Intel Core M Enables Lower Cost Ultrabooks; Asus UX305 Tested

MojoKid (1002251) writes Asus announced their super-slim Zenbook UX305 during the IFA trade show in Berlin in September. The machine will be available in two models, one with a 1920x1080 IPS display and one with a QHD+ display that boasts a native resolution of 3200x1800. They're both built around Intel's more power-efficient Core M processor, which was designed for ultra-thin and "fanless" form factors. Intel's Core M does seem to offer significant advances both in terms of power consumption and performance, which enables many of the design features found on the 12.3mm thin UX305. The Core M 5Y10 in the Asus Zenbook UX305 is complemented by 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, and this is one of the few ultrabooks to feature a matte display. All told, the machine put up some decent numbers in the benchmarks and battery life was excellent, but what's perhaps most interesting is that this is an "ultrabook" class machine that weighs in at a much more palatable $700 price tag.

Comments

Oomph.

[Etherwalk]

this is an "ultrabook" class machine that weighs in at much more palatable $700 price tag.

(1) Editing error. English requires an indefinite article between "at" and "much."

(2) Palatable to some. $700 isn't much to spend on a computer by the standards of the upper middle class, but it's still a pretty big chunk of change.

Re:Oomph.

[hcs_$reboot]

$700 isn't much to spend on a computer by the standards of the upper middle class, but it's still a pretty big chunk of change.

Ultrathin, latest Core M proc, 8 G memory, 256 G SSD... $700. That's sound a fair price (and it's ASUS-grade quality).

Re:Oomph.

[mrchaotica]

Given the hardware advances in the 6 years since the 1000HE was released, I find it hard to believe Asus can't put out a computer that serves the same purpose for the same amount of money. Or less money.

I bought an Asus X200CA (12" touchscreen, slow CPU, 4 GB RAM) for about $260 back in October. They do make computers that serve the same purpose for the same amount of money (or less money); it's just that the computer in TFA isn't it.

Re: Oomph.

[Dragonslicer]

This is also known as the Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice.

Re:Oomph.

[pepty]

For what it is, absolutely. You can go to an OEM and buy a base system, sans SSD and RAM, for $1000 that would massively outperform this.

You are leaving out two of the most important specs for people who are in the market for this type of machine:

Dimensions: 12.8 x 8.9 x 0.5 inches

Weight 2.6 pounds

Will the OEM system be at or below those numbers? If you are in the market for a 13" laptop instead of a tablet, it's because you want the extra screen size and a keyboard.

Re:ASUS still trendy

[operator_error]

For the last 10 years, I've mainly only purchased ASUS motherboards, netbooks, monitors, and the occasional router. ASUS is truly massive and makes a lot of good stuff for a long time already. During the netbook era it looked like they were gonna hedge heavily on Linux, then Microsoft leaned on them heavily and they reversed course.

http://www.computerworld.com/a...

My ASUS EEE 10" netbook is fantastic with Ubuntu & Kodi, still, and I paid about $250 for it ages ago.

Not exactly cheap

[Kjella]

At $281 for 1K tray pricing, they're not exactly delivering the most bang for the buck. Intel's basically setting their own prices now and has had record quarters lately.

Ultrabook isn't a "class"

[Hadlock]

It's a spec. Designed by intel's marketing group. Which is constantly in flux. Their long term goal is to push affordable yet quality laptop design, but at the same time I wouldn't all $700 "palatable" for an Ultrabook. $570-$640 is palatable for an ultrabook. $700 is just a regular laptop price.
 
And really, should we be praising laptop manufacturers for putting a 1080p screen in a $700 laptop? In 2015? How many pixels does your phone have? How much does it cost off contract. Extrapolate.

Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class"

[TheRaven64]

And really, should we be praising laptop manufacturers for putting a 1080p screen in a $700 laptop? In 2015?

It is a bit surprising. I have an ASUS TransformerPad TF700, which is pretty close to the ultrabook market segment and came with a 1080p screen. I've had it for a few years and the newer model comes with an even better screen.

How many pixels does your phone have? How much does it cost off contract. Extrapolate.

Be a bit careful about that. The process for manufacturing TFTs is subject to the same rules as other semiconductor fabrication processes. If you double the area then you double the probability of an impurity resulting in a stuck pixel (and, these days, consumers don't accept even a small number of stuck pixels). This lowers the yields. As the feature size (i.e. pixel size) goes down the size of impurity that won't cause damage goes down too. This is why we got 225dpi screens on phones cheaply back in 2005, when IBM was still selling a 23" 225dpi screen for around $10K - the yields once you scale them up get painfully low.

It's also the reason why printers and so on have much nicer screens than they used to: the ones that don't make spec for tablets and phones are sold to consumer electronics vendors very cheaply.

Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class"

[ray-auch]

It is a bit surprising. I have an ASUS TransformerPad TF700, which is pretty close to the ultrabook market segment and came with a 1080p screen. I've had it for a few years and the newer model comes with an even better screen.

