Where are all the reasonably priced Haswell & Kabini ultrabooks?

[Fjodor2001]

So we're several months past the release of Haswell and Kabini. But where are all the reasonably priced Ultrabooks based on those CPUs?

I'm mostly seeing $1500 Haswell Ultrabooks with top end specs being presented. But I'm looking for a $800-1000 Haswell based Ultrabook with 8GB RAM/250-500 GB SSD/2C4T@~1.6GHz/3.0GHz Turbo CPU, decent 1080p or higher resolution 11-13" matte IPS display, nice keyboard/trackpad, good I/O options, and excellent battery life. Optionally a similar one based on a Kabini CPU for around $500-700.

Will we see such ultrabooks soon being presented? Are my expectations unrealistic? Or is everyone waiting until Windows 8.1 is available before releasing them?

 

[bullzz]

"Are my expectations unrealistic?" yes

I dont think we will see 1080p+ resolutions for $1000 atleast this year. maybe if apple announces a high res MBA, it will drive the windows OEMs to do that. even low res ultrabooks cost $800

 

[Homeles]

The 250-500GB SSD is going to eat a rather enormous part of that budget. If you were to stick with a smaller SSD, or traditional storage, your expectations would not be unreasonable.

I will say that there's a good chance that SSD prices are rather inflated right now. Perhaps they will drop for the holiday season.

 

[Fjodor2001]

"Are my expectations unrealistic?" yes

I dont think we will see 1080p+ resolutions for $1000 atleast this year. maybe if apple announces a high res MBA, it will drive the windows OEMs to do that. even low res ultrabooks cost $800

Hmm... aren't 1080p displays (or better) kind of the norm these days in Ultrabooks? 1376x768 and similar seems pretty low end I think?

The 250-500GB SSD is going to eat a rather enormous part of that budget. If you were to stick with a smaller SSD, or traditional storage, your expectations would not be unreasonable.

I will say that there's a good chance that SSD prices are rather inflated right now. Perhaps they will drop for the holiday season.

Yes, you're right that the price of the SSD will eat up quite a large portion of the budget. On the other hand you can get a Samsung 840 256 GB for around $180 and 512GB for around $300. So even with a 512 GB SSD you'd have $1000-$300=$700 left for the other components based on my budget proposal, which is quite a lot I think.

However it seems like the Ultrabook manufacturers are overcharging for SSDs currently. I.e. they'll charge you more than that compared to the HDD alternatives. So an option would be to get an Ultrabook with the smallest possible HDD, throw it in the trash, and replace it with an SSD yourself...

 

[Homeles]

That's what I did. Not necessarily for that reason, but I replaced the 500GB HDD with a 120 GB SSD in my ultrabook.

In my opinion:

Solid state storage is overdue for a price drop. ~20nm devices are beginning to saturate the market... the cats are getting fat while they can, but you'll see prices drop soon. Shame CamelEgg is dysfunctional right now...

 

[jpiniero]

So we're several months past the release of Haswell and Kabini. But where are all the reasonably priced Ultrabooks based on those CPUs?

That's what Bay Trail is for.

 

[Yuriman]

"Are my expectations unrealistic?" yes

I dont think we will see 1080p+ resolutions for $1000 atleast this year. maybe if apple announces a high res MBA, it will drive the windows OEMs to do that. even low res ultrabooks cost $800

In 2006 I got a 1680x1050 display in a $1000 Dell notebook, and a friend had a $1300 notebook with a 1080p display. Put in that light, notebook screens have almost gone backward.

 

[2is]

You aren't going to get a Haswell ultrabook with a 500GB SSD for 800-1000 USD.

 

[Homeles]

You know, I'm just not feeling that we're there yet. Yeah, Bay Trail should be nice, but it's not ultrabook material. Kabini's not quite there either. Cost should go down a lot, but I just don't see the kind of performance I'm looking for.

The next process nodes should bring it -- AMD will certainly deliver the graphics horsepower I'm looking for, and hopefully Intel as well. CPU performance will probably look pretty nice, but it's not as easy to count on. However, solid state storage should be getting pretty close to getting in the price ranges we're looking for. Panels should continue dropping in price, and I think we can definitely expect 1920x1080 to finally see the adoption it deserves.

