[jordanzhninja]

I've had a horrible experience with the Intel i3 on my laptop which now runs slower than my first-gen surface rt. This is why I fear that an i3 surface pro 3 will become just as slow over time. If I was ever going to get this (which I'm probably not), would I be better off buying the i5 model? (I know MS like to f*** UK users by inflating the prices really high :( )

[drbanks]

I think the biggest issue with the i3 model is that it only has 64GB of storage. I find 128GB to be marginal, but even without office and photoshop and all the other junk they showed off today, I can't imagine real windows 8.1 running on a 64GB disk. (First world/Moore's law problem!)

I'm pretty sure that configuration exists entirely to convince people to step up to the base i5 model.

[Alex Mason86]

I'd wager any sluggishness on your laptops behalf is simply slow hard disk full of programs. My iMac is the same and thats packing an i5 that goes to 3.8GHz if it wants to.

From my quick scan of the spec sheet, the i3's in mobile flavour are approximately clocked at the same nominal speed as the i5. Both feature hyper threading to give you some more multi-tasking head room and both are dual cores. Where the i5 differs is in its ability to turbo boost to a higher cpu speed periodically.

i3 clocks are 1.4-2.6GHz and the i5's 1.4 to 2.8 GHz... not totally clear on what that means as the i3's don't have Turbo. I guess the i5 can push a single core higher than 2.8 if it needs to? Either way doing so is going to curb battery life and increase heat so its not all rosy.

Personally I would be waiting for the reviews to come out first. Hopefully some reviewer out there will get to test the base model and compare it to the higher models. This should give you a good idea. Additionally though, taking into account that its all solid state storage and new Haswell processors I really don't think you are going to run into too much trouble, unless of course you are more of a power user (video and photo editing and the like).

EDIT TO ADD: Yes as above mentions, the real issue with the base model is the storage. You're going to have to have a pretty bare bones set up going if you're gonna stick to 64 GB.

[jordanzhninja]

I'd wager any sluggishness on your laptops behalf is simply slow hard disk full of programs. My iMac is the same and thats packing an i5 that goes to 3.8GHz if it wants to.

From my quick scan of the spec sheet, the i3's in mobile flavour are approximately clocked at the same nominal speed as the i5. Both feature hyper threading to give you some more multi-tasking head room and both are dual cores. Where the i5 differs is in its ability to turbo boost to a higher cpu speed periodically.

i3 clocks are 1.4-2.6GHz and the i5's 1.4 to 2.8 GHz... not totally clear on what that means as the i3's don't have Turbo. I guess the i5 can push a single core higher than 2.8 if it needs to? Either way doing so is going to curb battery life and increase heat so its not all rosy.

Personally I would be waiting for the reviews to come out first. Hopefully some reviewer out there will get to test the base model and compare it to the higher models. This should give you a good idea. Additionally though, taking into account that its all solid state storage and new Haswell processors I really don't think you are going to run into too much trouble, unless of course you are more of a power user (video and photo editing and the like).

EDIT TO ADD: Yes as above mentions, the real issue with the base model is the storage. You're going to have to have a pretty bare bones set up going if you're gonna stick to 64 GB.

I'm sort of a power user, I run Visual Studio Ultimate 2013 on my laptop for web developing, filezilla for FTP, Chrome (don't hate me) for debugging and testing, and usually all at once. I like to play games as well and sometimes run Virtual machines.

[kurtd]

I wonder how the different processors affect the battery life. Is there a full spec sheet out yet?

[pedenske]

https://forums.windowscentral.com/e?...token=nF6pWEiX

[drbanks]

I have Visual Studio running on my SP1, and while it's adequate in 4GB of RAM, I think it'd be a bit happier in 8GB. Again, I don't think the i3 is such a bad processor, but the configuration they're selling with it is what really kills it for me.

[Niavlys77]

You absolutely won't have to worry about sluggish-ness - having a proper SSD for storage is what will make the difference. Traditional HDD's are far slower right off the bat, and over time need to be defragmented. SSD's inherently don't need defragmenting, and Windows 8 has TRIM support built right in (which let's say is a sort of equivalent to defragmenting).

[neonspark]

are you going to run photoshop? get the i5. otherwise, the i3 will run circles around the snap dragon 800 or 900 or whatever da hell they do over the next 2 years.

