. It's not that the OEMs won't offer such a thing, it's just that they can't because it's just not feasible.
 
Trackr said:
If you're right, and a 15.6" Ultrabook cannot handle even a GT 640M LE, then I will have to do with an HD 4000.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. It could handle it, but it won't run for long periods at its determined clock speeds (will throttle/stutter) and will cost you an arm and a leg. Here's an example

*loud fan that sounds like a jet engine (due to the thin design the exhaust and intake ports are smaller thus making that whining sound)
*sky rocket price, partly due to cooling concerns and cramped internals (culprit being thin design, again)
*persistent throttling (again, thin design)
*very hot temperatures due to the poor ventilation and aluminum bottom

Is that something you want for $2500? Is it any wonder you can't find one for $1000?

Trackr said:
I feel silly spending >1,000$ and getting no gaming ability whatsoever..
Click to expand...

That's precisely why people aren't buying Ultrabooks.

Trackr said:
If only, like I said, there was a slightly less "Ultrabook-ish" laptop, that is a bit thicker, perhaps even enough for me to fit my M4 128GB inside of it, and with a GT 640M.
Click to expand...

There is, it's just not an Ultrabook. The Series 7 Chronos gets close to what you're describing.
 
Last edited:
pelo said:
It's akin to Shaquille O'neal trying to fit into a child's shoe. Or in other words, a unicorn.

*loud fan that sounds like a jet engine (due to the thin design the exhaust and intake ports are smaller thus making that whining sound)
*sky rocket price, partly due to cooling concerns and cramped internals (culprit being thin design, again)
*persistent throttling (again, thin design)
*very hot temperatures due to the poor ventilation and aluminum bottom

Is that something you want for $2500? Is it any wonder you can't find one for $1000?
Click to expand...

I very much appreciate the concise conclusions you're drawing, but you don't have to hit me over the head with it.

I get it. Ultrabook = HD 4000.

pelo said:
That's precisely why people aren't buying Ultrabooks.
Click to expand...

But they are buying Macbook Air's. And if I was gay/a hipster, I wouldn't have a problem.

This is why I was so pleased with the Series 9. It's more beautiful than the Macbook Air (it's black), but it's got Windows.

pelo said:
There is, it's just not an Ultrabook. The Series 7 Chronos gets close to what you're describing.
Click to expand...

But the Series 7 Chronos is twice as thick as the Series 9.

I like the new Retina Macbook Pro. It's 0.70" thick, which is less than 50% thicker than the Series 9, and has a GT 650M.

All in all, I'd go with a 1" thick laptop if it was more square/brick-like. I can't stand the sloped bottom of the Chronos. Not sure why.

Again, I just wish Samsung would copy the Retina Macbook Pro. Give me the same resolution, the same thickness, hold the gayness.
 
Seriously?

Trackr said:
***snip***

Again, I just wish Samsung would copy the Retina Macbook Pro. Give me the same resolution, the same thickness, ***.
Click to expand...

Side comments aside, whether you hate Apple or love them, they undeniably have been making excellent hardware as of late, and the MacBook Pro Retina 15 is no exception.

OSX has Steam support and a fair number of games, and running Windows on it is easy with Boot Camp, too. It can handle games like TF2 at its native resolution, and nearly everything out there is playable scaled to 1920x1200 and etc.. (And even scaled games look quite good on it.)

Things is, many of the same (and some new) limitations apply:
- Starting at $2199, this is certainly not a cheap laptop. Although apparently it is still cheaper than the ASUS UX51Vz-XH71.
- Heat is still a major concern, to the point where you would be wise to use an external keyboard for long gaming sessions.
- Windows is less than ideal on a Retina display, but it is workable.
- Most games will not run at its native resolution of 2880x1800.

And if you absolutely will not buy a Mac, there is the new Razer Blade. For all intents and purposes, it is an amazing laptop, but very expensive.

