Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft IT

Microsoft Slaps $400 Premium on Intel-powered Surface Lineup (theregister.com) 24

Microsoft is charging business customers a $400 premium for Surface devices equipped with Intel's latest Core Ultra processors compared to models using Qualcomm's Arm-based chips, the company has disclosed. The Intel-powered Surface Pro tablet and Surface Laptop, starting at $1,499, come with a second-generation Core Ultra 5 processor featuring eight cores, 16GB of memory and 256GB storage.

Comparable Qualcomm-based models begin at $1,099. The new Intel devices will be available to business customers from February 18, though versions with cellular connectivity will launch later. Consumer Surface devices will only be offered with Qualcomm processors. Microsoft also unveiled a USB 4 Dock supporting dual 4K displays and the Surface Hub 3, a conference room computer available in 50-inch or 85-inch touchscreen versions.

Microsoft Slaps $400 Premium on Intel-powered Surface Lineup

Comments Filter:
  • by supremebob ( 574732 ) <themejunky@geoci[ ]s.com ['tie' in gap]> on Friday January 31, 2025 @09:11AM (#65132351) Journal

    I'm not sure when Microsoft started thinking that they were a "premium" laptop producer like Apple, and felt like could start dictating when their customers will start migrating to ARM processors.

    I'm sure that Dell/HP/Lenovo will take advantage of their hubris and undercut them on price for their Intel based business laptops. Probably by around $400.

    • by keltor ( 99721 ) * on Friday January 31, 2025 @09:18AM (#65132377)
      It already happened and while precisely $400 cheaper, they actually have more stuff.
    • 'Surface' has always been Microsoft acting that way, in that the lineup exists in no small part to push their position on what wintels should look like beyond what the PC OEMs typically provide.

      Commonly this involves a fair amount of hubris and discovering that the OEMs do what they do for a reason(first gen surface docks, thankfully gen2s are not my problem, never worked properly; surface firmware had the joy of no CSM and 'modern standby' only well before that was actually not badly broken for power ma
    • Not even Apple. I just bought a brand new Apple M3 with 1tb of storage and 16gb of ram for around $1,500. Runs fast as hell and the battery life is fantastic.

      $1,600 to Microsoft gets you another ho hum boring Intel processor.

    • Goodness knows I am not at all a fan of Microsoft. I have spent years cursing at blue screens, and before that, frozen systems. Their office suite often isn't even compatible with itself, and their development tools don't exactly enthrall me. I could go on, but won't.

      That being said, I actually like the Surface. It has a cool design that just fits my expectations for a tablet-laptop hybrid.

      Now, whether it's worth a $400 premium? Meh...

  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday January 31, 2025 @09:13AM (#65132357) Homepage Journal

    TFA contains no information on the reason for the price difference, it justs lists a bunch of prices. It's basically just a copy of a press release.

    • by karmawarrior ( 311177 ) on Friday January 31, 2025 @09:37AM (#65132419) Journal

      I don't think that's a bad reason to use that article, the submitter is linking to it as evidence not as an article discussing the issue.

      In terms of the reason, one can speculate, but it could easily be that nobody really wants an ARM-based Windows machine. Windows isn't popular because it's great, it's popular because it's a component of "the standard computer." The moment you say "Oh, this computer won't be able to run (efficiently) with your software or more obscure hardware" there's nothing about Windows that'd make it compelling.

      The only way ARM laptops would be worth the same as Intel laptops is if they're capable of running software compiled for ix86 at speeds comparable to those self same Intel chips. Until then you're limited to either slower Intel programs or specially recompiled-for-ARM software that customers don't generally think is available.

      By comparison, Chromebooks seem to cost about the same whether they're ARM or not, because nobody cares about the availability of software or worrying they're going to plug something in that requires a special driver that's only compiled of ix86.

      Not an ARM problem so much as a Windows problem. Windows isn't great, it's just standard. Changes the standards and Windows ceases to be something compelling.

      • I don't think that's a bad reason to use that article

        Not only is it a bad reason (we have enough slashvertisements here already) but it's also just a bad article, which is a good reason not to use it. It has no information of any value since none of us will be buying these piles of trash.

        • How is an argument telling people Microsoft has a massive price discrepancy, something we'd want to discuss, a "Slashvertisement"?

          You're being a jackass. Knock it off.

      • The only way ARM laptops would be worth the same as Intel laptops is if they're capable of running software compiled for ix86 at speeds comparable to those self same Intel chips

        It really depends on what percentage of software runs on the architecture natively.

        Really, it's not like Intel natively runs x86. It's a translation layer to the real CPU instructions. It's possible that ARM's instruction set is more closely aligned with the hardware but they are already RISC. The difference is that it doesn't convert x86 in hardware but rely on software instead. Software still runs on the CPU, though. These have gotten fairly fast.

        A generational performance bump usually is enough to w

  • with only 16GB ram?

  • serves in my house is for my 10 year old to play gary's mod on vacation. If the arm surfaces don't do that they have no reason to exist.
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Friday January 31, 2025 @09:28AM (#65132393)

    where is the AMD choice?

  • Now it has flipped. For work, we use all Microsoft products, and the ARM had better battery life.
  • $1500?!?! I wouldn't pay $600 for them. Our aluminum-titanium-magnesium tanks from Lenovo are about $880 a piece. But for double, I can get a tiny screen, nearly impossible to replace battery, overheating tablet? WOW! And no keyboard? And when people drop them, they shatter the screen 100% of the time? SIGN ME UP! So I've either directly seen or heard of from partners companies and schools that rolled out Surface tablets. After 1-2 years of absolute hell, they switched back to real computers and decided to
  • These people posting how the MS Surface devices are awful, and they'll stick with their awesome Dell/Lenovos that are absolutely great and 500 bucks cheaper? That just doesn't track with my experience.

    Dells and Lenovos fall into three categories: a) premium, thin and 1500 bucks at least or b) functional, under 1000 bucks, heavy and about 1.5 inches thick or c) cheap, thin, and barely functional because of the design tradeoffs.

    MS surfaces are pretty nice premium devices, and if you want one with all
    • by unrtst ( 777550 )

      These people posting how the MS Surface devices are awful, and they'll stick with their awesome Dell/Lenovos that are absolutely great and 500 bucks cheaper? That just doesn't track with my experience. ...
      But if you're a professional that wants an ipad-like device that runs full-blown windows 11 with all the functionality, the surface pro is a pretty good option.

      I think the "iPad-like device" qualification explains a lot here. People who like a good, solid, functional laptop aren't looking for an iPad.

      • > that runs full-blown windows 11 with all the functionality

        That seems like an extremely good reason to avoid them like the plague. Who cares what the hardware is when it's running a giant steaming pile of malware/spyware/crippleware !!!

  • Had an ARM Surface a few months back. Mostly worked, but was missing some very important software I needed for work. Whatever they tried to do for x86 compatibility just wasn't cutting it. Plus there were no plans for making ARM versions of the software I needed.

Remember -- only 10% of anything can be in the top 10%.

Working...