Rather good specs, looking forward to seeing a review soon.
I particularly like the twin M.2 capability as others of this size tend to omit this option. Comparing the nvidia against Xe-LP on the same chassis will be interesting.
As someone with 24 GB of RAM in an laptop: I find it slightly involved to even exceed 8 GB of RAM usage. Memory usage hovers around 10-11 GB most of the time for me.
Standard explanation is about reducing video playback judder.
So, by way of explanation, an average NTSC TV from a few years ago would have a standard refresh rate of 120Hz - which is exactly divisible by both 24fps for film & 30fps/60fps for broadcast content...
...whilst the equivalent PAL (& most of mainland Europe) TV would playback at 100fps - which was a compromise since 600fps would me needed to hit a multiple of both 24fps AND 25/50fps...
...HOWEVER, unlike the at least the US & Canada, from the middle of the VHS days onward, over here our devices are typically both PAL & NTSC compatible, so our equivalent TVs would be able to playback at both 100 & 120Hz.
(obviously there are now much higher refresh rate NTSC & PAL TVs for not very much money these days & they follow the same pattern, depending on location - & panels with refresh rates which are multiples of 600Hz will work best for both; since that's the lowest value exactly divisible by 24, 25, 30, 50 & 60)
it's then about usage - so, take my old PG279Q - & whilst it can be set to 144Hz or overclocked to 165Hz via the OSD, it also has 60 & 120Hz defaults so that, depending on usage, it could instead be optimised for video playback.
So, whilst i couldn't tell you if any specific 85, 90, 165Hz, etc screen will also have the option to lower the refresh rate - as above, the 100Hz would have the equivalent usage to a 120Hz screen in PAL countries; & would have particular advantages to someone working with PAL content creation.
Oh, & the other thing to remember is that the increase in refresh rate increases power consumption on the same panel, & within the context of a portable device, you're always making compromises with portability & battery life - so, for a laptop that's explicitly designed to be "light & thin" & without a particularly great graphics solution, this is where they've chosen to make 'a' compromise...
...where, whilst it won't be the best for film (or PAL) playback, 60Hz works for US TV shows.
(OT, then likewise this is another reason why a monitor such as the old ASUS one that i have gives the option to lower the refresh rate quickly via the OSD - since it allows a bit of a saving on utility bills when not gaming.)
So explain to me why something like the HP DreamColor Z31x - explicitly designed for video editing & available at the tail end of last year - explicitly runs at 48Hz (ie 2x 24Hz for editing film) - & then 50 & 60Hz for PAL & NTSC?
Or how, you're going to be displaying either 24fps for film, 25/50fps for SD/HD PAL, or 30/60fps for NTSC on an 85Hz monitor without either dropping or repeating frames? (or lowering the refresh rate)
Likewise, are you seriously saying that driving a screen at, say 120Hz, is no more power consuming than 60Hz? Just look at the reviews for any mobile with a high refresh rate & you'll see that lowering the refresh rate increases the battery life due to a combination of lower (predominantly) GPU & CPU usage with the same screen.
it's usual when we use CRT monitor, using 72Hz, 75Hz, 80Hz, 85Hz, 90Hz even 100Hz and 120Hz. As long as VGA card and monitor support it. Although I cannot see the difference above 80Hz.
CRTs are flying-spot systems, vertical refresh rate is limited only by the combination of the number of lines and the horizontal scan rate (i.e. you could have an obscene vertical refresh rate if you were willing to compromise to a low number of lines and a low number of 'pixels' per line).
LCDs are sample-and-hold displays, and CANNOT be operated in the same way. They are physically VERY different display technologies. You do not have free choice of angular resolution, line counts, or scan rates. Your pixel grid is fixed, your maximum panel update rate is fixed (by a combination of controller capability and subpixel switching time) and you can only vary within the confines of those parameters.
I am impressed by how light the 14" laptops are today. Other good thing about the specs are we are seeing laptops with USB-A and HDMI ports in a lightweight laptop. That is great news. Plus the screens seem to be of great quality(some of them 100% DCI-P3) and we even have a laptop with 1080p OLED that is hopefully very efficient as well.
I really want fullsized sdcard readers. Does everyone actually only use microSD, and why would an adapter be insufficient? I keep seeing 14" laptops that have microSD card readers, forcing me over to use an external card reader. Why?
Because Smart Phones drive consumer IT and they support micro if anything. Plus you can get so much on a micro card these days that full size are generally an irrelevance.
The thinking behind this is that if you need SD, you're probably an avid photographer. So you have the money and buying an adapter probably isn't a big deal. But this is a very small group today.
Most consumer devices moved to microSD (phones, compact cameras, drones, mini computers).
And since these built-in card readers are usually fairly slow, so you're still better off using an adapter - making the built-in reader more of a convenient alternative on the go.
Thanks Ian! I don't find a 73 Wh battery in a lightweight ultraportable "mind-blowing", I think it's great! After all, an ultraportable is only fully mobile until it needs to be plugged in. Good for Schenker to not skimp on battery. Really hope other makers of ultraportable laptops follow that lead.
