backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by SAN-Man.. on Jun 27 at 5:13 PM

Samsung launches new portable and desktop computers

Samsung has announced that it has added some new computers to its ATIV lineup. The new machines include the ATIV Book 9 Plus, ATIV Book 9 Lite, and the ATIV One 5 Style. The 9 Plus is a premium PC with an aluminum unibody and a Windows 8 optimized touchscreen.

It features a 13.3-inch touchscreen display with a resolution of 3200 x 1800 and a battery promising 12 hours of use per charge thanks to Haswell technology. The machine promises to boot up from cold in less than 6 seconds and wake up from sleep mode in under 1 second.


The ATIV Book 9 Plus has processor options including an Intel Core i5 or i7 ULT. Graphics are handled by Intel HD Graphics 4400 and the machine can be fitted with a maximum of 8 GB of RAM. Storage is up to 256 GB via a SSD and it has an integrated 720p resolution web cam.

The ATIV Book 9 Lite is more of a mainstream computer that still features cutting-edge technology and a 10-point multi-touch screen. It has a 13.3-inch screen with a resolution of 1366 x 768. That screen supports touch input and the quad-core processor runs at up to 1.4 GHz. It can be fitted with 4 GB of RAM and up to 256 GB of storage. The battery promises 8.5 hours of use per charge.


The Samsung ATIV One 5 Style is a desktop all-in-one PC featuring the GALAXY design aesthetic. It features a 21.5-inch full HD resolution 1920 x 1080 touchscreen and is the first all-in-one launched since the ATIV brand expanded. The machine uses an AMD A6 quad-core processor paired with 4 GB of RAM. The machine has up to 1 TB of storage space and an integrated web cam.


Pricing and availability on all of the new ATIV computers is unknown at this time.

Source: Samsung



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By SAN-Man on 6/21/2013 8:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see this with an AMD APU with decent video power.

I love the resolution. I might actually buy one of these simply for that reason.

I'm tired of low resolution garbage, it's 2013 already. Make with the eye candy already!




RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By drumsticks on 6/21/2013 9:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
The series 9 lite is supposed to be very inexpensive, i.e. < 5 or 600$. If it isn't, it won't be competitive. That said, as long as the display has nice contrast and other stats, most people won't care. I would much, much rather have a 128GB SSD and a 768p display than a 500gb 5400rpm HDD and a 900P display. (You don't get 1080p at a low budget).


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By SAN-Man on 6/21/2013 9:28:21 AM , Rating: 1
I disagree that most people won't care, tell all those people buying Mac Book Pros that.

Also, I was not referring to the Lite but the Plus.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By B3an on 6/21/2013 9:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you want AMD? Lol. I'd MUCH rather have the way longer battery life from Haswell. It's GPU will easily cope with anything but games. This isn't for gaming anyway.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By SAN-Man on 6/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 10:39:16 AM , Rating: 4
Either is plenty sufficient unless you are gaming or doing graphics work... If you were doing either of those, the built in GPU's suck, so you should buy something with a discreet card that suits what you are doing no?


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By SAN-Man on 6/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By Mint on 6/21/2013 12:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't game or do graphics work, I'm calling BS on your assertion that HD 4000 is responsible for making it "not fun".

Whatever issues you have with your notebook are unrelated to GPU speed.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By SAN-Man on 6/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By ritualm on 6/21/2013 5:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have problems with the HD4000 in Ivy Bridge, and I've been using just that REGULARLY and DAILY on my 1800v laptop, running the full 1800v.

I am also, unlike you with your 20 years of IT experience, acutely aware what it's like to be an early adopter. You take existing tech and use it to run stuff nobody in the entire industry has done before, of course you're going to have problems.

Pot calling the kettle black, how cute.


By SAN-Man on 6/27/2013 5:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
You claiming something and posting it online doesn't make it true and your use of the kettle metaphor indicates that you're brain could be deficient.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By ritualm on 6/21/2013 3:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Even with your use case scenarios, I still will not use an AMD APU, and this is why.

Performance.
Power.
Price.

Pick two of three.

