Dell Unveils First Ultrabook, The XPS 13
Ultrabooks are definitely one of the trends at CES 2012. While there's a ton of them on display, not all of them are new (it's not at all unusual for companies to bring old or already-announced products to CES to try and catch some of the media rays). However, we're also seeing some companies announce their first ever Ultrabook, and among them is Dell.
Dell today showed off its first foray into the Ultrabook market in the form of the XPS 13. Boasting a 13-inch 1366 x 768 Gorilla Glass display (which, similar to the HP Spectre, fits inside a chassis that's an inch smaller), the XPS 13 packs a Core i5 CPU, Intel HD 3000 graphics, a 128 GB SSD, 4 GB of RAM, Bluetooth 3.0, Intel's Smart Connect and Rapid Start technologies, USB 2.0, USB 3.0, a MiniDisplay port, and a battery life of eight hours.
Of course, it wouldn't be an Ultrabook if you didn't know how heavy it was and just how it compares to the other super-slim notebooks on the market. To that end, the XPS 13 measures in at 18-mm at its thickest and 6-mm at its thinnest. The whole thing weighs in just shy of 3-lbs and is wrapped up in a sleek aluminum finish.
As far as pricing and availability are concerned, the XPS 13 is set for release at the end of next month and will start at $999. Upgrades to Core i7 and more storage space will push that up quite a bit, though.
- The Tiny Cotton Candy Computer Runs Android 4.0 ICS, Ubuntu
- Origin Overclocks Genesis to 5.7GHz, Offers 24/7 Support
- Roccat Enters US Market With Hot PC Gaming Accessories
- Pure Carbon Could Solve All Your Heat Disspipation Worries
- Gigabyte Intros New Motherboards, Tech at CES
- 300 Foxconn Workers Threaten Mass Suicide Over Raise
- Sony Intros 55-Inch Crystal LED Display Using 6 Million LEDs
- Play Cut the Rope Now in Your Browser With HTML5
- Bethesda Says id Software Layoffs Are Normal
- Intel Reveals Its First Medfield Phone, the Lenovo K800
- Steve Ballmer Already Gave Execs His Retirement Date
- Rocstor's Amphibious HDD Kicks Data Security Up a Notch
- Dell Targets End of 2012 for New Tablet Push
- Samsung's 40-inch Microsoft Surface Demonstrated on Video
- OnLive's Virtual Win 7 Desktop Launch for iPad Delayed
- LG May Be Working on Chrome OS Notebook, Tablet
- Tegra 3 Powering Audi's Vehicle Infotainment, Instruments
- Lenovo Announces New Classmate+ PC and Convertible
Is it just me or charging customers nearly $1000 for any laptop/notebook without ATI/NVidia GPU is just nuts? Intel HD 3000? 1366 x 768? Try again for sub $600 please..
Having an SSD is way more beneficial to non-gamers than a powerful graphics card.
Most serious gamers don't want to use a laptop anyway, the market is increasingly for business professionals who want portability, battery life, and fast loading (ssd), in an easy-to-carry package (both thin and light) - it's also more pleasant to use a slimmer lighter laptop.
You don't get that for sub $600.
Gamer and laptop doesn't really go along. Unless the budget is 2k+. Regarding dedicated GPU the advantage is obvious. Try 480p Youtube on 1080p display with Intel Vs ATI/NVidia GPU and you'll see exactly what I mean. Intel doesn't do Flash deblocking properly, you get loads of squares when video is upscaled. IMO the whole Intel GPU range is no no, except for backup maybe if you're stuck.
Gamer and laptop not going along is exactly my point.
I have full HD movies playing on my ultrabook and there are no squares, no problems at all. You definitely don't need a dedicated GPU for watching Youtube, particularly on an ultrabook size screen, doing so will do more harm than good lowering your battery life.
:-)
You right, movies are fine since you are using dedicated software that gets decent use of your CPU. I had 2500k desktop with no dedicated GPU for few weeks. Hated the guts of Intel HD3000. Have laptop with A4-3300M and ATI 6430. Not as good on battery life but great improvement over visuals, especially when connected to external display such as 1080p 40" TV.
All in all Intel GPU is usable but a disgrace to nowadays standards. I simply couldn't spend 1k or over for something that has no dedicated GPU. Be it GTX510 or HD6380.
There is benchmark for AA and AF with image quality, give it a try on Intel HD3000 system and then on lowest end DX10 or 11 supporting dedicated GPU.
See, I don't believe in doing benchmarks for benchmarks sake. The benchmark for me, is real life. If we benchmarked with a dedicated GPU, my PC would switch off after half the time so then I really wouldn't be able to watch the Youtube clip. AA and AF are terrible examples anyway since they are both intended for gaming, for which ultrabooks should not be used - a point we both agreed on
I didn't spend over 1k, as it happens, but you're focusing too much on the GPU. You have to try and envisage a user who wants to use the laptop as a laptop, not to connect to a TV (which lowers the quality when compared to a monitor anyway) - the vast majority of ultrabook users don't do this. I personally have connected mine to my much-higher-resolution 2560 by 1600 Dell 30" display, and it works flawlessly when playing movies, either from DVD or Youtube (at any quality). However, the priorities for most people are battery life, loading times, being thin and light. The last part is critical really. What you're doing is like saying you'd never buy a Tesla because it has no engine. People who buy a Tesla don't want an engine.
People who buy Ultrabooks don't want or need a dedicated GPU. The payback, is the much longer battery life, and the money doesn't just go on the chipset - the SSD is probably the single most expensive part of the system (as well as the design and cooling for such a thin laptop). Again, a dedicated GPU would thicken up the laptop and take away from the whole point of an ultrabook. They actually represent excellent value for money for what you get.
Maybe it's not for me. I was never a fan of fancy design and battery life. If all I wanted to do is watch movies I would go for Lenovo E525 with extended battery lasting 6 hours easily. Dedicated GPU included.
I use some Sketchup and like to max out AA and AF for image quality, nothing to do with gaming.
Each product for different wallet thickness and taste.
Oh and that Lenovo + 80GB Intel 320 SSD cost me €500. That's AMD 4 core A8-3500M with ATI HD6620 GPU.
Fair enough. I do actually use Sketchup on here, only experimental though and I didn't even know it had an AA and AF setting :-)
You're right in that a premium is being paid for the thin and light design, and I have to say the battery life is only just over the 6 hours you get, so that Lenovo sounds excellent value, particularly with a SSD. If I wanted to buy the same setup here in the UK, the Lenovo would cost £450 and the SSD would cost £110 so I'd end up at £560. The laptop I'm using now, is a Macbook Air 13" - with Windows 7 (I know not technically an ultrabook but basically same thing). Cost £750, but comes with a backlit keyboard too. The main benefit for me is the form factor, which I definitely paid extra for.
I guess it comes down to personal taste, whether you prefer the thin and light or if you do tasks which require more GPU horsepower. I have quite a monster desktop PC which I built in the lounge so I probably have less of a need than some people, but I definitely see where you're coming from.
Agreed. I do like the thin and light idea, it's just not for my pocket and requirements atm.