[StevoPhilo]

are you going to run photoshop? get the i5. otherwise, the i3 will run circles around the snap dragon 800 or 900 or whatever da hell they do over the next 2 years.

Those are 2 different kinds of processors. They aren't really comparable. If you can save for the i5 then I would.

[Cryio]

Windows 8.1.1 introduced the ability to run the full OS only on ~4GB of storage.

So out of 64, real probably 54, you'll get 48-50 GB for personal usage

[trivor]

I guess it all depends on your perspective - I have a 17.3" Lenovo (G700) with Pentium 2.4 GHz, 8 GB RAM and 120 GB SSD, 1600x900 that runs just fine - it will run all the normal home things - email, web surf, Quicken, Word, Excel, etc. If you are doing anything like Photoshop you will really need an i5 or i7. The thing that really bothers me is no upgrade options (RAM, Storage) for i3 model. I don't need an i5 or i7 for my needs so a Surface Pro 3 with i3, 128 GB SSD, 8 GB RAM for $899 would be perfect instead of having to go to $999 to get more storage. I run a 64 GB SSD on my work machine with Win 7 and it is about 80% full (not ideal for an SSD) so the budget Surface Pro is gonna have to have storage managed very carefully.

[jordanzhninja]

I guess it all depends on your perspective - I have a 17.3" Lenovo (G700) with Pentium 2.4 GHz, 8 GB RAM and 120 GB SSD, 1600x900 that runs just fine - it will run all the normal home things - email, web surf, Quicken, Word, Excel, etc. If you are doing anything like Photoshop you will really need an i5 or i7. The thing that really bothers me is no upgrade options (RAM, Storage) for i3 model. I don't need an i5 or i7 for my needs so a Surface Pro 3 with i3, 128 GB SSD, 8 GB RAM for $899 would be perfect instead of having to go to $999 to get more storage. I run a 64 GB SSD on my work machine with Win 7 and it is about 80% full (not ideal for an SSD) so the budget Surface Pro is gonna have to have storage managed very carefully.

I'll probably end up with the i3 but I dont know if 64gb of storage is enough, because im using 98gb on my laptop already

[thatotherdude24]

The 64gb storage is much more concerning than an i3. There's plenty of Windows tablets that run on atoms

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1

[Tepid]

But keep in mind, that you also have MicroSD and USB for data storage.
64G isn't a lot of space, true, but it's not bad either.
That is a device you only keep what you will actually use on.
Store stuff on OneDrive, MicroSD and External's.

However, I ^{would only recommend} the i3 64G to those that won't be using it for a whole lot, other than Consumption.
Actually, the i3 64G will be good for some, even if they do want to do more. They will just have to manage their data a little more.
It's still a Pro Device, so,,,,,,,,,

However, If you plan on doing more, and actually using it, don't go for anything less than the
i5-4GB RAM-128GB - $999

[jordanzhninja]

But keep in mind, that you also have MicroSD and USB for data storage.
64G isn't a lot of space, true, but it's not bad either.
That is a device you only keep what you will actually use on.
Store stuff on OneDrive, MicroSD and External's.

However, I ^{would only recommend} the i3 64G to those that won't be using it for a whole lot, other than Consumption.
Actually, the i3 64G will be good for some, even if they do want to do more. They will just have to manage their data a little more.
It's still a Pro Device, so,,,,,,,,,

However, If you plan on doing more, and actually using it, don't go for anything less than the
i5-4GB RAM-128GB - $999

Wouldn't a 64GB SD card cost less than the upgrade? Also, I want to know if the 4th generation intel i3 core with an ssd will be better than my second generation i3-2348 and hdd.

[mike13ftw]

You can buy a 64gb SD card class 10 for about 40 . And you can store moves and music in there . Also you can buy for 70 a 1TB external drive with USB 3.0 support and you will never run out of space . After summer I will buy the i3 version because I don't want to spend a lot of money

[onlysublime]

i3 is terrible. save your money and get at least an i5... really, save your money and get at least an i5...

people point to the Atoms... but you can't do real work on the Atoms. they're meant for budget people who mostly use Word, web browse, or listen to music. and you really can't do real work on the i3 either. try running Photoshop, Premiere, Acrobat, etc. on Atoms. Try them on i3. You'll be tapping your fingers an awful lot.