AMD can compete under the following:
- performance + price = FX-8350 getting equivalent CPU performance as i5-2500K, but do it cheaper. However, you pay more on net power consumption.
- power + price = APUs perform at roughly half the CPU performance of i3's and i5's of the same tier, under the same TDP, for less money.

It never has anything that competes on performance + power, that is strictly Intel territory since Conroe and is paramount for any significant use in midrange-and-above laptops.

AMD needs to consume more power to deliver the same performance, or consume the same amount of power to deliver poor performance. Either proposition makes for a very hard sell in laptops. That is why AMD never has any laptop market penetration for its CPUs outside entry level (with APUs), where companies aim to cut costs wherever possible.

Until AMD has something RIGHT NOW that can beat an i7-4700MQ in both CPU and GPU performance, and do it all while being miserly in power consumption like most Haswell mobile chips of late, it's not going to win any converts, period. Because I'm not willing to spend $1,500+ on an everyday laptop that lasts for just 20-30 minutes off the wall.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By SAN-Man on 6/21/2013 3:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's certainly your opinion.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By ritualm on 6/21/2013 3:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I have such a $1,500+ laptop as you do, and I use it as my primary computer i.e. work, gaming, everything in between. An AMD APU simply will not give the performance I need because it will consume too much power to get there.

Your opinion is worth less than you think.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By SAN-Man on 6/22/2013 10:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Are you stupid? You don't understand what an opinion is I suppose


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By ritualm on 6/22/2013 1:21:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you stupid? You don't understand what an opinion is I suppose

Says the guy who calls others stupid because they disagreed with him.

I posted this in DT's FX-9590 article:
quote:
AMD processors never make sense as soon as price is not a major deciding factor.

AMD APUs are great for penny pinchers. Not so much when you're willing to spend $1,500+ on an everyday laptop with a high-res display. In fact, AMD has completely abandoned the midrange and high-end laptop markets. Steamroller? AMD can't make a mobile version of it.

You are off the rocker to think their power-hungry APUs will magically make your high-res laptop better than anything Intel can cook up.


By SAN-Man on 6/27/2013 5:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
I asked if you WERE stupid as you displayed a clear lack of understanding of what an opinion is. Based on your response, I'd say the answer is yes.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 11:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
I think you'll see that dynamic officially shift once stuff starts coming out with Kaveri parts in them late this year.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 2:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think AMD has a recent history of overpromising and under delivering with their next gen products. The last time they didnt do that was the Athlon64/X2, and that was a long time ago.

I am not saying they cant, just that I will believe it when its released and independently reviewed.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 3:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
Overall, they've met every expectation they've set: 15% performance bump each generation, entry-level gaming without a dGPU, HSA advancements... I really wish I'd picked up some stock when they were at $2 a couple of months ago. I'm not sure what promises you're talking about, but from where I'm sitting their real problem is that they've delivered on promises that aren't ambitious.


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 3:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
You are looking at it after the fact when they already lowered expectations. With every single major chip released after the Athlon64/X2 they hyped it up and then just a few months prior to release, lowered the performance expectation and raised the thermal envelope. It's been pretty consistent.

Were you not around the year prior to Phenom?


RE: Awesome resolution. Crappy video.
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 4:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's just that I don't pay attention to marketing. I always just look at design philosophy and operational measurements. I've never seen AMD make a misleading architecture diagram.

The true problem they've had is their engineering group has not been up to task or well-supported. Last year they finally started making hail-mary grabs at a direct solution, and it's probably going to pay off. AMD may not be a safe bet at the moment, but they're sure as hell an exciting investment risk.


By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 5:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Maybe it's just that I don't pay attention to marketing. I always just look at design philosophy and operational measurements. I've never seen AMD make a misleading architecture diagram."