The Blade has a 17" screen versus a 15", and so it is significantly heavier than any Ultrabook would be. It is only slightly outside of the Ultrabook 0.8" guideline at 0.88", however, and it does look very, very good in person.

Otherwise, yeah... allow for the extra few tenths of an inch in thickness and things become a lot easier, and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
TESLA said:
Seriously?



That aside, whether you hate Apple or love them, they undeniably have been making excellent hardware as of late, and the MacBook Pro Retina 15 is no exception.

OSX has Steam support and a fair number of games, and running Windows on it is easy with Boot Camp, too. It can handle games like TF2 at its native resolution, and nearly everything out there is playable scaled to 1920x1200 and etc.. (And even scaled games look quite good on it.)

Things is, many of the same (and some new) limitations apply:
- Starting at $2199, this is certainly not a cheap laptop. Although apparently it is still cheaper than the ASUS UX51Vz-XH71.
- Heat is still a major concern, to the point where you would be wise to use an external keyboard for long gaming sessions.
- Windows is less than ideal on a Retina display, but it is workable.
- Most games will not run at its native resolution of 2880x1800.

And if you absolutely will not buy a Mac, there is the new Razer Blade. For all intents and purposes, it is an amazing laptop, but very expensive.

The Blade has a 17" screen versus a 15", and so it is significantly heavier than any Ultrabook would be. It is only slightly outside of the Ultrabook 0.8" guideline at 0.88", however, and it does look very, very good in person.

Otherwise, yeah... allow for the extra few tenths of an inch in thickness and things become a lot easier, and cheaper.
Click to expand...

Okay, two things:

1.) The GT 660M is identical to the GT 640M, except for its higher clock speed.
Does this mean that even the 640M can't fit in an Ultrabook form-factor because it is THAT hot?
I don't understand how a low-end GPU can be that hot. Are you telling me the ONLY thing that will fit inside an Ultrabook is onboard?
Isn't this something that nVidia/AMD need to look at? Aren't they losing a lot of marketshare just because they can't come up with a 17w GPU?
I mean, if Intel can create a 17w CPU+GPU, why can't we have a GT 639M that has half the performance. This would still be twice as powerful as an HD 4000 (or more, considering Intel's horrible, horrible drivers), and would take half the power of the GT 640M.

2.) Why is there such a giant bump here? How did we go from 1,000$ to 2,500$?
Isn't it only because the Razer Blade has a special keyboard and the Macbook Retina has a 600$ screen on top of the usual Apple tax?

Why is there nothing like this:

15.6" (1600x900/1920x1080)
Intel 17w CPU
nVidia/AMD 10-17w GPU
<1.0" Square-like form-factor
Empty 2.5" slot/128GB SSD
BLACK

Or maybe there is.. It's impossible to know because Samsung's website is about as useful as a foreign review.
Is there a website that reviews or at the very least categorizes all laptops currently on the market, as well as ones that have only been announced?
Kind of like the [H] for laptops..?
 
1. Ultrabooks, by definition, have Intel CPUs, and Intel has been focusing on improving their integrated GPUs significantly with each iteration. Haswell, which will be here within several months, is targeting twice the performance of Ivy Bridge for its integrated graphics.

NVIDIA is focused on the mobile market right now. Why would they shift their focus to build a GPU to pair with an Intel CPU in Ultrabooks when they have the mobile market and Tegra to push?

AMD has better integrated graphics than Intel currently, but their CPUs are behind Intel by a fair margin. There is no doubt that AMD would love a competitor to Intel's Ultrabooks, but they just are not there yet.

2. This is the market as it exists today.

Up until this point, everyone has been trying to capture the success of the MacBook Air. Thin form factor laptops with discrete graphics are new to the scene, and the options mentioned above are some of the very first attempts, with varying success.

As technologies improve and if demand is there, we will see more competition, more options, and far better pricing.

