This is not an Atom machine, it has a performance close to older generation i5. Like in original Surface pro - yes it is slower that i5's and i7 but faster than mobile i3's
Big difference is that they are complete fanless - I am typing this on Intel compute stick with previous generation 6y30.
I would say the screen is pretty small for such a device.
I resigned my office-job and now I am getting paid £64 hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, two years after...I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!
You can get a Pentium and Celeron chips for cheaper price - but they are dog slow - about the same older Core 2 2.2 Ghz in my option.. Significantly slower than core m chips - Intel didn't discontinue Atom - they just place then in different markets - Celerons and Pentiums for low end in laptops and there is also a 16 core Server variant.
"This is not an Atom machine, it has a performance close to older generation i5"
It is 1GHz for God's sake. At 4.5W it cannot sustain its Turbo for any decent time. What older generation i5, given that since Sandy Bridge IPC per generation improved between 0 and 5%?
it is only 1 Ghz when idle, in turbo mode it goes to 2.6ghz - a lot depends on if it is on battery or power. But still nothing like Atom. But the Y process I have that is like older i5 chip is actual i7-7y75 which is Dell XPS 13 2in1 - Dell work with Intel to over clock it more often bring the speed up to i5.
Key thing to remember - notebooks like this are not aim at gamers - but maybe students - of people scanning the internet, or using word. Majority of people don't need extremely multiple cores and high end GPU.
It's the same effective pixel density as a 15.6" 1080p screen running at 125% magnification (coincidentally, I'm typing this remark on just such a screen).
But I agree, at this point it just feels wrong. Though, if it were a good 768p panel vs a shoddy 1080p one, I'd probably pick the lower resolution, having once made the mistake of "upgrading" a 14" laptop to a 900p screen that was absolute garbage.
That kind of works for HP, they use decent 768p screens (such as the IPS display on the Elitebook 810 Revolve series) but thats an 11.6" screen where 1080p would require some scaling.
Then you have the fact that Intel graphics prior to the Haswell (HD3000 graphics) generation simply had trouble driving a 1080p panel well. It could, but even Youtube vidoes struggled in HD.
But since 2014, iGPU's have been more than capable of driving 1080p, and modern iGPU's can drive 4K across 2D, video, and pretty much anything but 3D.
So it's simply mind boggling to still see 768p displays. Especially when you consider how well Windows 10's scaling works, and the negligible impact on battery life over a 768p screen. Remember, 1080p screens don't consume that much more power, it's that the extra processing power previously required in older iGPU's and SoC's to drive higher resolutions resulted in a hit to battery life.
I don't get it. Everything should be at least 100ppi on mobile devices, and laptops are no exception.
"Then you have the fact that Intel graphics prior to the Haswell (HD3000 graphics) generation simply had trouble driving a 1080p panel well. It could, but even Youtube vidoes struggled in HD."
That is completely false. Even the chipset video of Core 2 generation played videos well (well, there were no h.265 then), and iGPU in Sandy Bridge etc works very well even in FullHD. It is only slow for newer 3D games at complex graphics.
I agree. They totally pulled an HP here and put a crap resolution screen on an otherwise decent device at a decent price. Had they spent an extra $10 on a 1920x1080 panel this could be amazing for $550.
Issues, and by issues, I mean massive failure rates. Battery: crap life, stops functioning, swells, may or may not break laptop Screen: uneven brightness, low res, flickering issues KB: It sucks Trackpad: sucks worse than the KB Ventilation: sucks up crap like a Roomba and vents the smell out the left side. It ventilates well but this one is more of a nasty MF user issue. If I have to crack one open and it looks like a dustbuster, I make the user come clean it.
Docking Station: Comes with extra parts. All too often the docking mechanism doesn't work and bits are rattling around the inside. Open the bottom cover and extra bits of plastic and metal fall out. Lots of times these jam up the mechanisms.
HP makes a few compelling laptops but after dealing with them, I wont buy one for home.
Unlike others, I see no problems with the screen's lower resolution. The iGPU has less work to do and the screen's backlight doesn't need as much power so there's some battery life benefits to be enjoyed. Yeah, you're going to have to live with a screen door effect, but on a 14 inch screen, many of us would have to resort to scaling in order to see things so the additional resolution is basically wasted. As for eMMC, I doubt it'll make a seat-of-the-pants difference for most workloads and 128GB is adequate (better by far than the few 32GB eMMC systems in budget notebooks). 4GB is a bit lean on RAM. It'd probably be okay for the present day, but I wouldn't expect to be happy with it a year or two from now. $499 would be a better price for it.