Its not really them being misleading, or AMD marketing overhyping things... It's more like get to the end with the final silicon and find out it wont clock as high as expected, or there is an unforeseen power draw issue, or bug like with the Phenom that caused them to implement a bios workaround that limited performance substantially as explained by Wiki below... I like AMD, and I hope they knock it out of the park, but like I said I wont believe it until its released and reviewed, not prepublished specs and not engineering samples. Actual retail units reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Phenom

"Before Phenom's original release a flaw was discovered in the translation lookaside buffer (TLB) that could cause a system lock-up in rare circumstances; Phenom processors up to and including stepping "B2" and "BA" are affected by this bug. BIOS and software workarounds disable the TLB, and typically incur a performance penalty of at least 10%.[3] This penalty was not accounted for in pre-release previews of Phenom, hence the performance of early Phenoms delivered to customers is expected to be less than the preview benchmarks"


By marvdmartian on 6/24/2013 9:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, if the laptop is equipped with the ability to easily swap out the hard drive (unlike an Asus, which sucks), you could opt for the better display now, and swap in your own SSD after the fact. A decent 120GB SSD can be found for ~$80, which should be plenty enough storage for most people.


How about something in the middle??
By tayb on 6/21/2013 9:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell. You either get a ridiculously high resolution or a pathetic resolution. How about something in the middle? I don't know... maybe 1920x1080 or 1600x900? What if I don't want to spend high dollar for the aluminum body and crazy resolution but I still want a decent resolution?? No option for that!

This continues to be my gripe with the Windows laptop industry. There cannot find the sweet spot. It's either overboard or "meh."

I guess it depends on pricing. If the top of the line is less than $1,300 then it's not so bad. Still way outside the price range of most consumers but not outrageous. I bet it's closer to $1,800 though.




RE: How about something in the middle??
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2013 10:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
I kind of agree.

And that resolution in a 13.3" screen is retarded.


By sleepeeg3 on 6/21/2013 11:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's normal, but crappy.


By mikeyD95125 on 6/21/2013 3:48:46 PM , Rating: 1
Jeeze why does everyone turn into a big baby when it comes to screen resolution??

It has too many pixels :'(

As long as the software is you're running is capable of proper scaling then hi-res screens look great. I thought we were all a bunch of proper geeks on here?

Too much resolution...BAH! MORE RESOLUTION!


RE: How about something in the middle??
By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 10:28:19 AM , Rating: 1
"This continues to be my gripe with the Windows laptop industry. There cannot find the sweet spot. "

There are a TON of Windows laptops from 12.5 to 15 inches with 1920x1080 screens. This last years has seen the market littered with them. I dont think you have looked at all, because you cant possibly have not seen them from almost all the largest makers.


By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 10:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
This is a quick 10 second Google ... Dozens of options, actually from 11.6 to 17 inches.

https://www.google.com/search?q=laptop+with+1920x1...

This one is 13 inch only

https://www.google.com/search?q=laptop+with+1920x1...


RE: How about something in the middle??
By tayb on 6/21/2013 11:10:39 AM , Rating: 1
I don't want a 15" screen. I want a 13.3" screen with a 1600x900 or 1920x1080 resolution. The only one you linked is the old Asus Zenbook Prime that is $900 on sale ($1,100 normally) and requires me to compromise on memory. It's old and outdated, low on memory, and still pricey.

Go to Dell.Com and try to find a 13.3" laptop with 6-8GB of ram and a 1600x900+ resolution. Good luck. I want the Dell 13z (or equivalent) with a higher resolution screen... and no one is offering that. It's either a piece of shit or a pricey ultrabook.


By Mint on 6/21/2013 12:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want a 13.3" screen with a 1600x900 or 1920x1080 resolution.
Want to tell me how you're going to get that from a non-Windows laptop?


By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 1:15:43 PM , Rating: 1
You said "1600x900 or 1920x1080" There are a ton of 1920x1080 I dont think any LCD manker makes that. There are plenty 14 inch 1600x900

"Go to Dell.Com and try to find a 13.3" laptop with 6-8GB of ram and a 1600x900+ resolution. "

This took me all of 30 seconds. The XPS13 has 8GBRAM and 1920x1080p res options... And there are tons of others from other makers. I dont know what you are complaining about, there is no way you actually looked because they are everywhere.

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/xps-13-l321x-mlk...


RE: How about something in the middle??
By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 1:33:21 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, OK, I see what you are saying now... I missed the part about "cheap". No, there arent a ton of cheap 13 inchers with higher res screens. For whatever reason, the 13 inch category costs alot... 14 and 15 are much cheaper. If you want cheap, you'd be better off with a 14 incher.

