Toshiba Portege Z835: A New Ultrabook Appears
by Dustin Sklavos on November 16, 2011 2:50 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
- Intel
- Toshiba
- Sandy Bridge
- Ultrabook
Application and Futuremark Performance
To be perfectly honest, while benchmarking the Toshiba Portege Z835, I felt pretty underwhelmed. While the SSD makes day to day use feel snappy enough, this is the first time in a while that I've watched an Intel processor just slog through CPU-limited tests. The 1.4GHz nominal clock of the processor wouldn't seem so bad if it could turbo, but as a Core i3 you're basically stuck there, and no amount of Hyper-Threading really mitigates that. So while you'll see the Z835 perform reasonably well in the PCMarks, once we get to the more CPU-limited tasks you'll see it falter.
The SSD in the Z830 helps it tremendously, but the other ultrabook in our lineup, ASUS's Zenbook UX21, just spanks it relentlessly due to the faster processor. ASUS's Zenbook also benefits from a 6Gbps interface on the SSD and the hardware to use it; even though the Zenbooks use different SSDs, both of them are easily two to three times faster than the one included in the Z830. While it's a notable improvement over a mechanical drive, there's no denying the Z830's SSD is pokey compared to the competition.
You'll notice that the Z830 seems to do well in PCMark Vantage, though, but that's not the whole story. SSDs have a tendency to grossly inflate these scores, so it's telling that the massive inflation from the Z830's SSD only brings its PCMark Vantage score in line with normal notebooks.
While the Portege Z830's i3 runs wild on the netbook CPUs (proving there's still a substantial gap in performance there), it gets absolutely murdered by everything else. Even the fairly anemic Husky cores in the Llano A8 run roughshod over the 1.4GHz i3. The loss of turbo severely curtails the i3.
If you weren't clear on all the gaming you're not supposed to do on the Portege Z830, 3DMark should seal the deal. While Intel is generous enough to include the superior HD 3000 graphics in the i3-2367M, it's still inadequate for gaming at anything above minimum detail: processor power is just barely there, and the HD 3000 remains a ways behind even low-end dedicated options as a result.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
76 Comments
View All Comments
Meegulthwarp - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
1st page, 3rd paragraph. Is Turbo Boosy the drunk abusive cousin of Turbo Boost? Cuz I rather quite like the name.ciparis - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
+1JarredWalton - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
That's what I get for editing in the engine. Though I'm not sure how I hit the "y" instead of "t" given I have a split keyboard. Probably being bad and typing with one hand or something.Neptunian - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
192:1 contrast ratio and 40% of AdobeRGB ? Even my 12 year old eizo has better display quality.Also I don't get their obsession with the hideous sticker spammed all over the keyboard. Why is it only Apple that gets it?
gorash - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
They probably get paid some money to put stickers on there.JarredWalton - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
Apple doesn't do co-branding, ever. If you buy a Mac, it's all about Apple and you don't need to know whether it has an Intel or Motorola CPU, an ATI or NVIDIA GPU, or any other details. You also shouldn't know whether the SSD is a decent quality Samsung a much slower and lower quality Toshiba. And for all of that, you get to pay a price premium.At least Apple knows how to select a good quality LCD and build everything well, but again, that's part of the price premium. The interesting thing is that Intel defines a price to qualify as an ultrabook, and everyone cuts corners to get there and thus kills the screen quality. And in this instance, build quality as well.
Kougar - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
I am definitely sure "Turbo Boosy" exacerbates the issue!Not a bad ultrabook (if one can get past that cheap display), but I like the battery life on the Zenbook UX31 better. I'd can't stress enough that I'm willing to have a heavier machine if it meant more battery capacity... one criteria most ultrabooks aren't meeting. Regular laptops which have the room, or in some cases the battery capacity just fail to meet any of the criteria an ultrabook excels in.
Notebook vendors are still swinging and missing that niche market...
frozentundra123456 - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
Honestly, I would prefer the dm1z at half the price. Saw it in best buy a long time ago, but it appears to have disappeared off the shelves.And it seems there is a dearth of netbook size devices using the E350, which seems an ideal chip for a small portable. At least in retail stores around here, what I see is Atom netbooks and E350 15.6 in laptops. Seems a mismatch for both. Why would anyone want atom over the E350 in a netbook, and if I am going to get a 15.6 in "full size" laptop, I either want Llano for the graphics and decent CPU performance, or an Intel i3 or i5 for better CPU performance.
MrSpadge - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
Go for the Thinkpad X121e instead. With TPFanControl it's nicely quiet and the only negative point is the horrible touchpad (can't really click with it). Otherwise it's almost perfect for such a small machine (can't expect a good screen at that price point).MrS
86waterpumper - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
Since some think that 1600 is too large a resolution for 13 inch, and alot seem to agree that what most of them have now is pretty lame, why can't more of these ultrabooks have the same screen as the mackbook air, which has a 1440 x 900 resolution?