Benchmarks are out - Surface 3's performance is slightly better than HP Stream 11

[HeyCori]

RYoure

No I didn't. Nice job avoiding my entire argument though. Strawman much?

You're entire argument was proven wrong by Microsoft. You're clearly not going to accept any evidence. You said GPU performance was a moot point. Microsoft proved you wrong. I'm not going to keep running in circles to answer whatever your argument keeps morphing into. That's ridiculous.

 

[onkel_axel]

some 2gb vs 4gb Benchmarks out?

 

[illegaloperation]

When did I talk about the Galaxy Note 2014 edition? MSRP of $600? Have you tried looking at Amazon first? Now that's laughable... lol.

I am specifically looking at the price that the manufacturer want the product to be sold.

The prices at Amazon and other retailers fluctuates and hence are poor comparisons.

 

[illegaloperation]

I am honestly tired of this argument. There's no point in me continuing.

The whole thing can be summed up as this:

You can find high res screens, once again, in $200 Android tablets these days. You don't have to spend $500 today to get a Full HD screen on a tablet.


Kickstand increasing the price? That's laughable. $10 cases have kickstands.

Essentially, give me the most things: I don't care if they are good or not.

Give me that screen with the highest resolution. Color accuracy, viewing angles, etc. doesn't matter.

Give me a kickstand. It doesn't matter if the kickstand works well or not as long as there's a kickstand.

 

[Dewg]

It's called a Free Market. The iPad costs Apple $275 (according to CNET) - yet costs consumers $600. Why are people paying $600 for a tablet when they can clearly be sold for much less? Because they want it - and they can afford it. The market sets the price. The price for a product is what the market will bare, and clearly that's $600 for an iPad and $500 for a Surface 3.

I assure you that if the iPad Air 2 stopped selling, Apple would lower the price - the beauty of the Free Market. Same with Surface 3. If they don't sell well, MS will lower the price.

The ASUS tablets mentioned above have their price set by the market as well. I'm sure ASUS wants to sell them for a higher cost, but the market won't allow that, because people don't value their product at higher prices.

Where does that value come in? That's subjective for each person (some value build quality, some performance, some functionality, etc.). Marketing plays a large roll as well - the art of marketing is making people think they want/need something they really don't. Apple is a master of this. Microsoft has some catching up to do in that regard.

I hope this helps end the debate over why things cost what they do - and why things don't cost less (like comparing the Surface 3 to an ASUS).

 

[Geodude074]

RYoure

You're entire argument was proven wrong by Microsoft. You're clearly not going to accept any evidence. You said GPU performance was a moot point. Microsoft proved you wrong. I'm not going to keep running in circles to answer whatever your argument keeps morphing into. That's ridiculous.

I think you're confused. Direct X and Windows 8 enables the OS to better utilize the GPU, therefor improving OS performance. That doesn't mean having a faster GPU will make the OS faster. I already made my points with how my 2005 IBM performs just fine on Windows 8, and how enabling/disabling a graphics card provides zero OS performance.

 

[Geodude074]

It's called a Free Market. The iPad costs Apple $275 (according to CNET) - yet costs consumers $600. Why are people paying $600 for a tablet when they can clearly be sold for much less? Because they want it - and they can afford it. The market sets the price. The price for a product is what the market will bare, and clearly that's $600 for an iPad and $500 for a Surface 3.

I assure you that if the iPad Air 2 stopped selling, Apple would lower the price - the beauty of the Free Market. Same with Surface 3. If they don't sell well, MS will lower the price.

The ASUS tablets mentioned above have their price set by the market as well. I'm sure ASUS wants to sell them for a higher cost, but the market won't allow that, because people don't value their product at higher prices.

Where does that value come in? That's subjective for each person (some value build quality, some performance, some functionality, etc.). Marketing plays a large roll as well - the art of marketing is making people think they want/need something they really don't. Apple is a master of this. Microsoft has some catching up to do in that regard.

I hope this helps end the debate over why things cost what they do - and why things don't cost less (like comparing the Surface 3 to an ASUS).

Not to be a pain but an iPad Air 2 starts at $500, not $600, the same price as the Surface 3. Coincidence? Not entirely, since Microsoft is gunning for the iPad and that's why they priced it at the same point.

My entire point is that the Surface 3 is overpriced - just like the iPad is overpriced. Why is this? Because you can find equivalent performing devices for $200, or for the same amount of money (tablet + keyboard) you can find devices that blow away the Surface 3 in performance.