My bet is on next year.

 

[blackened23]

Hmm... aren't 1080p displays (or better) kind of the norm these days in Ultrabooks?

No, it isn't. Especially not for the price you're seeking. Portables with actual non-garbage displays usually cost north of 1k, much more so.

But ultrabook manufacturers insist on filling the market with garbage, when consumers have demonstrated a willingness to pay for quality (such as the macbook pro, still the uncontested best portable computer) - yet they completely ignore quality. Not only in terms of screen size, but horrible track pads, keyboards, mini HDMI that can't output higher than 1080p, I could go on and on here. The average "ultrabook" is cheap garbage, i'm waiting for someone to step up to make an actual good unit with a high resolution screen (I mean higher than 1080p) but have not had luck yet. Dell/HP/Asus/etc just cannot get it right. I've given up. It's pretty sad because i'd much rather get a windows ultrabook rather than a MBP, but the MBP is just significantly higher quality.

Anyway, for your budget you're asking for a bit much unless you find an incredible sale somewhere - an 800$ ultrabook is usually 4GB of RAM with a 1366 display, on average. If you don't mind a full size laptop, those are usually much cheaper than ultrabooks but have worse battery life - perhaps you can find a full size laptop in that price range with the features you're seeking.

 

[mayo_capone]

I spent a lot of time exploring the notebook market before I had to get one for school a few weeks ago. Absolutely nothing came out that met my expectations. The closest was the Vaio Pro, but it seems pretty overpriced for the specs. I'm suspect the touchscreens are adding a bit to the cost of windows notebooks these days.

I ended up sacrificing the screen resolution to get a Macbook air because it was on sale and the Haswell options out there are so limited the Macbook was actually the cheapest option. I might get something else in the future and pass the air down to the GF.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Well, let's say you spend $300 on a 500 GB SSD. Then you have $1000-$300=$700 left for the rest of the components. Shouldn't that be enough? Anybody that can present an estimated Bill Of Material (BOM) that explains why $700 should not be sufficient for the rest of the components?

Something like this:

Intel 4200U (2C/4T @ 1.6GHz/2.6Ghz Turbo): $287
8 GB RAM: $60
[...]

I mean already in 2011 Intel presented reference designs with BOM for Ultrabooks at US$475-650 for 21 mm models, and US$493-710 for 18 mm models:

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110804PD217.html

EDIT: Note that BOM is not the same as sales price, so you probably have to reserve $100 or so for manufacturer profit.

 

[seitur]

They don't want to earn "only" 100$. Whole idea for ultrabooks (inlcuing MacAir) - at least for now - is that it is supposed to be high profit margins product.

 

[Fjodor2001]

They don't want to earn "only" 100$. Whole idea for ultrabooks (inlcuing MacAir) - at least for now - is that it is supposed to be high profit margins product.

But competition should change that. Why should there be higher margins on Ultrabooks compared to other types of laptops? There's nothing magical about them that makes it only possible for a few companies to produce them. When Mac Book Air was introduced it was different, because Apple was the only company having a product like that. But now Ultrabooks have been around for years and are becoming a commodity, so the margins should not have to be that high.

 

[StrangerGuy]

What you expect, ultrabooks don't even come close to the economies of scale that the Macbook gets and if people wanna spend $1000 for a laptop they certainly won't be looking at PCs anyway.

 

[seitur]

But competition should change that. Why should there be higher margins on Ultrabooks compared to other types of laptops? There's nothing magical about them that makes it only possible for a few companies to produce them. When Mac Book Air was introduced it was different, because Apple was the only company having a product like that. But now Ultrabooks have been around for years and are becoming a commodity, so the margins should not have to be that high.

What do you mean by "should"? No manufacturer want to risk and sell on low-margins simple as that. Cheaper Ultrabooks with lower margins would caniballize their own non-ultrabook laptops offerings.

Competition does not work like that - just because there is few manufacturers offering similarproduct - it does not mean that they will automatically go to price war and go from high margins business model to low-margins one on this certain product.

