Yeah, a few days ago another <900g 13“ had <40Wh. And this device has a really decent selection of ports, especially how they didn't jump on the C charging wagon so that the C port remains available during charging.
That resolution is pretty much the standard on anything that isn't "high end". (And that resolution is also higher than anything from the '90s. 1024x768 four-by-three aspect ratio was standard for high-end laptops at the END of the '90s. (Many were still 800x600.) It was the 2001 15" Titanium PowerBook G4 that ushered in the "high resolution widescreen" revolution with an initial resolution of..... 1152×768. (Moved up to 1280×854 in 2002. 15" models didn't bump to 1440×960 until 2005.)
There are Chromebooks and cheap Windows laptops (like the Lenovo 14w) in the $200 range that have absolutely beautiful 1080P IPS LCD's...so anything in this price range with less than 1080P is ridiculous. Even cheap high end laptops in the sub-$1000 range have 4K (3840x2160) screens.
Maybe I missed a development in Optane, but are they seriously offering it with 1TB Optane? Isn't that about $1,200 just for the SSD? Last I remember, there was a hoo-ha about lo-end devices coming with maybe 4GB RAM and 16GB Optane and advertising themselves as having '20GB RAM' ...
It will be the Intel H10 - 1TB QLC and 32GB Optane on a single M.2 module. They present as two logical devices though; the Optane isn't automatically used as a cache.
Thanks PixyMisa. So I read the review on the H10 and it seems a pile of crack. Intel have nearly 50 years of skill and expertise in programming caching on CPUs, and seems they’ve just ignored all that. Various stacks have transparent caching - Apple Fusion, ZFS etc and Intel have also just ignored that. I like the potential Optane has but seems it’s being thrown away.
I am generally not concerned much about resolution, but for that price the bottom end resolution should at least be 1080. Low resolution options like where this thing starts at belong at the very bottom end of the price spectrum in budget computers like the HP Stream that sell for less that $200.
Is there going to be a massive difference in battery life between 1366x768 and 1920x1080? Because that's the only reason I can think of why they would bother offering that option.
1080p is about 2x the number of pixels, but 2mp vs 1mp I don't see making a whole lot of difference. Certainly not the difference you got between 2mp and 8mp.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
Back to Article
nerd1 - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
"42Wh battery"CharonPDX - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Yes? That's not huge, but not terrible for this range of notebook.s.yu - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
Yeah, a few days ago another <900g 13“ had <40Wh.And this device has a really decent selection of ports, especially how they didn't jump on the C charging wagon so that the C port remains available during charging.
nerd1 - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
Portable laptop should last long to be any useful, and shaving battery for lower weight is stupid.LG gram has 72Wh battery for example (they *DID* have 30~35Wh option years ago though)
Pyrostemplar - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
"1366×768, 220 nits, anti-glare"? I thought this POS from 90's screen resolutions were a thing of the past...CharonPDX - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
That resolution is pretty much the standard on anything that isn't "high end". (And that resolution is also higher than anything from the '90s. 1024x768 four-by-three aspect ratio was standard for high-end laptops at the END of the '90s. (Many were still 800x600.) It was the 2001 15" Titanium PowerBook G4 that ushered in the "high resolution widescreen" revolution with an initial resolution of..... 1152×768. (Moved up to 1280×854 in 2002. 15" models didn't bump to 1440×960 until 2005.)sandtitz - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Thinkpad 770Z was a high-end laptop in the late 90s and sported an SXGA (1280x1024) resolution.yankeeDDL - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
I suppose anyone has its own definition of high-end.For 1600usd, full HD is the bare minimum.
meacupla - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
So, let's see... For the entry level $1600 USD, you get...13.3", 1366x768 screen
Core i3-10110U
8GB of RAM
512GB SSD
Yeah... how about no.
I'm pretty sure you can get an i5 Surface Pro 7, with 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD and the optional keyboard cover for less than this.
yetanotherhuman - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
2001? Get out of here. Dell had a laptop (Dell C800) with 1600x1200 screen in 2000.Cliff34 - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
Another point is that it is selling it at 1599! That's way too pricey for a laptop w a low res screen!Samus - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
There are Chromebooks and cheap Windows laptops (like the Lenovo 14w) in the $200 range that have absolutely beautiful 1080P IPS LCD's...so anything in this price range with less than 1080P is ridiculous. Even cheap high end laptops in the sub-$1000 range have 4K (3840x2160) screens.yeeeeman - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
OMG, no "where is the Ryzen option?" comment? The dude must be sleeping at this time.iranterres - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Its design reminds me of those old Toshiba's satellite models. Not a pretty piece. And spec-wise, seems an overpriced bullshit.p1esk - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Did I just see "1366×768" and "$1,599.99" used together? Must be a typo - should be "$159.99".TheWereCat - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Welcome to 2020WPX00 - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
dont forget Core i3GreenReaper - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
No TrackPoint == No sale? And yes, the entry resolution is ridiculous for such an expensive device. Perhaps they justify it based on weight?Tomatotech - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Maybe I missed a development in Optane, but are they seriously offering it with 1TB Optane? Isn't that about $1,200 just for the SSD? Last I remember, there was a hoo-ha about lo-end devices coming with maybe 4GB RAM and 16GB Optane and advertising themselves as having '20GB RAM' ...PixyMisa - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
It will be the Intel H10 - 1TB QLC and 32GB Optane on a single M.2 module. They present as two logical devices though; the Optane isn't automatically used as a cache.Tomatotech - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
Thanks PixyMisa. So I read the review on the H10 and it seems a pile of crack. Intel have nearly 50 years of skill and expertise in programming caching on CPUs, and seems they’ve just ignored all that. Various stacks have transparent caching - Apple Fusion, ZFS etc and Intel have also just ignored that. I like the potential Optane has but seems it’s being thrown away.Tomatotech - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
* cackPeachNCream - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
$1600 starting price...1366x768 panelI am generally not concerned much about resolution, but for that price the bottom end resolution should at least be 1080. Low resolution options like where this thing starts at belong at the very bottom end of the price spectrum in budget computers like the HP Stream that sell for less that $200.
richbordoni - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
Is there going to be a massive difference in battery life between 1366x768 and 1920x1080? Because that's the only reason I can think of why they would bother offering that option.FSWKU - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
1080p is about 2x the number of pixels, but 2mp vs 1mp I don't see making a whole lot of difference. Certainly not the difference you got between 2mp and 8mp.