Back to Article

  • thesuperject - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    1366 x 768? Is it really too much to ask for at least a 1600 x 900 display on these sorts of devices? Reply
  • Stuka87 - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    Its intended to be very low cost, which means the screen is going to suck. But for its price bracket that doesn't matter to most people. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    Yup, that's Kabini's bag.

    I'm tickled that these kinds of budget machines might start seeing ~128GB SSDs. Even mediocre SSDs would yield a tremendous improvement.
  • Alexvrb - Sunday, July 07, 2013 - link

    Absolutely. For consumers buying this sort of entry-level ultraportable, they're better served with an SSD and a less expensive CPU, rather than a mechanical drive and a pricier processor. Hopefully this trend continues. Reply
  • djc208 - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    It's a value ultraportable, so for around $500 it wouldn't be too out of place. Sure most tablets have better resolution in a smaller screen, but they don't currently run a full Windows OS or have 128GB SSDs (or full HDDs). Reply
  • karasaj - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    I would take a 400-500$ device (maybe even 600$?) with a Kabini SoC, 128GB SSD, and 768 display (especially if it's decent contrast - low ppi doesn't necessarily mean shitty display!) over a 1600x900 13 inch with a 5400RPM hard drive and i5 any day. An SSD means worlds for the feeling of responsiveness in a system. Reply
  • whyso - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    You can generally add in an SSD too. 128 GB for $80. Or even if the laptop has an mssd slot have the best of both worlds: storage and speed.
    I'd certainty pay $80 more for i5 and better screen.
  • karasaj - Saturday, June 22, 2013 - link

    You're exaggerating - most 128gb SSDs cost around 100$, and fall to 90$ sales. *Occasionally*, they do fall to 80$, but not often. Plus, good or bad, laptops this thin don't tend to be serviceable.

    If you're buying a thin and light notebook under 500$, chances are your intentions are web browsing, office, and maybe a flash game. An i5 and better screen would probably rocket the price at least $200 haha... Kabini costs way less than the three hundred something I think Intel charges.
  • gnx - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    Also hoping that by the end-of-year refresh, they'll have a 1600*900 display version of the ATIV Book 9. AMD or not, I don't really mind, since I don't game, but a 1366*768 is no good for heavy text work that I need to do on my portable laptop.

    One more thing, I am very glad they have a dark color scheme with matte screens. IMHO, much better than shiny silver and glossy screens in most ultrabooks.
  • R3MF - Wednesday, July 03, 2013 - link


    they have some great 13.3" screens at 1600x900 from the old series 9 chassis, can we not have those in the kabini version?
  • AlB80 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    ATIV 9 Plus has a 3200x1800 display. I think you will be satisfied. Reply
  • JDG1980 - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    "The ATIV Book 9 Lite features a 13.3-inch 1366 x 768 display"... that's where I stopped reading. Reply
  • heffeque - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    Please, tell me how many ultrabooks that cost under $500 have better than 1366*768 displays do you know. I'm really interested. Reply
  • Darkstone - Friday, June 21, 2013 - link

    A mediocre display: maybe $50
    A good 1080p IPS display: maybe $80 ( LP156WF4 SLB6 = $98 aftermarket )
    What i'm whilling to pay for the difference between an 1080p ips display and 768p TN: $200.
    What i'm actually paying: $30 for the display, $300 in intel taxes.

    There is no reason it isn't possible to outfit an $500 notebook with a kabini quadcore and 1080p ips display. Hell, for $50 extra it's possible to grab one of dell's inspirions with i5, 15.6" 1080p TN and HD 7730m. That one is €550-600 where i live. ($ = € usually).

    It's a shame samsung positions this in the '9' series. The 9 series is supposed to be the high-end.
  • monstercameron - Friday, June 21, 2013 - link

    its not just about costs, they have limited supplies of certain displays, so they have to choose what products to use them on. There isn't an unlimited supply of high res displays. Reply
  • heffeque - Saturday, June 22, 2013 - link

    So... your answer is that there are no 13.3" ultrabooks with better than 1366*768 displays for less than $500. Just what I thought. Thank you for confirming that people have unrealistic expectations. Reply
  • Alexvrb - Sunday, June 23, 2013 - link

    Elitist armchair techies alawys have unrealistic expectations when it comes to OEM devices. "I won't touch it if it doesn't have an SSD RAID 0 array, i7 hexacore, two discrete GPUs, and a quad HD display!"

    Not to mention that OEMs have *gasp* costs and overhead, and have to make a PROFIT off these devices?!? OMG Teh fux00rsz!
  • Alexvrb - Sunday, June 23, 2013 - link

    I'm with Heffeque here. List off the 1080p 13.3" (or even 14") Ultrathins with 1080p displays. The LP156WF4 SLB6 you listed came up as a 15" in a random search. They're not the same cost, for whatever reason, as the ones in this segment. Which is why currently a 14" Ultrathin 1080p is so rare at reasonable prices.

    This will change with time, of course, and I'm sure we'll see 1080p versions down the road. As they become more common, costs will drop.
  • AlB80 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Rumor says it costs aprox. $700. Reply
  • AmdInside - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    Are the LCD panels as ugly as those pics make them out to be? They all look like TN panels with overally cool temperature. Reply
  • bleh0 - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    Come on this is their entry level ultrabook/ultrathin anyone honestly expecting high ppi is not thinking right. As long as the performance is good your average user isn't going to care. Reply
  • whyso - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link

    And here we go again. Putting really low power chips (like bobcat but now jaguar) in desktop systems. An i3 is going to be better for that 21.5" system. Better CPU and GPU on an i3 ivy (HD 4000). Reply
  • monstercameron - Friday, June 21, 2013 - link

    we have seen benchmarks for the a6-5200 yet and kabinis prices are lower, and BOM is lower(kabini is an soc, no fch). Reply
  • anubis44 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Better CPU and GPU on an i3? Eh? What kind of crack are you smoking? The HD4000 will be blown away by the GCN Radeon cores. As for the i3, it's been shown time and again that the single-threaded performance of Intel chips is better than AMD's but this machine's APU has 4 integer cores, and virtually all newer software is recompiled to take advantage of additional cores. I seriously doubt the i3 would beat the Kabini in almost any benchmark that wasn't from from more than 5 years ago. Reply
  • nissangtr786 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Are you serious. Thei i3 cpu will destroy that a6 for breakfast. An i3 3220 is about 60-80% faster then the a6 5200 at multithreaded tasks and the i3 3220 cpu consumes less electricity. Reply
  • isigrim - Friday, June 21, 2013 - link

    They really deleted everything that stated AMD for the Book 9 Lite? Even the Device-String and CPU-Information is altered to exclude AMD from there.
    This is a Temash. 1 Ghz Base, 1,4 Ghz Turbo. Sad they did not include a Kabini there.

    But now we have one nice indication of how Intel´s Ultrabook-Fund works. Thanks for the Photos.
  • FwFred - Friday, June 21, 2013 - link

    Huh? Kabini and Temash are the same chip. Samsung simply chose the version with the power consumption appropriate for the chassis. Reply
  • isigrim - Sunday, June 23, 2013 - link

    Same silicon, but nonetheless a different chip. Temash supports 1066 mhz Ram, Kabini 1600 Mhz. The A4-5000 has quite a bit more speed for CPU and GPU than the A6-1450 but should not draw considerably more power when doing normal work. It would be a nice improvement. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now