Its annoying for VNC though for a window with a higher res or if you're programming you want to see more lines of text. 1080p or higher is great there.
I don't buy the less iGPU work, you're just displaying 2D text and basic overlapping windows, that stuff is all ASICs and very well optimized. 720p is a deal breaker.
I can sympathize with the low resolution problems, but I think given the price bracket, this thing isn't being aimed at VNC or programming chores. Then again, like I said, if I had to use a 1080p screen, I'd end up scaling at 150% so I'd personally lose some of the screen real estate to increasing the size of things so I can actually see them without eye strain.
Also, this isn't 720p. It's 1366x768 and 720p is 1280x720 so you're getting a few more rows of pixels of both length and height.
Try adjusting the brightness relative to the lighting conditions in the room. That will help with eye strain and focusing. Higher res screens, like 1080 would probably be ok for you, but you need to find the optimal viewing distance. If you're getting old, reading glasses.
I'm near sighted a bit and I find its actually easier on my eyes to take my glasses off when using my laptop or tablets. Being near sighted, my glasses decrease the natural magnification of my eyes a bit and strain the eyes a bit when reading which I do a lot of.
I agree on all but price. Even $499 is too much given the hardware and expected 1 year warranty. If they priced at $399 it would sell like hotcakes. Even at $450 would sell well, it's a value machine and it needs a value price point to sell IMO.
As an owner of an Asus T100, the main issue of the eMMC isn't so much the quantity, but just how dismally slow this storage is- like mid 90s hard drive in sustained write speeds. Copying files over the USB3 port, the flash in that thing struggled to do 30MB/s when writing to the eMMC. The read speeds were faster but still a small fraction of what a modern 2.5" spinning drive does. The random reads are the only thing that might be better than a HDD. I have a cheaper/older SSD in my main PC and the occasional time I use the T100, it feels like I'm stepping 10 years into the past with how slow the disk access is. The memory card reader (microSD) on the T100 is also gimped at ~13MB/s, so I would expect this laptop to have similar compromises.
TBH, this device looks a lot like the Cherry/Bay-trail based netbooks/tablets with just the CPU updated and nothing else, and with a bigger/worse screen and seemingly better materials/build quality. I don't think that's worth anywhere near their asking price, to me even 400 would be a tough sell...
I had an ASUS x205TA which was a Bay Trail system using 32GB eMMC. It was similarly slow, but I wouldn't use a Bay Trail laptop as a basis for what you might see out of a much newer system like this one. eMMC storage performance has improved by quite a bit in the intervening years so it might be better not to base your expectations of storage performance on the T100.
You could buy a laptop, with better specs, for less a few years back. You've basically approved oems putting up their prices for bottom bracket parts. Well done.
Instead of accusing me of being responsible for a price you think isn't fair, you could work to raise your income so you could afford the things you want at their retail price.
The price still seems a little high for it, but I can live with a 768p *IPS* panel in 2017 at reasonable sizes. It'll keep battery life down, and as long as the viewing angles and contrast are good, it's manageable.
If anybody releases a 768p *TN* laptop in 2017 though, the entire stock of laptops need to be tossed into the fire.
One thing that I believe a lot of mislead by this machine is that Core m3-7y30 does not equal Atom or Pentium or Celeron CPU chips - yes it is SOC but it's architecture is closer i5 series - it has same CPU functionality - dual core hyperthreading and same processor extensions as i5 / i7 like 256 bit AVX2.
What will be interesting is Intel creates either 8xxx generation of this CPU with quad core and hyperthreading or when Cannon Lake comes out.
Yes it will idle at lower speed - but it has same abilities as the higher end cpu's - but this cpu only runs at 5 Watts of power. I am typing this on Intel Compute Stick which can fit in my pocket - and smaller than Desk\top cpus (alone).
CPU supports 4k and also 3 monitors - the chip for Intel alone is $281
That price should fall. We all know how business works... Flood the bottom end with a cheaper version which pushes up the price of what was, previously more or less the lower end (i3).
Business. Fool consumers into thinking they're getting something much better.
Say, I have 2008 15" laptop with 4GB RAM, Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz, upgraded with 512GB SSD. How is this thing with 1GHz 2-core CPU and 128GB eMMC any better?
Well, in CPU alone, a 2008-ish Core 2 Duo like the T9600 has an average Passmark score of 1928 whereas the Core m3 scores 3579. In addition to a quicker processor, it's got faster RAM, a faster iGPU (probably quicker than a dGPU in a 2008-era laptop if you've got one of those), uses less power, weighs less, is thinner, is passively cooled, includes a Type-C USB connector, and can be used as a tablet. You C2D notebook has a larger screen and a faster plus larger SSD. You also already own your current laptop so if you're happy with how it works, then don't feel like you're missing out or are somehow compelled to make a purchase just because Anandtech posts an article.
