So, Intel's recently defined a new type of notebook computer. "Ultrabook". They're basically laptops with the form factor of a macbook air, but reportedly better hardware. They market them to be "high performance" and basically as a productivity workstation, Which it can be, But then when you look at the prices, You end up getting similar royalties as apple products!

It's as if intel's trying to be the new apple, not literally of course, because intel's not actually manufacturing them. They're just defining the product line and general requirements and specifications for them.

But what annoys me, Is how people keep obsessing over the most silly thing ever: thinness. Everyone wants the thinnest laptop. Why? Because it's thin. >_> You'd literally have to pay a few hundred bucks more, just to have a laptop that's thinner than all the others, and in reality, these ultrabooks aren't that powerful.(I mean, really, They all have low voltage CPU's, all of which have TDP's of 17 watts or lower. Compare that to desktop CPU's, and they're nothing) They just do things like use SSD's in place of HDD's. Anyone can do this, It's nothing special. It just increases responsiveness, NOT performance.

Now let me demonstrate the rest of my annoyance by comparing an arbitrarily chosen ultrabook with a regular form factor laptop.

I'll be comparing the ThinkPad T420 with the ASUS Zenbook UX31E-DH72.

Let's start by comparing their general specs.
Ultrabook: 2nd Generation Intel Core i7-2677M Processor (Turbo Boost up to 2.9Ghz)
Regular Form Factor Laptop: Intel Core i5-2520M Processor (3M Cache, 2.50GHz)

The i7-2677M serves the low-power and relatively low-performance market segment, at a relatively low TDP rating of 17 watts due to low voltage and clocking. It's the type you'd see in various macs. You think the frequency means good performance? Think again.

Now, The i5-2520Mserves a higher power and performance market segment, It's TDP is at an average of 35 watts due to regular/higher voltages and clocking.

Legend: <test name> <Ultrabook i7-2677M> - <ThinkPad i5-2520M>

PassMark Score 3187 - 3665
Super Pi 2M (Lower in better) 32 seconds - 29 seconds
3D Mark 06 CPU 2730 - 3430
Windows 7 Experience Score 6.9 - 7.1

All the tests have resulted in the Ultrabook CPU having generally lower CPU performance performance than the ThinkPad (regular form factor laptop).

Source:
http://compare-processors.com/intel-cor ... 520m/1517/


Ultrabook Graphics: Intel (Integrated Graphics)
ThinkPad Graphics: NVIDIA Quadro NVS4200M Optimus technology 1GB (Dedicated)

I think the verdict for this part is already clear.
Lets move on.

Ultrabook RAM: 4GB DDR3
ThinkPad RAM: 4GB DDR3

Exactly the same. Moving on.

Ultrabook Storage: 256GB Solid State Drive
ThinkPad Storage: 320GB Mechanical HDD (With active protection system, automatic head parking when the computer is dropped)

This part's mostly up to your choice. Limited lifespan of flash memory, but higher durability, or indefinite lifespan of mechanical disk but lower durability?

Next.

Ultrabook Camera: 0.3 megapixel (640x480)
ThinkPad Camera: ~1 Megapixel 720P HD

ThinkPad is obviously better there. Next.

Now lastly, Battery.

Ultrabook Battery: 6 cell (reviews report a minimum of 5 hours battery life to 8 hours, reported average of 6 hours)
ThinkPad Battery: 6 cell (advertised to provide up to 9 hours), upgradable to a 9-cell (providing up to 15 hours)

Just about every feature of an ultrabook is beat be the thinkpad. Probably many other regular form factor laptops out there. Except for thinness.

Total cost of the Ultrabook: $1,418.05
Total cost of the ThinkPad: $1,025.10

Difference: 418 USD approximately.

Therfor: Thinness royalty = 418 dollars.

Would you pay an additional 400 bucks just for thinness, and a noticeably lower performing laptop? I wouldn't. I'm telling you, unless if these prices go DOWN. This is basically the new macbook air.

End of rant. Go ahead and correct any mistakes I left in my rant.

Sources:
http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/cont ... CE84C546E5

http://www.amazon.com/Zenbook-UX31E-DH7 ... 577&sr=8-2

http://www.laptopshq.com/asus-zenbook/

~Re

The ASUS ultrabook weighs a bit more than 3lbs and the T420 weighs 4.8lbs, that's a difference of >1.5lbs and it's a big difference as far as mobility is concerned.

Cheers.

Your TL:DR rant is not worth commenting on in detail, but its clear you have spun small difference of no little real consequence up to appear to be large differences..... that doesn't work at all for me.

You have missed the main point of Ultrabooks which is thin and light. Perhaps that doesn't really matter to you but it does really matter to a lot of users.

Cheers,

Bill B.

No 6 Cell battery can power a Thinkpad for 9 hours.
Thats marketing nonsense, don't listen to that.
You literally need to have your LCD at 1, your SSD needs to be idle, no audio can be immited from your speakers, you have to using Windows Classic UI, in fact you can't even move the mouse.
At those settings you can get 9 hours out of a T420, maybe.

I have a X301 running off of a ULV Duo 1.4, with 9 cells, and I can barely get 12 hours on half brightness.
You expect a T420 t0 do 9 hours on a 6 cell?
You've been smoking that Lenovo Weed again haven't you.

Perhaps the OP got fed up with the sales at the stores trying to upsell him, or one of his friends trying to justify the choice of an ultrabook to him, or something else... Anyway, consumerism is pervasive in modern western societies particular in big cities, as far as I could tell, and it's not limited to the PC market.

The difference between need and want can be a philosophical/religion debate, one which I don't think will get anywhere fast here on thinkpads.com

OTOH, thin & light does cost. I would argue that in the notebook market, you can choose 2 out of 3 - Cheap, thin & light and performance.

Now, it's all relative in scale so don't take it too literally.

Cheers.