As for the MacBook Pro Retina 15, you are paying for more than the screen. Its form factor is a first for a machine this powerful. Also, while its form factor can be compared to Ultrabooks, its internals are quite different. It has a quad core QM series i7 and not a dual core ULV i5 or i7, for instance.

Don't get me wrong, Apple is still commanding quite a premium for these devices, but there really is nothing else like them on the market. And, more importantly, they are selling.

Lastly, heat has been mentioned quite a bit above, but there is also battery life to contend with. Remember, Ultrabooks are supposed to have excellent battery life.
 
The MacBook Pros also have issues with throttling and heat dissipation. They're usually the hottest notebooks around, and that's in a form factor that's not Samsung Series 9 thin.

Intel didn't push the Ultrabook platform with 17W ULVs because they're were intending to make a powerful laptop capable of gaming. Likewise, the MBAir doesn't have a discrete GPU either. It just won't fit, and if you do work around that inevitably monstrous GPU, you're going to inflate the price tag.

Think about it this way. An Ultrabook uses a 17W ULV processor for both the GPU and CPU, yet you're wondering why you don't find many Ultrabooks with a discrete GPU and ignoring the fact that that's three times the TDP they're specified for. 17W ULV + 35W GPU + Ultrabook form factor = a unicorn. It's not OEMs that are the problem here, it's physics.
 
Yeah, they heat up something fierce, but they are better than most at throttling. It still happens, but not to the extent that a machine designed for a ULV processor does.
 
The gay dudes I know don't use apple. Hipsters, well, they deserve every critical thing said about them... But as that article that was just on the the [H], apple is not trending very well. They need another super-product to bring their alleged cool back. I say they were never cool to begin with. :p
 
TESLA said:
1. Ultrabooks, by definition, have Intel CPUs, and Intel has been focusing on improving their integrated GPUs significantly with each iteration.
Click to expand...

They're literally losing 50% performance in many games because of their shitty drivers.
I don't understand why they don't put more into the drivers..

TESLA said:
Haswell, which will be here within several months, is targeting twice the performance of Ivy Bridge for its integrated graphics.
Click to expand...

How does that make sense?
We're looking at a 30% increase in EU's and no clock-speed enhancement.

TESLA said:
NVIDIA is focused on the mobile market right now. Why would they shift their focus to build a GPU to pair with an Intel CPU in Ultrabooks when they have the mobile market and Tegra to push?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point.
Are you suggesting that nVidia can only create one type of product?
There's a market in <35w GPU's.

TESLA said:
Lastly, heat has been mentioned quite a bit above, but there is also battery life to contend with. Remember, Ultrabooks are supposed to have excellent battery life.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why I'm now looking for something in the <1.0" range (as I wrote above).



pelo said:
Think about it this way. An Ultrabook uses a 17W ULV processor for both the GPU and CPU, yet you're wondering why you don't find many Ultrabooks with a discrete GPU and ignoring the fact that that's three times the TDP they're specified for. 17W ULV + 35W GPU + Ultrabook form factor = a unicorn. It's not OEMs that are the problem here, it's physics.
Click to expand...

Well, I was thinking that you could throttle the GPU down to 17w, or even lower. It would still be twice as powerful.

But I suppose even that would be twice the TDP, like you said.

Would I rather have a GT 640M at half the clock speed in a 0.9" chasis than an HD 4000 in a 0.58" chasis? Yes, I would.
 
GT3 haswell with eDRAM is bringing 2x the performance of HD4000 (GT2 Ivy) but that's going to be expensive and in only limited SKUs; essentially limited to the toppity top of the chain and costing a fortune. The GT2 Haswell graphics bring ~30% graphics bump.

