[lanakaryatna]

$999 is more good if use Nvidia or AMD graphic

[ajcletus500]

I don't think the graphics is the reason for the price of the laptop.

[Ezhik]

Intel graphics are pretty nice these days. RAM is the more pressing concern.

[xandros9]

There's a lot of tradeoffs going into a computer. Power, size, memory, materials used, etc.

In this case, adding dedicated graphics to this machine may not be the best idea considering its meant to be compact, efficient and not necessarily a gaming or CAD powerhouse which would compromise it's size and thermal design, etc.

[GG002]

When people compare computers, it's almost always apples (no pun intended) to oranges. You simply cannot compare two machines from two different categories solely by price. Yes, you may get more horsepower from a huge desktop setup, but that won't do people like myself any good, because I move around a lot and I'm better off with less power in a smaller format for the same price. Ultrabooks and the likes are also no gaming machines and were never intended to be, and what you pay for goes into craftsmanship and quality before raw power. So people who buy a Surface Laptop, buy it because it serves their purposes, which is likely not gaming, but rather materials, battery time, screen quality, design, etc.

[L0n3N1nja]

$999 is more good if use Nvidia or AMD graphic

Show me another ultra book for $999 that has dedicated graphics.

This isn't a gaming device.

[lanakaryatna]

My toshiba satellite e45dw-c has Radeon R7 and the processor is amd fx-8800p with $480. But the performance so bad

[chain13]

Ultrabook world mostly doesn't have those horsepower. Dedicated graphic intends to use even more power from your battery.

[xandros9]

The Book is significantly thinner than your Satellite Radius and at 60% of the weight. And performance is apparently only adequate for casual gaming.

[Strike_1]

RAM can be upgraded upto 32GB

[Strike_1]

Given the thinness and weight and the specs, this ultrabook is not meant for gaming. You want to look for a different type of device altogether if a dedicated graphics is a criteria.

[k1s23]

RAM can be upgraded upto 32GB

hey, the surface laptop cannot be upgraded to 32 gb memory. the highest allowance is 16 gb.

[kaktus1389]

$999 is more good if use Nvidia or AMD graphic

If they had put a dGPU in it, they would have needed to bump up the price, weight, batteries and it couldn't have made it as thin as it is. They could partially solve the lack of the dGPU by adding a Thunderbolt 3 port, but that's okay. As already mentioned, the materials, design, portability and battery life were their priority here.

[JohnnyRedLight]

I think it pretty normal. There are endless ultrabooks with Intel graphics for more and less $.

[Photonsym]

Thats pretty much an ultrabook standard and like most ultrabooks, its not a device deigned for heavy graphical use.

[DarkLykan114]

Ultrabooks have never been designed to go all-out in performance. By the way, $999 is actually pretty good value for an Ultrabook, some Ultrabooks, such as the HP Spectre 13 2016 start at $1169 for a similar configuration. In Ultrabooks, you pay mostly for build quality, a compact footprint and a thin and light portable device that you can take anywhere. See Dell XPS 13 for details.

[jamezr]

There's a lot of tradeoffs going into a computer. Power, size, memory, materials used, etc.

In this case, adding dedicated graphics to this machine may not be the best idea considering its meant to be compact, efficient and not necessarily a gaming or CAD powerhouse which would compromise it's size and thermal design, etc.

My toughs too...it is not meant to be a gaming powerhouse for sure. But the Intel graphics will do a great job otherwise.

[k1s23]

My toughs too...it is not meant to be a gaming powerhouse for sure. But the Intel graphics will do a great job otherwise.

hey jamezr, i agree. people overlook WHO this laptop is targeted for, and for those people that do that the laptop was not built for them. intel graphics are fine for watching videos or doing research or even using that medical app showcased at the education press conference.

[k1s23]

If they had put a dGPU in it, they would have needed to bump up the price, weight, batteries and it couldn't have made it as thin as it is. They could partially solve the lack of the dGPU by adding a Thunderbolt 3 port, but that's okay. As already mentioned, the materials, design, portability and battery life were their priority here.

kaktus thats correct, the surface team's priorities when designing the laptop were those things. i just recently watched a video review from a youtuber of the lenovo 720 15 inch which has a gpu. when he was talking about that laptop his complaints were the thickness and weight and having to carry a heavy power adapter because the battery in the 1080p model only had 5-6 hours, part of which was because of the gpu. i dont know the size of the power adapter for the surface laptop, but the thin profile and weight of the surface laptop were really intriguing to me since those are the reasons why i dont carry my older macbook pro with me. if the point of the surface laptop is for the user to take it out and about and just be productive where ever he/she is, a dedicated gpu becomes lower and lower on the "list of things to include" for the surface team.

[anon(10237065)]

It's exactly like many others have already said, it's not meant to be a powerful laptop, but a portable laptop with a long battery life and amazing mobility. Also let's not forget the huge improvement in Intel HD graphics, they are pretty good, can handle a lot, so if you are not looking for a gaming rig, you will be happy with the integrated graphics card Intel HD.

[k1s23]

It's exactly like many others have already said, it's not meant to be a powerful laptop, but a portable laptop with a long battery life and amazing mobility. Also let's not forget the huge improvement in Intel HD graphics, they are pretty good, can handle a lot, so if you are not looking for a gaming rig, you will be happy with the integrated graphics card Intel HD.

ayrton i agree. if you need something that can push out high framerates then this is definitely not the computer to buy. its just not possible due to the internal limitations. the intel hd integrated graphics can handle a great amount of rendering though, as it has to already handle 3d rendering or fast processing on top of touch inputs, so we will see what apps come up to test the hd graphics.

[anon(10237065)]

ayrton i agree. if you need something that can push out high framerates then this is definitely not the computer to buy. its just not possible due to the internal limitations. the intel hd integrated graphics can handle a great amount of rendering though, as it has to already handle 3d rendering or fast processing on top of touch inputs, so we will see what apps come up to test the hd graphics.

Exactly, I was surprised by pretty quick render times when it comes to some basic full hd videos.

[k1s23]

Exactly, I was surprised by pretty quick render times when it comes to some basic full hd videos.

exactly. its rather smooth playback with hd videos, and a handful of games should be good with rendering. its not the best of the best for graphics processing but if you know that going in to buying an ultrabook then youll understand the compromises.

[Surapathi_121-0]

I think the Pricing is a bit more and specs are almost, I think MS is charging us more due to the laptop's Alcantara fiber.

[LawdNikon]

Yea Intel's HD Graphics are fine for a laptop w/ the intended use(s) of the Surface Laptop. I used to play all sorts of steam games on my SP3 and that had HD graphics 5000 I believe. It is def not meant for a dedicated gaming/video editing laptop. Grab a Razor or the Surface Book if that's what you are looking for.