And yet as soon as you get into their full-OS transformers the screen res becomes lousy - the TF100TA comes really really close to being all I need on the road (as long as I move dev to cloud based vms - but lugging around a laptop that can run vms is getting old and tiring), but biggest let down is the 1366x768 display. Since I would also like it slightly bigger, I was really looking forward to TF200TA with 11in screen - but they made it 1366x768 again. Really don't see why they think that they have to have high res for Android and lowest possible res for a tablet that can run full Windows / Office.

Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class"

[Solandri]

It's a spec. Designed by intel's marketing group. Which is constantly in flux. Their long term goal is to push affordable yet quality laptop design, but at the same time I wouldn't all $700 "palatable" for an Ultrabook. $570-$640 is palatable for an ultrabook. $700 is just a regular laptop price.

Intel came up with the Ultrabook marketing campaign to convince manufacturers to make more expensive laptops with better features (higher resolution, SSD storage, better battery life, thinner, lighter). It makes no sense to expect Ultrabooks to be cheaper than regular laptops.

Intel didn't start the Ultrabook campaign because they were fed up like those of us who want better-than-low-end specs on our laptops. Intel was in very real danger of being priced out of the market. Netbooks died because the low-end of the regular laptop market dipped below the $400 mark, and in some cases even the $300 mark about 3 years ago. It's extraordinarily difficult to sell a $150 CPU for $299 laptop. Intel needed to raise the average laptop price, or cede increasing market share to cheaper CPUs by AMD and ARM. And the Ultrabook campaign was how they chose to do it.

I've been buying notebooks for over 2 decades now, with a bias towards lightweight models (I've owned a Thinkpad 701c, Thinkpad 560E, Portege 3440CT, Sony Z122). Prices on ultraportables have steadily dropped from over $3000 (the 701C retailed for nearly $4000), to $1800 by the time I got the Sony Z1 in 2010. Ultrabooks were well over $1000 when they first debuted a few years ago. $700 is more than palatable for an ultrabook - it's fantastic. I've been helping several friends buy laptops since this past November, and aside from some brief sales which ended literally within hours, the cheapest 1080p laptop (non-refurb) has been about $600. For $100 more you get 8GB of RAM and a SSD (and a 256GB one at that, not a lame 128GB one). It'd be a fantastic price even if it weren't ultralight and thin like an ultrabook.

Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class"

[ezelkow1]

The thing that has pissed me off about the ultrabook push is that since the processors for them are cheaper than non-U processors manufacturers started putting them in almost all laptops, not just ultrabooks. The common consumer is not aware, they have no idea what the U designation on the processor means. For them though it can mean half the performance of a non-U spec'd proc.

I was attempting to buy a laptop during this transition a few years ago and eventually gave up when I could find only one out there that was still in my price range that wasnt a non-U anymore. Over the period of a month or two every manufacturer transitioned all of their models to U processors, halving the performance but at the same price, same case, same ram, etc just to feed their bottom line. Now I only see non-U's in gaming and higher priced models

Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class"

[ray-auch]

Maybe, but that doesn't explain it. 768 is the _minimum_ vertical res for Windows, and Surface Pro runs at up to 2160 x 1440.

Re:ASUS still trendy

[drinkypoo]

if you live in thailand you really don't fucking want a metal chassis touching you, using a macbook gets you a sizzling sensation when using most power sockets.. sure it's easy to say to not use those sockets but that's like 90% of sockets in the country!

APC used to make a cute little surge suppressor/isolator that went in between your laptop supply and the wall...

Re:I'm trying to...

[pepty]

...more would get you a quad core 13" Sager with a discrete gpu...

a several pounds heavier Sager with 1/3 or less of the battery life. Different market segment.

Re:more power-efficient Core M processor?

[itzly]

Intel is improving faster with power reduction than ARM is improving with performance increases.

Anorexia rules.....

[niftymitch]

What is it with this rush to thinner and lighter?

There is a point for many of us where thin is thin enough
and durability and battery life and even a second disk rule.

I would love to see less drive to vanishingly thin and fragile
to a more middle ground of durable, capable and functional.

The 3200x1800 display does appear inviting.
But for any power user the keyboard often matters more.

I happen to have an HP laptop that is nearly 18 years old.
It has a fine keyboard as laptop keyboards go and more importantly
the display has a lot of vertical pixels which makes it nice to read
text and code. Ubuntu keeps it ticking... I think it came with DOS ;)

Sadly the BIOS has a hard wired white list for WiFi bits so I cannot
upgrade the WiFi. It is so old that a replacement battery costs
an arm and a leg and has much less life than I like. It is not silent 0db
it has a noisy fan, it has a spinning disk.... it weighs in at 6 or 7 lb.

Darn I just convinced myself to check this one out when it hits the
local stores.