>Personally I find this a bit mind blowing, if I’m honest. A 73 watt-hour battery in a 1.1 kg notebook is insane
Batteries are extremely lightweight: much lighter than people expect. The going rate is 4.5 Whr/g (cells + package total!). There's a misconception that "batteries are just too heavy". OEMs shrink batteries for z-height and/or cost (direct & secondary for packaging), not weight.
50 WHr = 225 grams 73 WHr = 329 grams
~100 grams difference between average 50 WHr vs. amazing battery life 73 WHr. Even with a 100 WHr battery, this laptop would only weigh 1.3 kg.
Thanks, that's actually quite helpful. We hear the "a higher capacity battery would have added so much weight" excuse so often; with the additional 23 Wh weighing in at 104 g, it's clear that those excuses are just that. I will gladly carry the extra 104 g if I get 23Wh more battery for it
except that if you add those extra 100g, you'll need to expand the laptop shell to fit the larger battery. This also adds size, its not as simple as 23wh = 100g, since you need to look at the laptop as whole..
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
33 Comments
Back to Article
Agent Smith - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Rather good specs, looking forward to seeing a review soon.I particularly like the twin M.2 capability as others of this size tend to omit this option. Comparing the nvidia against Xe-LP on the same chassis will be interesting.
Agent Smith - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Windows Hello included?XMG Support - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Yes, the webcam in VIA 14 is Windows Hello compatible. // TomLuminar - Saturday, September 5, 2020 - link
Wow, advertising in the Anandtech comment section. First time I've seen that.ads295 - Sunday, September 6, 2020 - link
This is hardly advertising, is it?qcmadness - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
8GB ram in year 2020?zepi - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Certain premium devices like Surface Pro are available with 4GB base spec model.8GB is at least usable for many many basic tasks.
Luminar - Saturday, September 5, 2020 - link
As someone with 24 GB of RAM in an laptop: I find it slightly involved to even exceed 8 GB of RAM usage. Memory usage hovers around 10-11 GB most of the time for me.Rookierookie - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
A DIMM slot in year 2020?smilingcrow - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
If this was an Apple device that would be impressive for under $2k. ;)You can spend that on a loaded iPad Pro and not have 8GB.
damianrobertjones - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Yes, 8Gb is PERFECTLY fine for general use.Now... how about increasing the standard refresh from 60, to 70?
Roy2002 - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
60hz refresh rate is Ok for this non-game oriented laptop.III-V - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
You can't just arbitrarily change the refresh rate without consequences. There are reasons why refresh rates are multiples of either 30 or 24 Hz.ajp_anton - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
And what are those reasons? And why don't they apply on 85Hz, 90Hz, 100Hz or 165Hz screens?TheRealPD - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Standard explanation is about reducing video playback judder.So, by way of explanation, an average NTSC TV from a few years ago would have a standard refresh rate of 120Hz - which is exactly divisible by both 24fps for film & 30fps/60fps for broadcast content...
...whilst the equivalent PAL (& most of mainland Europe) TV would playback at 100fps - which was a compromise since 600fps would me needed to hit a multiple of both 24fps AND 25/50fps...
...HOWEVER, unlike the at least the US & Canada, from the middle of the VHS days onward, over here our devices are typically both PAL & NTSC compatible, so our equivalent TVs would be able to playback at both 100 & 120Hz.
(obviously there are now much higher refresh rate NTSC & PAL TVs for not very much money these days & they follow the same pattern, depending on location - & panels with refresh rates which are multiples of 600Hz will work best for both; since that's the lowest value exactly divisible by 24, 25, 30, 50 & 60)
it's then about usage - so, take my old PG279Q - & whilst it can be set to 144Hz or overclocked to 165Hz via the OSD, it also has 60 & 120Hz defaults so that, depending on usage, it could instead be optimised for video playback.
So, whilst i couldn't tell you if any specific 85, 90, 165Hz, etc screen will also have the option to lower the refresh rate - as above, the 100Hz would have the equivalent usage to a 120Hz screen in PAL countries; & would have particular advantages to someone working with PAL content creation.
Oh, & the other thing to remember is that the increase in refresh rate increases power consumption on the same panel, & within the context of a portable device, you're always making compromises with portability & battery life - so, for a laptop that's explicitly designed to be "light & thin" & without a particularly great graphics solution, this is where they've chosen to make 'a' compromise...
...where, whilst it won't be the best for film (or PAL) playback, 60Hz works for US TV shows.
(OT, then likewise this is another reason why a monitor such as the old ASUS one that i have gives the option to lower the refresh rate quickly via the OSD - since it allows a bit of a saving on utility bills when not gaming.)
liquid_c - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
You, my friend, have written a mountain of useless bullshit.TheRealPD - Thursday, September 3, 2020 - link
*sigh*So explain to me why something like the HP DreamColor Z31x - explicitly designed for video editing & available at the tail end of last year - explicitly runs at 48Hz (ie 2x 24Hz for editing film) - & then 50 & 60Hz for PAL & NTSC?