And you can't just magically create a 17W part. You have to bin for it and it isn't easy. Intel has stockpiled a whole slew of 35W chips because they can't sell them and because they're easier to come by than the 17W ULVs. This makes the 17W parts more expensive and limited in quantity. This doesn't mean that it's actually feasible for nVidia to bin for 17W on their Kepler chips either. Remember that all of the GPUs are from the same mask, and the only difference is the binning. This is how it's worked in GPUs for years now. If nVidia can only get to 35W then it's because they can't bring it down any lower without hitting some kind of ceiling, whether it's architectural, process or cost. If they underclocked and undervolted a GT640m and it ends up performing just like the HD4000 in that Core i5, then it really defeats the purpose of creating a ULV GPU, doesn't it?
 
But it wouldn't end up performing like the HD 4000. It should be around twice as powerful, even when underclocked and undervolted.

On Topic:

I found this weird thing - Asus Zenbook UX32VD.
It's an Ultrabook with a 620M (which I've found take no more power than the 640M, even though it's Fermi).
I don't know whether I should be happy or sad, considering that the fact that these just seem to pop up means my searching procedure is not functioning well.

It seems like no one is complaining about the tremendous heat.. even though, like has been said, it is 3x as much power as the Series 9 has to deal with. What's up with that?
 
The 620m is a rebranded 530m which performs roughly on par with the HD4000, maybe a few percentage points higher.

And, no, it shouldn't be twice as powerful. In fact, it doesn't exist at all and that should tell you something. (hint: it's not feasible)
 
pelo said:
The 620m is a rebranded 530m which performs roughly on par with the HD4000, maybe a few percentage points higher.

And, no, it shouldn't be twice as powerful. In fact, it doesn't exist at all and that should tell you something. (hint: it's not feasible)
Click to expand...

No, 620M is more powerful than the next HD 4600.

So, I'd say it's ~40% more powerful than HD 4000.

610M is actually LESS POWERFUL than the HD 4000.

If 620M really takes as much power as 640M, I suppose it's really quite useless.

So, like before, it's either 640M or HD 4000.

So, we have the HD 4000 model down - Series 9.

But which model should I get if I'm going for the 640M?
 
pelo said:
Now you're just making shit up because you feel like it.

Proof or go away.
Click to expand...

Look at you all snippy.

I don't have "proof" because the HD 4600 hasn't even been released yet. This is all hypothetical, but based on proper math. If you want to challenge it, present your math.

The bigger problem is Intel's drivers. Look at this:
farcryux32vd.png


GT 620M is 300% faster than HD 4000 in this specific test. This is because Intel's drivers are hit or miss. Some games are okay, some games simply don't.

Another thing I find even more disturbing.. the 3520M gets twice the FPS as the 3317U..

Now, the 3520M is clocked twice as high at stock, but at max turbo, the 3317U should only be 50% less powerful.

Does that mean that Turbo does not apply to Ultrabooks?!
 
Trackr said:
GT 620M is 300% faster than HD 4000 in this specific test. This is because Intel's drivers are hit or miss. Some games are okay, some games simply don't.

Another thing I find even more disturbing.. the 3520M gets twice the FPS as the 3317U..

Now, the 3520M is clocked twice as high at stock, but at max turbo, the 3317U should only be 50% less powerful.

Does that mean that Turbo does not apply to Ultrabooks?!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind you are comparing a 17W ULV CPU against a 35W CPU. Due to the lower clocks and throttling the 3317U has in place is the reason you are seeing such weaker performance compared to that 3520M. Those limits are applied to the GPU also, which is why the performance is even weaker.
 
Gotta throw a shout out for my Sony S series. 15.5" IPS screen, GT 640M LE discrete GPU. <1" thick and 4.4lbs. Battery life sucks with the stock battery sucks though. Lucky to get 3hrs on wifi at 25% brightness.
 
xBanzai89 said:
Keep in mind you are comparing a 17W ULV CPU against a 35W CPU. Due to the lower clocks and throttling the 3317U has in place is the reason you are seeing such weaker performance compared to that 3520M. Those limits are applied to the GPU also, which is why the performance is even weaker.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the 3317U's Turbo is 2.6Ghz and the 3520M's Turbo is 3.6Ghz.