You do realize you are kind of saying that you want a high quality expensive product for cheap. Who doesnt?


RE: How about something in the middle??
By tayb on 6/21/2013 6:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be quality though! That's my whole point. Just give me the internals from the Inspiron 13z but an option to upgrade the panel. That's it! Why do I need to go to the XPS line and get a 3rd gen i7 with a 256GB SSD to upgrade the panel? It's like GPS on a car. You can't get it alone, you have to buy a ridiculous "luxury" package that includes crap I don't want or need.

That's really what my complaint is centered around. Samsung has these two laptops where one is cheap and one is ultra expensive. I want the one in the middle. Internals from the cheapo with a higher res screen.


RE: How about something in the middle??
By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 6:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you are saying but 13 inch panels cost alot more. For whatever reason, it was never as big, so not alot made and not as good a price as 14 and 15 inchers. You would be far better off going 14.

Another wierd thing is you cant get a 13 inch 1600x900. No LCD's have that spec. Oddly 14 inch doesnt have 1080 available.

Its an odd mix...

1366x768 - 13,14,15
1600x900 - 14,15
1920x1080 - 13,15

???


By tayb on 6/22/2013 9:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
I shopped for months until I found my current laptop. A Sony Vaio with a 13.3" screen and a 1600x900 resolution. I found it at Fry's and it was the floor model, discontinued. $1,100 for 500GB, 6GB Ram, i7 2nd gen, and a blu-ray drive. It was a little more than I wanted but the price was great. Of course, battery life is miserable but you can't have everything.


By Mint on 6/21/2013 12:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This continues to be my gripe with the Windows laptop industry. There cannot find the sweet spot.
WTF? There are plenty of Windows laptops with the sweetspot resolution you desire.

13" Macbooks, OTOH, are either 1280x800 or retina. So how is your gripe a Windows laptop problem?


Screen real estate
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 9:02:23 AM , Rating: 2
768 is the absolute minimum usable vertical resolution, and it feels really cramped. That Lite model uses a Kabini APU so it should be pretty affordable; it's a shame they wouldn't throw a few bucks at a high-res screen. I guess they wanted to make sure parts supplies keep flowing.




RE: Screen real estate
By SAN-Man on 6/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: Screen real estate
By drumsticks on 6/21/2013 9:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
Except it runs Android... which is a completely different usage scenario.

I don't argue that 16:10 is nice to work with, but when literally the entire world except apple has moved mostly away from it, I don't know why people bother.

I would rather have a 900P or 1080P workstation with windows than whatever resolution the Nexus 10 is running Android.


RE: Screen real estate
By SAN-Man on 6/21/2013 9:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
Different? Yes.

Completely different? No.

And the usage scenario, whatever it may be, is unrelated to the screen hardware IMO.


RE: Screen real estate
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 9:33:36 AM , Rating: 5
16:10 is a lot better for reading and I really prefer it for both desktop and phone. There's no reason whatsoever to make the display skinnier and kill off real estate.

For the middle (tablet, 8" - 10"), 4:3 is even better. That's something Apple did get right.


RE: Screen real estate
By ritualm on 6/21/2013 3:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't argue that 16:10 is nice to work with, but when literally the entire world except apple has moved mostly away from it, I don't know why people bother.

I would rather have a 900P or 1080P workstation with windows than whatever resolution the Nexus 10 is running Android.

Content creation highly favors 16:10, not 16:9. The extra vertical real estate afforded by 16:10 gives you room for editing controls, menus and other UI elements, while displaying content at full size.

Most Hollywood movies are formatted 21:9, and must be shrunk and cropped to fit into 16:9.

So the only reason everyone except Apple moved to 16:9 is because it is cheaper. It isn't technologically superior. That is why going from 1200v to 1080p is a downgrade, period.


RE: Screen real estate
By retrospooty on 6/21/2013 9:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
"I was OK with 768 in 1998 but that was 15 years ago."

Exactly... I would buy anything with that res even on a 7 inch tablet today... Unless it was as a gift to an elderly person with really bad eyesight.


RE: Screen real estate
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 9:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/20/4449124/samsung-...

