The Surface 3 Review
by Brett Howse on May 4, 2015 9:00 AM ESTWi-Fi Performance
For networking, the Surface 3 features the same Marvell AVASTAR 802.11ac network adapter as its big brother. I have seen a lot of the firmware updates for Surface Pro 3 over the last year being network related, so hopefully they have all of the bugs out of it by now. During my time with the Surface 3, I did not have any issues with it. It is a standard 2x2:2 setup, and the top of the Surface 3 has a plastic section to act as a RF window.
The average speed during our TCP test was just about 350 Mbps, which is not too bad but well off of the Broadcom devices, which can see over 500 Mbps.
Speakers
The Surface 3 features to forward facing speakers hidden in the display bezel. It makes for a nice look, and having the speakers facing you helps a lot with stereo and should help with the overall sound quality too.
The Surface 3 is not especially loud, and the frequency response is about what you would expect for a small device with no room for proper speakers. There is almost no sound below 150 Hz, and around 15 kHz the sound drops away. Maximum volume I observed while playing music was 76 dB(A).
Camera
This tablet has two cameras, with the rear camera being an auto-focus 8 MP unit, and the front facing camera is actually a decent camera as well, with 2304 x 1536 resolution shots. The one quirk with the front facing camera though is that it really works best when the kickstand is in the first position, and because this is not a laptop with an adjustable hinge, you will always be limited to where it points.
The rear camera though is surprisingly good, even in low light. I am still not a fan of using a tablet to take pictures, but if you have to, this one will please you.
It will work in a pinch, but I will stick to my smartphone when I can.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
265 Comments
View All Comments
Brett Howse - Tuesday, May 5, 2015 - link
Windows Video app is used, and the file properties are listed on the graph. Let me know if you need anything else.MarcSP - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
No, that will be all. Dismised. :PHe, he. Thank for your reply! :-)
dusk007 - Monday, May 4, 2015 - link
One would wish Intel would just license the Mali GPUs or PowerVR designs. Even with 14nm they cannot keep up with Nvidia, Apple or any of the faster Adreno or Mali 760 SoCs.Also there doesn't seem to be any improvements. Their GPU design is not very power efficient and seemingly not even die space efficient but there are no real noticeable improvements between Gen 7 and 8. They should just go back to licensing or just buy Imagination Technologies.
Drumsticks - Monday, May 4, 2015 - link
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't skylake rumors include huge GPU strides?A5 - Monday, May 4, 2015 - link
Big grain of salt on that. Similar rumors were around for Haswell and Broadwell, too.lilmoe - Monday, May 4, 2015 - link
You'd think they'd at least get the GPU at performance parity with AMD's APUs by now....meacupla - Monday, May 4, 2015 - link
I think intel GPU performance is better than AMD APUs. Intel's solution does hardware video playback without sucking down enormous amounts of power.I won't even go into gaming, since both solutions are, flat out, subpar for that.
anubis44 - Monday, May 4, 2015 - link
Utterly wrong. AMD's Radeon GPU technology in their APUs crushes Intel's fastest integrated graphics. No comparison. Don't even try.meacupla - Tuesday, May 5, 2015 - link
That's not what I'm saying. Please read.AMD is faster, but at the cost of power and efficiency. And it still won't give you a good gaming experience, because there's not enough of everything in APUs.
Intel is slower, but gets the job done with regards to video, there was no question of it being gaming capable in the first place.
lilmoe - Tuesday, May 5, 2015 - link
Efficiency isn't AMD's fault. Intel's had the process lead for more than 2 generations now and they're STILL not even close to AMD's GPU performance... We'll see how efficient Intel's GPU is when AMD goes 14nm....