[Roderick Aspiras]

It has an SD card slot.

I'll probably end up with the i3 but I dont know if 64gb of storage is enough, because im using 98gb on my laptop already

[Roderick Aspiras]

Save more and get the Core i5.

I've had a horrible experience with the Intel i3 on my laptop which now runs slower than my first-gen surface rt. This is why I fear that an i3 surface pro 3 will become just as slow over time. If I was ever going to get this (which I'm probably not), would I be better off buying the i5 model? (I know MS like to f*** UK users by inflating the prices really high :( )

[neonspark]

agree with most comments. i3 is actually probably fine for nearly everybody but 64GB with full windows isn't. really MSFT? 64GB of flash memory isn't worth 200 bucks and neither is the i3 vs i5.

[Racing Snake]

Windows 8.1.1 introduced the ability to run the full OS only on ~4GB of storage.

So out of 64, real probably 54, you'll get 48-50 GB for personal usage

Unless I have missed it on this thread somewhere...
the i3 only comes with 36GB of personal space.


Storage
64GB, 128GB, 256GB or 512GB2 • 64GB has >36GB available disk space • 128GB has >96GB available disk space • 256GB has >211GB available disk space • 512GB has >450GB available disk space

[Darth_Bane]

I'd be able to live with an i3 perhaps but not the 64GB of storage, heck even the 128GB seems tight but at 999 plus the cost of the smart cover I'm pushing my budget and my luck with the wife if I get anything bigger.

[drbanks]

As for flash memory:

Yes, I use it as much as possible. I have a Surface Pro Classic, 128GB, with a 128GB Micro-SD card. I try to put as much as I can on the SD card, but:

This is my laptop replacement, so I have full installs of Visual Studio, Office, and some Adobe CC suite apps installed. And that disk is full. I try to keep all my user data on the SD card, but the SSD is still full.

For starters, some things just won't go onto the SD card. Dropbox, for instance, just doesn't want to keep its files on the SD card, or apparently, any other mountable drive. so there's a few GB of my mirrored files that just seem to have to be on my boot drive. In fact, my whole login profile (Users\Me directory tree) seems best suited for the boot drive because if I moved my login tree to the SD card, I'd never be able to log in and swap the SD card for a newer bigger model. So, now I have every app and its brother littering my login directory.

And speaking of apps: download App Store apps, and they go onto the boot drive, as does all of their app-specific data. Like if I want the Metro Kindle app, all the kindle books I download go onto the boot drive, not the SD card. And I got a lot of Kindle books.

I've told iTunes (yeah, I know) to move its library to an external drive, but even still, it finds a whole crapload of stuff that it insists on caching in my login directory tree. And for some reason, SyncToy just NEEDS a few GB of app local storage.

Aside from that, regular windows apps like to install to C:\Program Files. Yes, I could probably install them elsewhere, but past experience with desktop windows has taught me that trying to install applications to anywhere but the default C:\Program Files just puts you in line for a load of troubles.

Then, there's windows itself. For some reason, every time I install Microsoft's monthly load of emergency patches, the disk space used by the Windows directory balloons even more. This is typical of any standard XP/7/8/8.1 windows install, but it seems like the longer you have Windows installed, the more of your C drive it eats up.

Right now, my C:\Windows directory is absorbing 31.1 GB of my SSD, and that's AFTER I moved a whole bunch of garbage in the Windows\Installer\$PatchCache$ off to an archive drive. (About 5GB worth, so if I didn't prune, there's 36GB for Windows alone).

Not even considering apps, I just can't imagine trying to run this thing out of 64GB. Considering apps, between Program Files and Program Files x86, I've got another 32GB, plus another 12GB in Program Data. Yeah, I've blown clean past that 64GB SSD without even logging in and adding any files of my own.

Sure, you can control the Program Files load by not installing many apps, and selecting the most lightweight options of those apps you do install, but you're still staring at half your drive being absorbed by the Windows directory alone.

I just really can't see realistically running windows off a 64GB drive. If you have smaller needs, maybe RT is the right choice. It lets you actually use more of your 64GB. If you're looking for a laptop replacement, or anything that actually, comfortably runs full Windows, I'd really recommend a bare minimum of 128GB, and more realistically, 256GB.

[onysi]

I came here to figure this out myself. looks like ill be getting i5.