 

[illegaloperation]

Not to be a pain but an iPad Air 2 starts at $500, not $600, the same price as the Surface 3. Coincidence? Not entirely, since Microsoft is gunning for the iPad and that's why they priced it at the same point.

My entire point is that the Surface 3 is overpriced - just like the iPad is overpriced. Why is this? Because you can find equivalent performing devices for $200, or for the same amount of money (tablet + keyboard) you can find devices that blow away the Surface 3 in performance.

You win!

Go buy an HP Stream 11. We won't block you at the door.

 

[illegaloperation]

I have seen this types of arguments and they go like this:


premise 1: KIA can do the same things Cadillac can do. Here are all the things that Cadillac do that KIA can also do.

premise 2: KIA cost less than Cadillac.

--------------------------------------------------------------

conclusion 1: Cadillac are overpriced.


premise 3: Cadillac are overpriced.

premise 4: KIA are not overpriced

premise 5: You should not buy things that are overpriced

--------------------------------------------------------------

conclusion 2: You should buy KIA.

***

Problem is: You doesn't want to buy a KIA. You want to buy a Cadillac that only cost as much as a KIA.

(or in this case, a Surface 3 for the price of an HP Stream 11)

 

[Dewg]

My entire point is that the Surface 3 is overpriced - just like the iPad is overpriced. Why is this? Because you can find equivalent performing devices for $200, or for the same amount of money (tablet + keyboard) you can find devices that blow away the Surface 3 in performance.

Then I think you missed my point - it's not overpriced. It's priced right where the market says it should be. It may be overpriced for you personally - but that's the beauty of the free market, if there is a gap it's usually filled. You value machines at a lower price point, so the HP and ASUS work for you. But you cannot make a blanket statement that a product is overpriced - it's priced where the market will bare.

 

[James8561]

My point is that: while you can get a laptop that does laptop better than the Surface, and you can get a tablet that does tablet better than the Surface, nothing gives you the best of both worlds like the Surface.

 

[Wildo6882]

My point is that: while you can get a laptop that does laptop better than the Surface, and you can get a tablet that does tablet better than the Surface, nothing gives you the best of both worlds like the Surface.

This is exactly why I went with the Surface. Like I said above, I'm a Google guy. I actually like Chromebooks, but there isn't that middle ground great one. You have decent throw away options at $200-300, then a monster at $1000. Nothing good in between ground. You also have decent tablets, but I prefer stock Android so the only one really on the radar was either the Shield or the Nexus 9. The Shield was built kind of cheaply (in my opinion) and the Nexus 9 had some serious design flaws (light bleed galore, overheating, etc.). I'd also want to get some sort of travel laptop to go along with one of those, so I'd basically be spending $500-800 if I bought one of those tablets and a cheaper Windows laptop or Chromebook.

OR

I could buy the Surface 3, spend that money on a beautifully built tablet that also functions as a pretty solid full-fledged computer. It is definitely worth the money. There are reasons upon reasons to buy this that make it worth the cost, and just because it doesn't have the world's fastest processor does not in any way shape or form make it cheap or not worth what you pay for it. I could have spent an extra $150 and got a Spectre X360, which is an awesome computer. But that's not what I want. The Surface 3 had everything I wanted.

 

[vtpmt81]

$350 tablet actually. And the screen is BETTER than the Surface 3.

You can find $200 Android tablets with equivalent screens to the Surface 3. That's my point.

A $200 Android tablet isn't going to have the functionality of the Surface 3 though. Being able to run full windows and legacy apps is huge and gives the user access to way more content and offers more functionality.

The HP Stream is a solid computer. It is perfect for someone that has a limited budget but wants a nice computer that can run legacy Windows apps. The Surface 3 is for people that want a tablet/computer hybrid, want note taking capability, and want a beautiful high resolution display. Surfaces don't have OEM bloatware. The Surface 3 is perfect for people that carry an Android Tablet and Chromebook or people that have a nice desktop and want a tablet.

 

[TLRtheory]

My entire point is that the Surface 3 is overpriced - just like the iPad is overpriced. Why is this? Because you can find equivalent performing devices for $200, or for the same amount of money (tablet + keyboard) you can find devices that blow away the Surface 3 in performance.

Then your *entire point* has been debunked multiple times by multiple users.

The major thing you're not registering here is that performance isn't all that pads the cost of technology... you mention a couple devices here or there that lack the quality build of the Surface 3, lack the palm-blocking stylus digitizer, don't have a screen that color accuracy/responsiveness/functionality, or doesn't compete in the field of versatility... and you've also revealed that you don't entirely understand the concept of what 'performance' is.

