New Laptop Search: Is there a better ultra-book for the money?

On a limited budget and would prefer to not spend more than $700. Surface would be an option if the prices are down. MacBooks are just too much - I could get an 11" Air refurbished for around $800, but then I'm giving up 2" of screen and from the reviews I've read the performance diff. is marginal.

My main wants are: 13-14", thin, light, long battery life. I'd ideally like SSD and an Intel core i processor...but would settle on this core M if it can save some money and still handle everyday browsing use.

ETA: Just checked the Surface Pro 3 - the $699 model doesn't have enough storage for my needs. The 256gb model is over $1,000.

Macbook Airs are being left in the dust right now. Apple needs to do something with that line, like get rid of it and the iPad Pro and combine the two.

quote:

---

everyday browsing use.

---

Is this all you intend to use it for? If so, the CPU shouldn't be an issue. The main problem with the Core M is that its performance is entirely dependent on the design of the entire machine and how well it cools the CPU. The core M series are basically Core i chips that have been designed to run at much, much lower clock speeds the majority of the time, consume less power and output less heat (hence the trend of passive cooling for these chips). Just means the boost clocks are going to be intermittent and only when necessary. Good for browsing and entertainment, but not significant productivity/workstation stuff.

Pretty much browsing only. Download some music and maybe stream Netflix here and there. Honestly, the most involved thing I'd do is loading all 5,000 plus songs and 1000s of pictures onto the new computer. Nothing graphics or computing heavy at all.

If it's any help, my previous laptop was an Asus U45JC-A1 circa 2009/2010 with 4gb of ram and an Intel Core i3-370m. It handled my needs just fine.

quote:

---

that processor seems slow. can you not get an i5 or i7?

---

If it weren't simply a browsing/entertainment laptop, a different CPU might be worth considering. However, it'll be fine for his purposes. If we were talking about an Atom, Pentium, or Celeron, I'd have a different opinion.

The difference between the Core M series and the dual-core mobile i5/i3s is how it boosts. The i5 is going to stay at constant clocks under load assuming it's cooled effectively, where as a Core M is like an i5 or i3 that's been given an extremely strict set of rules regarding how much power it can use and how hot it can get.

The PC/tablet OEMs set these power/thermal targets, so it can vary from unit to unit. Not that the Core i chips aren't subject to the same set of limitations, but they are spec'd for devices with active cooling, hence the higher base clock, which is a more important number than the boost clock.

As I said, because it's meant to be passively-cooled, low-clock CPU that boosts judiciously, the chip's performance can be heavily influenced by the design of the system that's running it. Anandtech tested a few systems that use these chips, including the ASUS that OP is looking at. The ASUS fared very well in terms of consistent boosting, adequate cooling, and optimal performance.

I got a Dell 15.6" i7-5500U with 6GB RAM and 1TB HDD for 499. I love it so far and plan on upgrading it to SSD. Should be good for what I need it for.

quote:

---

ILikeLSUToo

---

These cats don't want a mobile processor in a laptop, ILike.

He couldn't figure out my shite. Just sayin' Had to buy a new damn computer because of his lack of knowledge. Might as well just look on youtube. Better info. ( )

Twas a joke. I'm sure if I was able to give more info it would have been solved.

Oh no sir! I gave the failing hard drive theory! Shows what you know. You were all like well dang hu, I'm stumped but I sure know its not the cpu.