Or how, you're going to be displaying either 24fps for film, 25/50fps for SD/HD PAL, or 30/60fps for NTSC on an 85Hz monitor without either dropping or repeating frames? (or lowering the refresh rate)
Likewise, are you seriously saying that driving a screen at, say 120Hz, is no more power consuming than 60Hz? Just look at the reviews for any mobile with a high refresh rate & you'll see that lowering the refresh rate increases the battery life due to a combination of lower (predominantly) GPU & CPU usage with the same screen.
m00bee - Thursday, September 3, 2020 - link
it's usual when we use CRT monitor, using 72Hz, 75Hz, 80Hz, 85Hz, 90Hz even 100Hz and 120Hz. As long as VGA card and monitor support it. Although I cannot see the difference above 80Hz.edzieba - Thursday, September 3, 2020 - link
CRTs are flying-spot systems, vertical refresh rate is limited only by the combination of the number of lines and the horizontal scan rate (i.e. you could have an obscene vertical refresh rate if you were willing to compromise to a low number of lines and a low number of 'pixels' per line).LCDs are sample-and-hold displays, and CANNOT be operated in the same way. They are physically VERY different display technologies. You do not have free choice of angular resolution, line counts, or scan rates. Your pixel grid is fixed, your maximum panel update rate is fixed (by a combination of controller capability and subpixel switching time) and you can only vary within the confines of those parameters.
XMG Support - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
8GB are on-board in the minimum config and can be upgraded to up to 40GB with the additional DDR4 SO-DIMM slot at 3200MHz. // Tomdeil - Thursday, September 3, 2020 - link
its a baseline for cheapest. HOPEFULLY upgradable.trivik12 - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
I am impressed by how light the 14" laptops are today. Other good thing about the specs are we are seeing laptops with USB-A and HDMI ports in a lightweight laptop. That is great news. Plus the screens seem to be of great quality(some of them 100% DCI-P3) and we even have a laptop with 1080p OLED that is hopefully very efficient as well.Unashamed_unoriginal_username_x86 - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
1250 euros with 256gb storage, you come to Eric Wareheim when you want fine European prices...jho1670 - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
I really want fullsized sdcard readers. Does everyone actually only use microSD, and why would an adapter be insufficient? I keep seeing 14" laptops that have microSD card readers, forcing me over to use an external card reader. Why?smilingcrow - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Because Smart Phones drive consumer IT and they support micro if anything.Plus you can get so much on a micro card these days that full size are generally an irrelevance.
vladx - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
I prefer microSD because it doesn't stick out, I would rather use an SD adapter to put it in a camera.notb - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Frankly, yes. You're expected to use an adapter.The thinking behind this is that if you need SD, you're probably an avid photographer. So you have the money and buying an adapter probably isn't a big deal. But this is a very small group today.
Most consumer devices moved to microSD (phones, compact cameras, drones, mini computers).
And since these built-in card readers are usually fairly slow, so you're still better off using an adapter - making the built-in reader more of a convenient alternative on the go.
GNUminex_l_cowsay - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Power buttons on the side of the laptop are a massive nuisance.eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, September 2, 2020 - link
Thanks Ian! I don't find a 73 Wh battery in a lightweight ultraportable "mind-blowing", I think it's great! After all, an ultraportable is only fully mobile until it needs to be plugged in. Good for Schenker to not skimp on battery. Really hope other makers of ultraportable laptops follow that lead.nils_ - Thursday, September 3, 2020 - link
It's a shame, specs sound great until you get to the single TB/USB4 port and soldered RAM...ikjadoon - Thursday, September 3, 2020 - link
>Personally I find this a bit mind blowing, if I’m honest. A 73 watt-hour battery in a 1.1 kg notebook is insaneBatteries are extremely lightweight: much lighter than people expect. The going rate is 4.5 Whr/g (cells + package total!). There's a misconception that "batteries are just too heavy". OEMs shrink batteries for z-height and/or cost (direct & secondary for packaging), not weight.
50 WHr = 225 grams
73 WHr = 329 grams
~100 grams difference between average 50 WHr vs. amazing battery life 73 WHr. Even with a 100 WHr battery, this laptop would only weigh 1.3 kg.
Source: https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/us/en/04/g-se...
eastcoast_pete - Friday, September 4, 2020 - link
Thanks, that's actually quite helpful. We hear the "a higher capacity battery would have added so much weight" excuse so often; with the additional 23 Wh weighing in at 104 g, it's clear that those excuses are just that. I will gladly carry the extra 104 g if I get 23Wh more battery for itfirewrath9 - Saturday, September 5, 2020 - link
except that if you add those extra 100g, you'll need to expand the laptop shell to fit the larger battery. This also adds size, its not as simple as 23wh = 100g, since you need to look at the laptop as whole..