There are some articles from different sources talking about how the Lite model uses an AMD A6 part. It's Kabini-based.

Honestly this would normally mean they can fit great screens and stuff into the budget, having saved hundreds of dollars on the BoL just by not using Intel. I think this was a logistical decision. High-res screens don't grow on trees (yet).


Underpowered Graphics
By aliasfox on 6/21/2013 9:31:11 AM , Rating: 3
The ATIV Book 9 Plus (I think they need a better name for it) looks like a nice entry into the retina-resolution field, assuming it lives up to its battery numbers and the screen/keyboard/trackpad are of decent quality. That said, the HD4400 graphics seem like a serious downside.

The MacBook Pro Retina 13" running an HD4000 feels jerkier/laggier than it ought to for a premium machine, and the HD4400 in the ATIV isn't much faster - in fact, with 40% more pixels to push than the 13" Retina (4MP vs 5.7MP display), the ATIV is liable to feel even slower. My understanding is both Mac OSX and Windows have hardware acceleration on the GUI, so there wouldn't be much advantage/disadvantage there.

Without a dedicated GPU, this class of laptop is likely to feel slow-ish for at least another generation, I imagine.




RE: Underpowered Graphics
By ritualm on 6/21/2013 3:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
What you said is wrong.

MBPRs renders your "perceived" screen resolution at four times its size before scaling it to fit 1600v (13") or 1800v (15"). On the 13", by default it increases 1280x800 to 2560x1600 and then scaling down to 2560x1600.

On the 15", the pre-scaledown resolutions become 2880x1800 (900v), 3360x2100 (1050v), 3840x2400 (1200v). Most of the lag people were complaining about had to do with the onboard CPU/GPUs rendering as much as 9.2MP per frame - not per second, per frame, as in frames-per-second - basically making Ivy Bridge (and Kepler) do more work than they're ever supposed to.

The ATIV renders at 3200x1800 without any of the Apple scaling algorithms. Haswell will be fine rendering 5.7MP.


RE: Underpowered Graphics
By aliasfox on 6/21/2013 5:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Considering I was playing with it on its default mode (2560 x 1600 simulating 1280 x 800), I don't think I'm overstating what I'm saying. Playing with dock magnification, scrolling on content-heavy websites, and dragging windows around on screen all seemed to stutter slightly, or at least seem less smooth than performing similar actions on the MBA. Was it bearable/usable? Most definitely, but when one's paying $1500 for a premium machine (which the rMBP, ATIV, Kirabook, and Chromebook are), "bearable" and "usable" shouldn't be part of the experience - one should be thinking "fluid" and "smooth."

Now that's an HD4000 rendering 2560 x 1600 (then scaled). An HD4400 rendering 40% more pixels will have similar issues. The only way that it won't have similar issues is if it's rendering 1600 x 900 and scaling/pixel doubling, which then defeats the purpose of ultra high res.

Don't get me wrong, I want these things to succeed - I'm keenly waiting for the next gen rMBP 13" to come out - similarly optioned, an rMBP is nearly the same price as a MBA 13", but with a glorious high-res IPS display. I just don't want to pay that much for a computer that feels like it's already struggling.


RE: Underpowered Graphics
By ritualm on 6/21/2013 5:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I know how you feel. These "premium" laptops need to have smoother performance than they have now.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few years from now we get true 4K on a laptop, only to come back here and complain how it's too jerky and whatnot because the hardware and software can't handle 4K at 30fps.


Model # of 3200 x 1800 model?
By SAN-Man on 6/21/2013 9:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
All the models I am seeing for sale online of the Plus are the (apparently) older 1920x1080 model.




By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 9:54:24 AM , Rating: 3
They're not on sale yet.


Plus and Lite.
By fhq on 6/27/2013 3:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
ATIV Book 9 Plus: Awesome to finally see this announced.

ATIV Book 9 Lite: What the hell Samsung? You can put a 3200x1800 display in your upcoming Plus model, a 1920x1080 display in the currently-released ATIV Book 9 model, and not even muster up a 1600x900 display for your Lite version like you've always had as the baseline in your previous-generation Series 9 models? Beyond ridiculous we're still seeing these worthless stone-age displays.




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki