Microsoft Surface Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 23, 2012 9:01 PM EST- Posted in
- Tablets
- Microsoft
- Mobile
- Surface
- Windows RT
Display: Not Retina, But Still Good
Surface features a 10.6 inch, 1366 x 768 16:9 display. The physical size is a bit unusual, although the display resolution is something we’ve seen used in affordable notebooks for years now. We already know why Microsoft picked the display size (to enable better multitasking and make for a good keyboard size), but is there room for a flagship tablet with only a 1366 x 768 display resolution?
Microsoft’s response to the resolution question is that more pixels isn’t necessarily better, and that there are a number of other factors that are just as important. It also is quick to point out that a significantly higher resolution display would have increased memory bandwidth requirements, decreased UI frame rate and required a larger battery. As NVIDIA’s Tegra 3 only has a single channel LPDDR2 memory interface, driving a 2048 x 1536 panel and maintaining Microsoft’s UI performance requirements was out of the question. Apple ran into the same issue and ended up building the A5X SoC with an insanely wide memory interface to deal with it. Down the road I’d expect the memory bandwidth problem to get solved, but that still leaves a power consumption issue. Apple moved to a 42.5Wh battery in the 3rd generation iPad, a 37% capacity increase compared to the 31Wh unit in Surface. Enabling a similar panel would have pushed size and weight of Surface more than Microsoft would have liked.
Given those constraints Microsoft chose a different route with Surface. Rather than focus on pixel density it focused on improving contrast and reducing glare. Surface laminates the cover glass and LCD panel together, removing an annoying air gap that’s responsible for some reflections/glare and a reduction in brightness. Apple’s recently announced 8th generation iMac does something similar, as do a lot of high end smartphones, but Surface is among the first to do so with a ~10-inch LCD. The effect is noticeable in a contrived photo but it also results in a display that’s not half bad to look at.
With the exception of text on web pages, the lower resolution Surface display isn’t overly bothersome. I would like something a bit higher resolution although I don’t know that matching Apple’s pixel density is absolutely necessary if Microsoft can deliver elsewhere.
Apple doesn’t just rely on resolution to sell the iPad’s Retina Display, it also happens to do quite well at accurately representing colors. I put Surface through AnandTech Senior Display Editor, Chris Heinonen’s excellent tablet/smartphone analysis workflow to see how well it did:
| CalMAN Display Comparison | ||||||
| Apple iPad (3rd gen) | Apple iPad 2 | ASUS Transformer Pad Infinity | Microsoft Surface | |||
| Grayscale 200 nits Avg dE2000 | 3.7333 | 1.3826 | 3.9881 | 3.6769 | ||
| CCT Avg (K) | 6857K | 6632K | 6632K | 6407K | ||
| Saturation Sweep Avg dE2000 | 3.193 | 6.8404 | 6.8404 | 7.3617 | ||
| GMB Colorchecker Avg dE2000 | 3.0698 | 3.8957 | 4.4177 | 5.3057 | ||
Saturation
Gamut
GMB Color Checker
Grayscale accuracy is slightly better on Surface compared to the iPad, however the rest of the accuracy metrics show Apple’s tablet ahead of Surface.
This isn’t to say that Surface’s display is bad, in fact I think it’s quite good and I’d argue that it was never a problem in my testing, but it’s definitely not the best on the market today. I’m also not sure how much of this has to do with Microsoft’s panel selection vs. software calibration. None of my calibration tools work under Windows RT so I couldn’t really tell you.
I did reach out to Microsoft and they did say that some of my values in the charts below looked a little off. I’ll be rerunning data on another Surface sample as soon as I get a chance to.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
235 Comments
View All Comments
jonyah - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
That's where Surface Pro comes in. I think pretty much everyone would go for the Pro if it were available day one, which is why they've delayed it. Core i5 power (though less battery life) and x86 compatibility will make it a winner.....i think.I hate windows 8 for any normal machine, though it may be nice in a tablet form. I'm still waiting to be able to actually play with one first.
Zink - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
$900+ is too much for most people. Ultrabooks are amazing but sales numbers are poor. Sales are much higher on $500 laptops and tablets. The Surface Pro is also a bigger fan cooled device that won't offer the same battery life so the experience suffers there.I think the killer devices are the Atom tablets at $500. x86 and faster than ARM but with the same form factors and price. Asus is pricing at $600 for their VivioTab RT with battery/keyboard dock. I'd like to see 1080p too but maybe another product or manufacturer.
shompa - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link
*hint* Ultrabooks sell well: Macbook Air.PC can't compete with Apple at the same price. Today's ultrabook are priced same as Apple (but usually with larger SSD and/or faster processors).
That is like a BMW priced same as a Skoda. Most people buy BMW.
That is why Android tablets can't compete at the same price point as Apple.
That is Surface will have a hard time.
The rumour where that the Surface would cost 199 dollars, and that would have been a hit. (But OEMs would hate MSFT even more). The 199 price would work since people have to buy apps from MSFT paying them 30% on each app. MSFT subsidise Nokia phones and Xbox360 when it was release. This is a tactic they used many times before.
And I believe that Surface will head that way. We will see a 50% price cut within a year.
I really want to use Surface. But from the looks of it: its a nerd/corporate machine. The usual MSFT market. Wont sell 100 million.
Hoekie - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link
Why? Get the cheaper 32GB version and pop in an SD card if price is an issue.Looking at the first reactions from people around me, Surface will be hot selling.
Office + Multiuser + Light + batterytime+ touchcover+port connections. Actually a no brainer. In fact the 32GB no cover version is sould out everywhere including Germany.
vision33r - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
MS will have to give away Xboxes again to move this after the initial batch of early adopter orders are filled.N4g4rok - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
Care to elaborate?MadMan007 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
translation: "I don't like MS and/or Windows 8 but don't have anything useful to say."LancerVI - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
That was an extremely accurate translation. Bravo to you sure and thanks for the lulz.shompa - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link
MSFT have given away many Xbox360 so sell Windows phone. MSFT have done similar things many times spending tens of billions to take market share and then start to charge more money.Surface wont fly of the shelves. After the first batch MSFT needs to do something. Giving away Xbox360 is cheap for them
Later we will see a price cut. Up to 50% within a year. It will also be intresting if MSFT follows Apples "1 year" bump cycle or a more aggresive "pc/Android" bump cycle. iPad4 have 400% faster CPU and at least 800% faster GPU. A6 is as fast as Intel per clock cycle. (and yes: I understand that A6 is dual core and intel is quad + clocked much higher. But the fact is that A6 is as fast per clock cycle. ARM will replace X86)
Surface is not a mass market product. It cant compete with the sub 300dollar 7 inch tablet market. It will have a hard time compete with Ultrabooks and Ipads.
A MSFT product that cost the same as an Apple product have never sold.
Surface +
-its more of an PC. It could be the only computer
-Office
-Kickstand
-the covers are great
Surface -
Pricey 600 dollars for ancient hardware.
maximumGPU - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link
i would love to borrow your crystal ball some day!