The simple fact is that; if we consider all that is under the hood and all that went into making the Surface 3 be what it is, the cost is definitely justified.

Sure my Nexus 10 has a higher res screen at a lower cost, but there's no kick stand, no palm-blocking Ntrig digitizer, it's only got a quarter of the storage, it's made of much lower-quality materials... and that higher-res screen has also been universally panned for being of poor quality. Higher resolution doesn't magically necessitate that it is superior to a lower-res screen. On the other hand, I have a 17 laptop that cost me the exact same as my Surface 3, has exponentially more storage, a better CPU/GPU and more memory that I can expand if I like... but it's made of cheap plastic, has slower rw speeds, weighs a ton while having under half the battery life, has a worse screen and no touch input of any kind. These things matter.

Now you've gotta ask yourself if you really want to be that guy who's purposely resisting understanding?

If a $199 laptop with a crappy screen and limited input is fine with you, awesome... if a cheap fake leather case with a floppy kick stand is ideal for you? Rock on... but that lifestyle simply and absolutely isn't in the league to be compared to a Surface 3.

 

[Geodude074]

Then your *entire point* has been debunked multiple times by multiple users.

The major thing you're not registering here is that performance isn't all that pads the cost of technology... you mention a couple devices here or there that lack the quality build of the Surface 3, lack the palm-blocking stylus digitizer, don't have a screen that color accuracy/responsiveness/functionality, or doesn't compete in the field of versatility... and you've also revealed that you don't entirely understand the concept of what 'performance' is.

The simple fact is that; if we consider all that is under the hood and all that went into making the Surface 3 be what it is, the cost is definitely justified.

Sure my Nexus 10 has a higher res screen at a lower cost, but there's no kick stand, no palm-blocking Ntrig digitizer, it's only got a quarter of the storage, it's made of much lower-quality materials... and that higher-res screen has also been universally panned for being of poor quality. Higher resolution doesn't magically necessitate that it is superior to a lower-res screen. On the other hand, I have a 17 laptop that cost me the exact same as my Surface 3, has exponentially more storage, a better CPU/GPU and more memory that I can expand if I like... but it's made of cheap plastic, has slower rw speeds, weighs a ton while having under half the battery life, has a worse screen and no touch input of any kind. These things matter.

Now you've gotta ask yourself if you really want to be that guy who's purposely resisting understanding?

If a $199 laptop with a crappy screen and limited input is fine with you, awesome... if a cheap fake leather case with a floppy kick stand is ideal for you? Rock on... but that lifestyle simply and absolutely isn't in the league to be compared to a Surface 3.

From a performance standpoint, the Surface 3 is overpriced, even in its class. That is my entire point, and it still stands, it has not been debunked, nobody has been able to show that the Surface 3 performs better than say a Dell Venue 11 Pro with a Core M at $499.

Does it have better build quality than a $200 HP Stream 11? OF COURSE IT DOES. I'm not here to contest that it doesn't. That's why the HP Stream 11 costs $200, because it's made of plastic.

But when it comes to overall PERFORMANCE, the Surface 3 is subpar compared to its class. Once again, that has been my entire point, stop trying to twist my argument into something that it's not.

 

[illegaloperation]

From a performance standpoint, the Surface 3 is overpriced, even in its class. That is my entire point, and it still stands, it has not been debunked, nobody has been able to show that the Surface 3 performs better than say a Dell Venue 11 Pro with a Core M at $499.

Does it have better build quality than a $200 HP Stream 11? OF COURSE IT DOES. I'm not here to contest that it doesn't. That's why the HP Stream 11 costs $200, because it's made of plastic.

But when it comes to overall PERFORMANCE, the Surface 3 is subpar compared to its class. Once again, that has been my entire point, stop trying to twist my argument into something that it's not.

Surface 3 doesn't provide the most performance for the price: that's true.

It does not follow that it's overpriced just as the car with the most horsepower does not make it the best car.

 

[TLRtheory]

From a performance standpoint, the Surface 3 is overpriced, even in its class. That is my entire point, and it still stands, it has not been debunked, nobody has been able to show that the Surface 3 performs better than say a Dell Venue 11 Pro with a Core M at $499. I'm sure we can find it cheaper elsewhere or get it used for a steal, but if we're taking the manufacturer price of the S3, it's only fair to compare it to the manufacturer price here too.

