Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Feb 2013 11:23 UTC
Windows And there we are - the Surface Pro reviews are in. Reading through them all, there's clearly a common theme, and it's not particularly positive. We're a few months in now, so I think we can finally call it: Windows 8 and Surface are the wrong way to go.
Thread beginning with comment 551671
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Surface Pro
by WereCatf on Wed 6th Feb 2013 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Surface Pro"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

The problem is there are no such processors (at least not yet). The i5 they used is the 17W variety. That is as low as any Intel ULV processors get currently (not counting Core 2 Solos from 2008, which don't have GPUs, or Atoms which categorically suck).


The new 7W Ivy Bridge - CPUs from Intel ( http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/power-saving-through-marketi... ) should make things a lot easier for manufacturers and a lot more interesting for end-users once they arrive properly in the mass-market. I would love being able to run x86/x64 software on a tablet without terrible compromises in speeds or loud fans keeping the thing from scorching my fingers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Surface Pro
by galvanash on Wed 6th Feb 2013 17:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Surface Pro"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The new 7W Ivy Bridge - CPUs from Intel


Yeah. Those are the ones I was referring to as being released last month. They are technically 13W TDP - the 7W number is SDP, some new made up metric for "average" power use. i.e. they are lower power, but not as much as the number implies.

Reply Parent Score: 3