Are you saying that there is no Turbo in the Ultrabooks and that the 3317U only get to 1.7Ghz, which is its stock speed?
 
Kueller said:
Gotta throw a shout out for my Sony S series. 15.5" IPS screen, GT 640M LE discrete GPU. <1" thick and 4.4lbs. Battery life sucks with the stock battery sucks though. Lucky to get 3hrs on wifi at 25% brightness.
Click to expand...

Hey man, thnx!

So, now we're got:

Samsung Series 9 - 0.58" - HD 4000
Sony Series S - 0.94" - GT 640M LE
Dell XPS 15 - 0.91" - GT 640M

It is a bit confusing, though, isn't it?

If the Series 9 can't even use Turbo (17w), then how the hell can the XPS sustain 4x that much heat..? At the very least it's 3x, and it's not even twice as thick..

EDIT:

Also, ALL these models are from around June-August 2012.

Does that mean that laptops come out once a year in the summer, or are there Winter versions that will be out around now..?
 
Trackr said:
Hey man, thnx!

So, now we're got:

Samsung Series 9 - 0.58" - HD 4000
Sony Series S - 0.94" - GT 640M LE
Dell XPS 15 - 0.91" - GT 640M

It is a bit confusing, though, isn't it?

If the Series 9 can't even use Turbo (17w), then how the hell can the XPS sustain 4x that much heat..? At the very least it's 3x, and it's not even twice as thick..

EDIT:

Also, ALL these models are from around June-August 2012.

Does that mean that laptops come out once a year in the summer, or are there Winter versions that will be out around now..?
Click to expand...

Your thickness information is misleading. The Samsung is .58" thick at the thickest point, a large portion of it is not that thick. The other notebooks are more uniform in their thickness, and thus have quite a bit more area to deal with.

Even if the Series 9 was uniform in thickness, those other notebooks have about double the internal volume to be working with. Components are basically the same size, so that is a MASSIVE increase to the space allocated to the cooling, easily more than double the volume available to the Samsung.

Also Samsung is using quite a lot more batteries in their notebooks to attain better running time, less space for cooling.


Just wait for the Series 7 ultra. http://gizmodo.com/5972698/samsungs-series-7-ultra-your-macbook-air-might-get-jealous

.68" thick, 13.3" (1920x1080), discrete graphics (HD8570M), and I believe standard size disk drives.
 
Last edited:
EarthwormJim said:
Your thickness information is misleading. The Samsung is .58" thick at the thickest point, a large portion of it is not that thick. The other notebooks are more uniform in their thickness, and thus have quite a bit more area to deal with.

Even if the Series 9 was uniform in thickness, those other notebooks have about double the internal volume to be working with. Components are basically the same size, so that is a MASSIVE increase to the space allocated to the cooling, easily more than double the volume available to the Samsung.

Also Samsung is using quite a lot more batteries in their notebooks to attain better running time, less space for cooling.


Just wait for the Series 7 ultra. http://gizmodo.com/5972698/samsungs-series-7-ultra-your-macbook-air-might-get-jealous

.68" thick, 13.3" (1920x1080), discrete graphics (HD8570M), and I believe standard size disk drives.
Click to expand...

Actually, I feel somehow turned off by <0.75" laptops. I don't think I care enough if it's under 1". I thought I wanted a 0.25" laptop.. but now I'm rethinking that idea.

Also, I'm looking for a 15.6" laptop, like the XPS 15 and Sony Series S.

In a thicker (<1") laptop, it comes down to whether you're going to make room for cooling or a huge battery.

I'm still not sure about this one.

I suppose you can't have all three. Thickness/Battery Life/Computational Power (extra cooling). I'd have to choose just two.
 
GTX660M are guaranteed to be paired with GDDR5 where as the GT640M will come with DDR3 giving twice the memory bandwidth and the clocks are significantly higher (as is the TDP).
 