Does it have better build quality than a $200 HP Stream 11? OF COURSE IT DOES. I'm not here to contest that it doesn't. That's why the HP Stream 11 costs $200, because it's made of plastic.

But when it comes to overall PERFORMANCE, the Surface 3 is subpar compared to its class. Once again, that has been my entire point, stop trying to twist my argument into something that it's not.

Your original post considers only single/multi-thread CPU performance... which assumes nothing outside of CPU matters. That's the same amateur schoolboy error that every chump kid makes when they try to assume a 20mp point-and-shooter is better than a 14mp DSLR. That point doesn't stand, never did and yes it was definitely debunked. If that were the case, yester-generation's Phenom with 16GB Gskill and SLI'd 980s would be slaughtered by a i7-4790k that has nothing outside of the IntelHD chip. That's not how you measure performance, and that's a lot of the reason any tech worth their salt takes benchmarks with a grain of salt.

A completely built machine cannot be overpriced from a performance standpoint because that creates an illogical correlation between price and performance without telling the whole story. You have already shown that the argument that S3 being overpriced can only be made after excluding major game-changing components. This is why everyone here who has a better understanding of technology is against you here.

Now while lower resolution doesn't necessarily mean the Dell Venue 11-7000's screen is worse, that does give it's internals less work to do on any given application... and that's not even getting into how the DV11 you cited is a thicker, heavier piece of work that's not as well-built and lacks the Office subscription (from Dell's page anyway). And unless I'm on the wrong page (Dell Venue 11 Pro HD Windows Tablet | Dell), it's $699, not $499... and only $699 after savings since it's MSRP is $998.57. Sure I can find some third party selling it cheaper or chop a couple hundo off by getting it used, but if we're to use the OEM pricing of the Surface 3, using the OEM pricing of the DV11 is only fair.

I'm truly hoping third time's a charm here (or 7th... or whatever we're on, I've lost count).

 

[onlysublime]

why is geo posting so many stupid threads? we get it. you don't like the Surface 3.

If you want maximum performance or maximum value, you aren't going to get it with Surface 3. But if you want a do-everything machine that's small, has a terrific screen, has a great build quality, and has accurate pen input, the Surface 3 is a strong machine.

All these Surface 3 versus threads (all created by Geo) are pretty sad.

 

[Wildo6882]

The Dell is $499 on Best Buy. For anyone who cares.

 

[Geodude074]

Your original post considers only single/multi-thread CPU performance... which assumes nothing outside of CPU matters. That's the same amateur schoolboy error that every chump kid makes when they try to assume a 20mp point-and-shooter is better than a 14mp DSLR. That point doesn't stand, never did and yes it was definitely debunked. If that were the case, yester-generation's Phenom with 16GB Gskill and SLI'd 980s would be slaughtered by a i7-4790k that has nothing outside of the IntelHD chip. That's not how you measure performance, and that's a lot of the reason any tech worth their salt takes benchmarks with a grain of salt.

A completely built machine cannot be overpriced from a performance standpoint because that creates an illogical correlation between price and performance without telling the whole story. You have already shown that the argument that S3 being overpriced can only be made after excluding major game-changing components. This is why everyone here who has a better understanding of technology is against you here.

Now while lower resolution doesn't necessarily mean the Dell Venue 11-7000's screen is worse, that does give it's internals less work to do on any given application... and that's not even getting into how the DV11 you cited is a thicker, heavier piece of work that's not as well-built and lacks the Office subscription (from Dell's page anyway). And unless I'm on the wrong page (Dell Venue 11 Pro HD Windows Tablet | Dell), it's $699, not $499... and only $699 after savings since it's MSRP is $998.57. Sure I can find some third party selling it cheaper or chop a couple hundo off by getting it used, but if we're to use the OEM pricing of the Surface 3, using the OEM pricing of the DV11 is only fair.

I'm truly hoping third time's a charm here (or 7th... or whatever we're on, I've lost count).

Take a look at the Dell Venue 11 Pro with a Core M, 4 GB of RAM, and 64 GB M.2 SSD at $499. Then compare it to the Surface 3 with the Atom x7, 2 GB of RAM, and 64 GB eMMC SSD at $499. Now explain to me how the Surface does not lack in performance for the price. Also explain to me how every single OEM out there (Asus, Acer, Dell, HP, etc) includes the keyboard FOR FREE, and yet Microsoft doesn't, and yet you don't consider that to be overpriced.

I'll wait.