 

[Fjodor2001]

What do you mean by "should"? No manufacturer want to risk and sell on low-margins simple as that. Cheaper Ultrabooks with lower margins would caniballize their own non-ultrabook laptops offerings.

Competition does not work like that - just because there is few manufacturers offering similarproduct - it does not mean that they will automatically go to price war and go from high margins business model to low-margins one on this certain product.

By "should" I mean that there is no rational market explanation for it to be otherwise. If there are segments where high profit can be made, and it's an easy market to enter, there normally are companies that do so and bring down the margins quite quickly. All it takes is for one company to have products similar to the competition but sell their products much cheaper, then that's the product the consumers will buy. And the other companies will have to lower their margins too or accept the fact that they will not sell very much of their products. Simple market economics.

 

[ShintaiDK]

480/500GB mSATA/NGFF SSD cost between 400 and 500$. And remember to add 100$ to the BOM for inventory, marketing, distribution, support, RMA and so on. Then another 25$ for manufactoring, 50$ for Windows. And you can keep on adding cost.

You simply want too much without paying for it.

Just look at Apples Airbook. You get 4GB, 128GB SSD 1.3Ghz/2.6Ghz CPU, 1366*768 screen for 999$ in the 11" version. And thats as an absolutely bare price without anything extra.

 

[Fjodor2001]

480/500GB mSATA/NGFF SSD cost between 400 and 500$.

Do you mean the price that manufacturers pay for it when buying 100.000+ units, or the price a consumer would pay in a store? I.e. do you mean that is the BOM cost?

Also, how come it could cost $500 in BOM, if a consumer can buy a 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD for $300?

And remember to add 100$ to the BOM for inventory, marketing, distribution, support, RMA and so on. Then another 25$ for manufactoring, 50$ for Windows. And you can keep on adding cost.

That's $175 right there without any hardware BOM cost even having been added. Could that really be true? Then how come they can sell $200 Netbooks or $400 laptops, which should carry similar costs too?

Just look at Apples Airbook. You get 4GB, 128GB SSD 1.3Ghz/2.6Ghz CPU, 1366*768 screen for 999$ in the 11" version. And thats as an absolutely bare price without anything extra.

But that's including "Apple tax". Apple is in a unique position that it can charge a price premium compared to other brands. General computer manufacturers don't have that privilege. But for some reason they seem to think they do when it comes to Ultrabooks. I guess that's why the Ultrabook sales numbers have been so poor and disappointing...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do you mean the price that manufacturers pay for it when buying 100.000+ units, or the price a consumer would pay in a store? I.e. do you mean that is the BOM cost?

Also, how come it could cost $500 in BOM, if a consumer can buy a 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD for $300?

That's $175 right there without any hardware BOM cost even having been added. Could that really be true?

300$ like this? Or 430$ for the 2½" version.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA0AJ0ZA6686

Also you forget mSATA/NGFF cost more.

Then how come they can sell $200 Netbooks or $400 laptops, which should carry similar costs too?

They cant. Look at your own specs again. You essentially want the best there is for...cheap.

But that's including "Apple tax". Apple is in a unique position that it can charge a price premium compared to other brands. General computer manufacturers don't have that privilege. But for some reason they seem to think they do when it comes to Ultrabooks. I guess that's why the Ultrabook sales numbers have been so poor and disappointing...

The "Apple tax" on PC devices is low. And even Apple doesnt offer 1080p on any Airbook. The 13" version is 1440*900.

You simply make up illsuions to defend an underpriced (theoretical) ultrabook with your desired specs.

Its a classic "working backwards" case to argument a case.

 

[blackened23]

The problem is that PC manufacturers are filling the market with sub-standard garbage and expect us to pay an otherwise similar price. Most ultrabooks series with similar specs as the MBA costs nearly the same. Only with flaky keyboards, trackpads that barely work, and mini HDMI doesn't support higher than 1080p (I use a 1600p monitor at home, mHDMI with only 1080p is not acceptable.). Sub standard garbage for the same price? No thanks.

I really like the rMBP and am hopeful that someone, anyone releases a similar product this fall with Windows 8.1.