When I read the resolution on an ebay ad, I thought it was a typo. Then I came here to confirm. Unbelievable. ASUS cred affected, didn't think they would do moves like that as a company. Agree with all the exasperations here about screen res. Screen res like that shouldn't go with a quality metal housing as this, and a convertible at that!
True to a post here the price has gone down and they are around $345 new on eBay now. Was considering getting one until I saw this post. I already have an ASUS E402 with that resolution an it fatigues and hurts my eyes, especially when reading or using for an extended amount of time. The workaround is to look at the screen from about 2.5 feet, defeating the purpose of a laptop screen. So thus the $345 price now. That said they've had the better 1080p Zenbook same hinge .7" screen smaller for about $550 on Amazon for a while now, so why buy the other one?
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
39 Comments
Back to Article
damianrobertjones - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
By now, machines such as this, should really be £260 as entry level models. 4Gb ram? 1366x768? eMMC? Come on it's not even close to being worth $549.Just because a range of machines are priced at x, or y, doesn't mean that they're worth it.
HStewart - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
This is not an Atom machine, it has a performance close to older generation i5. Like in original Surface pro - yes it is slower that i5's and i7 but faster than mobile i3'sBig difference is that they are complete fanless - I am typing this on Intel compute stick with previous generation 6y30.
I would say the screen is pretty small for such a device.
LeahFleming - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
I resigned my office-job and now I am getting paid £64 hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, two years after...I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Check it out what i do... http://cutt.us/EnRTV
damianrobertjones - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Then if it doesn't have a fan, less parts, which means it should be even cheaper! :pDanNeely - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Intel doesn't make any cheap core branded fanless laptop chips; they have a listed price of $281 each.HStewart - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
You can get a Pentium and Celeron chips for cheaper price - but they are dog slow - about the same older Core 2 2.2 Ghz in my option.. Significantly slower than core m chips - Intel didn't discontinue Atom - they just place then in different markets - Celerons and Pentiums for low end in laptops and there is also a 16 core Server variant.https://ark.intel.com/products/96507/Intel-Celeron...
and the 16 core atom chip - quite interesting
https://ark.intel.com/products/97933/Intel-Atom-Pr...
I will never purchase another Pentium/Celeron type device, but Intel Y series is totally different
peevee - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
"This is not an Atom machine, it has a performance close to older generation i5"It is 1GHz for God's sake. At 4.5W it cannot sustain its Turbo for any decent time. What older generation i5, given that since Sandy Bridge IPC per generation improved between 0 and 5%?
HStewart - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
it is only 1 Ghz when idle, in turbo mode it goes to 2.6ghz - a lot depends on if it is on battery or power. But still nothing like Atom. But the Y process I have that is like older i5 chip is actual i7-7y75 which is Dell XPS 13 2in1 - Dell work with Intel to over clock it more often bring the speed up to i5.Key thing to remember - notebooks like this are not aim at gamers - but maybe students - of people scanning the internet, or using word. Majority of people don't need extremely multiple cores and high end GPU.
Konservenknilch - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
I'm not a pixel snob, but 1366×768 on a 14" screen? That's quite lame, even considering the price.Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
It's the same effective pixel density as a 15.6" 1080p screen running at 125% magnification (coincidentally, I'm typing this remark on just such a screen).But I agree, at this point it just feels wrong. Though, if it were a good 768p panel vs a shoddy 1080p one, I'd probably pick the lower resolution, having once made the mistake of "upgrading" a 14" laptop to a 900p screen that was absolute garbage.
Samus - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
That kind of works for HP, they use decent 768p screens (such as the IPS display on the Elitebook 810 Revolve series) but thats an 11.6" screen where 1080p would require some scaling.Then you have the fact that Intel graphics prior to the Haswell (HD3000 graphics) generation simply had trouble driving a 1080p panel well. It could, but even Youtube vidoes struggled in HD.
But since 2014, iGPU's have been more than capable of driving 1080p, and modern iGPU's can drive 4K across 2D, video, and pretty much anything but 3D.
So it's simply mind boggling to still see 768p displays. Especially when you consider how well Windows 10's scaling works, and the negligible impact on battery life over a 768p screen. Remember, 1080p screens don't consume that much more power, it's that the extra processing power previously required in older iGPU's and SoC's to drive higher resolutions resulted in a hit to battery life.