Meaker said:
GTX660M are guaranteed to be paired with GDDR5 where as the GT640M will come with DDR3 giving twice the memory bandwidth and the clocks are significantly higher (as is the TDP).
Click to expand...

Hey, you're from PowerNotebooks.

My third option is to go with a Sager model. It's 1.6" thick, but it's an option.

My main concerns are:

1.) I can't find high-res photos of the Sager models (on any site).
2.) The battery life on all the high-end laptops is always reviewed to be poor.. causing me to have doubts about the quality of the Sagers.
3.) The thickness is not uniform on any model. It goes from 0.8" to 1.6". Are there any that are uniform that I haven't found?
 
Trackr said:
Actually, I feel somehow turned off by <0.75" laptops. I don't think I care enough if it's under 1". I thought I wanted a 0.25" laptop.. but now I'm rethinking that idea.

Also, I'm looking for a 15.6" laptop, like the XPS 15 and Sony Series S.

In a thicker (<1") laptop, it comes down to whether you're going to make room for cooling or a huge battery.

I'm still not sure about this one.

I suppose you can't have all three. Thickness/Battery Life/Computational Power (extra cooling). I'd have to choose just two.
Click to expand...

Once you're below 1", thickness isn't really important, these laptops will fit anywhere now. Weight becomes the determining factor.

See if your Bestbuy has any of the models you listed, try them out in person.
 
EarthwormJim said:
Once you're below 1", thickness isn't really important, these laptops will fit anywhere now. Weight becomes the determining factor.

See if your Bestbuy has any of the models you listed, try them out in person.
Click to expand...

I did. They don't. It's kind of depressing, actually.

Looking at the Custom Laptop models.. the Sager seems like the only option.

But I am worried about it being something other than what it seems..

Look at these pics:

http://gentechpcforums.com/system-images/Sager/NP9170/Sager_NP9170-1.jpg
http://xtreme-tech.com.ua/images/stories/mobility/sager-np9170-np6110/06-big-sager-np9170.jpg
http://cukimages.com/ebayproductpics/Sager_NP9150_front_angled.jpg

They make the Sager models look fantastic. They're thick, but at least they're attractive.

Or at they?

http://xtreme-tech.com.ua/images/stories/mobility/sager-np9170-np6110/10-big-sager-np9170.jpg

In this image, you can clearly see that the bottom half the laptop is made entirely out of plastic.. and this is their highest-end model.

Thinking back, a BIG part of why I wanted the Series 9 was because I imagined it having a metal chasis.

I'm actually quite disappointed because otherwise, these laptops are affordable as hell compared to how powerful they are..

Bugger.
 
Trackr said:
I did. They don't. It's kind of depressing, actually.

Looking at the Custom Laptop models.. the Sager seems like the only option.

But I am worried about it being something other than what it seems..

Look at these pics:

http://gentechpcforums.com/system-images/Sager/NP9170/Sager_NP9170-1.jpg
http://xtreme-tech.com.ua/images/stories/mobility/sager-np9170-np6110/06-big-sager-np9170.jpg
http://cukimages.com/ebayproductpics/Sager_NP9150_front_angled.jpg

They make the Sager models look fantastic. They're thick, but at least they're attractive.

Or at they?

http://xtreme-tech.com.ua/images/stories/mobility/sager-np9170-np6110/10-big-sager-np9170.jpg

In this image, you can clearly see that the bottom half the laptop is made entirely out of plastic.. and this is their highest-end model.

Thinking back, a BIG part of why I wanted the Series 9 was because I imagined it having a metal chasis.

I'm actually quite disappointed because otherwise, these laptops are affordable as hell compared to how powerful they are..

Bugger.
Click to expand...

They honestly look like junk to me. Even in the "good" pictures you linked you can see MASSIVE panel gaps.

I wouldn't end up carrying around something that big, it would end up sitting around in one place. Might as well just be using a desktop from my perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top