 

[Sheep221]

In 2006 I got a 1680x1050 display in a $1000 Dell notebook, and a friend had a $1300 notebook with a 1080p display. Put in that light, notebook screens have almost gone backward.

It was simply because the screens were 16:10, since late 2009 and 2010 respectively the 16:9 took over in both laptop and desktop screens.

The premium laptops and monitors sold in 2004 featured 1920x1200 and 1280x800 resolutions. In 2013 we rather get smaller 1920x1080 a 1366x768. Yet we can't complain much about the issue because screen size relative to the price has gone up very much. For what you paid $1000 in 2006 now costs $120 basically.

In case of ultrabooks, it's crap don't waste your hard earned money, get conventional laptop for 1/3 price and you have a same thing.

 

[blackened23]

It was simply because the screens were 16:10, since late 2009 and 2010 respectively the 16:9 took over in both laptop and desktop screens.

The premium laptops and monitors sold in 2004 featured 1920x1200 and 1280x800 resolutions. In 2013 we rather get smaller 1920x1080 a 1366x768. Yet we can't complain much about the issue because screen size relative to the price has gone up very much. For what you paid $1000 in 2006 now costs $120 basically.

In case of ultrabooks, it's crap don't waste your hard earned money, get conventional laptop for 1/3 price and you have a same thing.

Personally for me, thinner is much better. Carrying a 16 pound laptop around an airport, for example, gets annoying after a while - the ultrabook is a superior form factor. That being said, the small form-factor does cost slightly more due to using ultra low power components such as ULV CPUs (whereas full laptops don't bother) so the prices aren't directly comparable. You pay for the smaller form factor, but it's worth it for me.

A laptop is fine if it is mostly stationary, I know a ton of folks with full sized gaming laptops and they generally don't carry them around a lot. Ultrabooks are just far better for actually being on the move a lot, though.

 

[Homeles]

Just an example of what I hold to be a decent ultrabook:

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?...82E16834230770

This is the one I own, so perhaps I am biased, but it's been fantastic. Touchpad's tracking is absolutely solid, it looks nice enough (not quite as sleek as a zenbook or some other high end ubooks, but far better than a traditional craptop), it's decently light, and it's fast enough for me to game on.

It's got two major cons though: crappy screen (really crappy), and poor battery life. Haswell and Silvermont would take care of the latter issue. As far as the screen goes... well, hopefully panel prices have come down enough for a decent screen to make its way in this year. The HD 4000 graphics hold up decently on 1366x768, so perhaps HD 5000 is enough to tackle 1920x1080.

Magnetic storage is another con, however that one is thankfully one can solve on their own.

Anyway, you can get all of that for ~$650ish. It launched at $750, so I don't think it's too unreasonable to get HD 5000 in that budget. I don't know what screens cost, but we're very close. With a $1000 budget, it's certainly possible to get everything listed in the OP, just at a slower CPU clock and with magnetic storage.

 

[Arkaign]

Cliffs : buy a Macbook. Seriously. You can install Win7 or Win8 on them no problem if you want to run Windows instead of OSX.

The quality just isn't there for PC notebooks once you get to that level. Of course you can build higher-end PC notebooks, but they're invariably beastly huge desktop-replacement ones. All of the PC 'ultrabooks' I've used have been disappointing. My personal notebook is a chunky Dell Vostro i5, mainly because I don't travel with a laptop, and I got this thing almost for free. i5, 8GB 1600, 256 840 Pro, Nvidia something or other (good enough for light gaming, but not high end lol), etc. It's got 1600x900 @ 17.3", which is not even 1080p, to say nothing of rMBP displays. Imho those ultra high res displays would be somewhat wasted on PC notebooks anyway, due to Windows not really scaling all that well with small screens and ultra high pixel density. I once had a 1920x1200 14" Thinkpad, and it was almost unbearable. I could get many things to blow up to visible size, but often felt like an airline passenger looking down at ant people's writings. Standard size text on the start menu was like 1/8" of an inch tall lol. Not something you could sit in front of without hunching over to use.

/cliffs : buy a Mac.