I don't get it. Everything should be at least 100ppi on mobile devices, and laptops are no exception.
Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
768p at 14" is 112ppi, though. (For the record, 1080p is 157ppi and 1440p is 210ppi.)And all things being equal, higher resolution requires more power because the backlight has to be stronger to get the same overall brightness.
peevee - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
It requires more power for GPU to render all that and transmit it to the panel to begin with.Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Now that I do the math, 768p on a 15.6" screen is pretty much 100ppi on the nose (100.45). I think we're gonna need a stricter standard. :)peevee - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
"Then you have the fact that Intel graphics prior to the Haswell (HD3000 graphics) generation simply had trouble driving a 1080p panel well. It could, but even Youtube vidoes struggled in HD."That is completely false. Even the chipset video of Core 2 generation played videos well (well, there were no h.265 then), and iGPU in Sandy Bridge etc works very well even in FullHD. It is only slow for newer 3D games at complex graphics.
Samus - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
I agree. They totally pulled an HP here and put a crap resolution screen on an otherwise decent device at a decent price. Had they spent an extra $10 on a 1920x1080 panel this could be amazing for $550.damianrobertjones - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
That's HP around 2008 etc. Nearly NINE years later and we still have 1366x768.Manch - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
We have tons of these HP Z books. All garbage.Issues, and by issues, I mean massive failure rates.
Battery: crap life, stops functioning, swells, may or may not break laptop
Screen: uneven brightness, low res, flickering issues
KB: It sucks
Trackpad: sucks worse than the KB
Ventilation: sucks up crap like a Roomba and vents the smell out the left side. It ventilates well but this one is more of a nasty MF user issue. If I have to crack one open and it looks like a dustbuster, I make the user come clean it.
Docking Station: Comes with extra parts. All too often the docking mechanism doesn't work and bits are rattling around the inside. Open the bottom cover and extra bits of plastic and metal fall out. Lots of times these jam up the mechanisms.
HP makes a few compelling laptops but after dealing with them, I wont buy one for home.
BrokenCrayons - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Unlike others, I see no problems with the screen's lower resolution. The iGPU has less work to do and the screen's backlight doesn't need as much power so there's some battery life benefits to be enjoyed. Yeah, you're going to have to live with a screen door effect, but on a 14 inch screen, many of us would have to resort to scaling in order to see things so the additional resolution is basically wasted. As for eMMC, I doubt it'll make a seat-of-the-pants difference for most workloads and 128GB is adequate (better by far than the few 32GB eMMC systems in budget notebooks). 4GB is a bit lean on RAM. It'd probably be okay for the present day, but I wouldn't expect to be happy with it a year or two from now. $499 would be a better price for it.webdoctors - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Its annoying for VNC though for a window with a higher res or if you're programming you want to see more lines of text. 1080p or higher is great there.I don't buy the less iGPU work, you're just displaying 2D text and basic overlapping windows, that stuff is all ASICs and very well optimized. 720p is a deal breaker.
BrokenCrayons - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
I can sympathize with the low resolution problems, but I think given the price bracket, this thing isn't being aimed at VNC or programming chores. Then again, like I said, if I had to use a 1080p screen, I'd end up scaling at 150% so I'd personally lose some of the screen real estate to increasing the size of things so I can actually see them without eye strain.Also, this isn't 720p. It's 1366x768 and 720p is 1280x720 so you're getting a few more rows of pixels of both length and height.
damianrobertjones - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
This machine should be in a much lower price bracket. You know it and I know it. There's no justification for this machine being at the price it is.Manch - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
Try adjusting the brightness relative to the lighting conditions in the room. That will help with eye strain and focusing. Higher res screens, like 1080 would probably be ok for you, but you need to find the optimal viewing distance. If you're getting old, reading glasses.I'm near sighted a bit and I find its actually easier on my eyes to take my glasses off when using my laptop or tablets. Being near sighted, my glasses decrease the natural magnification of my eyes a bit and strain the eyes a bit when reading which I do a lot of.
HStewart - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Please not the system has support up 4K and 3 monitors externallyEiny0 - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
I agree on all but price. Even $499 is too much given the hardware and expected 1 year warranty. If they priced at $399 it would sell like hotcakes. Even at $450 would sell well, it's a value machine and it needs a value price point to sell IMO.hybrid2d4x4 - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
As an owner of an Asus T100, the main issue of the eMMC isn't so much the quantity, but just how dismally slow this storage is- like mid 90s hard drive in sustained write speeds. Copying files over the USB3 port, the flash in that thing struggled to do 30MB/s when writing to the eMMC. The read speeds were faster but still a small fraction of what a modern 2.5" spinning drive does. The random reads are the only thing that might be better than a HDD. I have a cheaper/older SSD in my main PC and the occasional time I use the T100, it feels like I'm stepping 10 years into the past with how slow the disk access is.The memory card reader (microSD) on the T100 is also gimped at ~13MB/s, so I would expect this laptop to have similar compromises.
TBH, this device looks a lot like the Cherry/Bay-trail based netbooks/tablets with just the CPU updated and nothing else, and with a bigger/worse screen and seemingly better materials/build quality. I don't think that's worth anywhere near their asking price, to me even 400 would be a tough sell...
BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
I had an ASUS x205TA which was a Bay Trail system using 32GB eMMC. It was similarly slow, but I wouldn't use a Bay Trail laptop as a basis for what you might see out of a much newer system like this one. eMMC storage performance has improved by quite a bit in the intervening years so it might be better not to base your expectations of storage performance on the T100.HStewart - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
The y7y30 can handle up to 16G of memory but not sure this notebook is expandable.Also I have seen m2 SSD slot in Pentium ( Atom based ) laptop which has extremely lower performance than the Core m series.
damianrobertjones - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
You could buy a laptop, with better specs, for less a few years back. You've basically approved oems putting up their prices for bottom bracket parts. Well done.BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
Instead of accusing me of being responsible for a price you think isn't fair, you could work to raise your income so you could afford the things you want at their retail price.CoreyWat - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Why is 720p still a thing, I could see on a $349 laptop but not a $549 one. SmhDrumsticks - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
The price still seems a little high for it, but I can live with a 768p *IPS* panel in 2017 at reasonable sizes. It'll keep battery life down, and as long as the viewing angles and contrast are good, it's manageable.If anybody releases a 768p *TN* laptop in 2017 though, the entire stock of laptops need to be tossed into the fire.
ianmills - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Who would use pen input on a 768p SCREEN? such a wastedamianrobertjones - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
Kids.HStewart - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
One thing that I believe a lot of mislead by this machine is that Core m3-7y30 does not equal Atom or Pentium or Celeron CPU chips - yes it is SOC but it's architecture is closer i5 series - it has same CPU functionality - dual core hyperthreading and same processor extensions as i5 / i7 like 256 bit AVX2.What will be interesting is Intel creates either 8xxx generation of this CPU with quad core and hyperthreading or when Cannon Lake comes out.
Yes it will idle at lower speed - but it has same abilities as the higher end cpu's - but this cpu only runs at 5 Watts of power. I am typing this on Intel Compute Stick which can fit in my pocket - and smaller than Desk\top cpus (alone).
CPU supports 4k and also 3 monitors - the chip for Intel alone is $281
https://ark.intel.com/products/95449/Intel-Core-m3...
damianrobertjones - Monday, October 23, 2017 - link
That price should fall. We all know how business works... Flood the bottom end with a cheaper version which pushes up the price of what was, previously more or less the lower end (i3).Business. Fool consumers into thinking they're getting something much better.
peevee - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
Say, I have 2008 15" laptop with 4GB RAM, Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz, upgraded with 512GB SSD. How is this thing with 1GHz 2-core CPU and 128GB eMMC any better?BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - link
Well, in CPU alone, a 2008-ish Core 2 Duo like the T9600 has an average Passmark score of 1928 whereas the Core m3 scores 3579. In addition to a quicker processor, it's got faster RAM, a faster iGPU (probably quicker than a dGPU in a 2008-era laptop if you've got one of those), uses less power, weighs less, is thinner, is passively cooled, includes a Type-C USB connector, and can be used as a tablet. You C2D notebook has a larger screen and a faster plus larger SSD. You also already own your current laptop so if you're happy with how it works, then don't feel like you're missing out or are somehow compelled to make a purchase just because Anandtech posts an article.4K user - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
When I read the resolution on an ebay ad, I thought it was a typo. Then I came here to confirm. Unbelievable. ASUS cred affected, didn't think they would do moves like that as a company. Agree with all the exasperations here about screen res. Screen res like that shouldn't go with a quality metal housing as this, and a convertible at that!True to a post here the price has gone down and they are around $345 new on eBay now. Was considering getting one until I saw this post. I already have an ASUS E402 with that resolution an it fatigues and hurts my eyes, especially when reading or using for an extended amount of time. The workaround is to look at the screen from about 2.5 feet, defeating the purpose of a laptop screen. So thus the $345 price now. That said they've had the better 1080p Zenbook same hinge .7" screen smaller for about $550 on Amazon for a while now, so why buy the other one?