Reddit reviews ASUS Zenbook UX301LA-DH71T Laptop (Windows 8.1, Intel Core i7-4558U, 13" LED-lit Screen, Storage: 256 GB, RAM: 8 GB) Blue

> http://www.amazon.com/Zenbook-UX301LA-DH71T-Quad-HD-Display-Touchscreen/dp/B00EPGHEQS

I don't get what you are trying to prove with that listing? That is just as expensive as a MacBook Pro Retina 13" with comparable specs.

I agree on every point except

> The Apple hardware is usually very solid. Similar PC hardware wouldn't be any cheaper.

This is simply not true. Spec for Spec apple pretty much always comes with a fairly large price overhead. Apple does take extra care in making sure the housing is well done and looks good, but that is about it. However, there are plenty of apple like products in that category. For example

http://www.amazon.com/Zenbook-UX301LA-DH71T-Quad-HD-Display-Touchscreen/dp/B00EPGHEQS

edit Turns out I have an old bias that isn't true anymore. I can't find a counterpoint that really proves the "fairly large price overhead" statement I made. Looks like Apple and PCs are similarly priced for the specs.

Hahah yeah yeah it does. For that price, get the ASUS UX301LA.

It has an even faster processor, a 2560x1440 Quad-IPS display, it has Intel Iris 5100 Graphics, dual SSD's on RAID 0, and better construction than that VAIO.

The Asus Zenbook UX301LA-DH71T would be a good overall choice because of its Intel Iris graphics, which are significantly better than the ordinary HD 4400/4600 series.

• i7 dual core 4558U processor
  
• 8GB ram
  
• 256GB SSD (in RAID 0)
  
• Intel Iris 5100 graphics
  
• 2560 x 1440 13.3” IPS touchscreen
  
• 2 USB 3.0, 1 micro-HDMI, 1 mini-displayPort
  
• 2.6 pounds / 0.6” thick
  
• ~7 hours of battery life
  
  There are no issues with the yellows on this machine because it does not use PenTile technology like the screen on the other model.

I bought it in Denmark on this site (Danish website). 10945 DKK is ~$2000 but computers are generally expensive in Denmark compared to the US.

This have some of the same specs.

Ouch.

Laptops have come pretty far in the past two years.

i7-4558u @ 3.3GHz, 8GB RAM, 2x256GB SSD RAID, 2560x1440 13.3" ultrabook that's 15mm thick here. Gets 6-8 hours battery and up to 255 days in sleep with sub-1-second wake time.

The integrated Intel Iris 5100 GPU runs circles around the discrete Radeon of the 3-year-old laptop it replaced. There's not much need for "gaming laptops" as a category anymore when the integrated GPU in a thin-and-light can run recent games at native resolution.

http://www.amazon.com/Zenbook-UX301LA-DH71T-13-3-Inch-Touchscreen-Ultrabook/dp/B00EPGHEQS

With that high of a budget you have a lot of options.

I'd say the Asus Zenbook UX301LA

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EPGHEQS/

The screen is great, it actually has 2 SSDs in raid 0, and it's super stylish. The back is a blue gorilla glass 3 material. Very nice. Check a video review.

Well most of the CPUs in the smaller and lighter laptops are dual-core i7's. Any specific reason you need a MQ i7?

What about this? Only thing is it has Iris Pro graphics. It depends on which games you want to play.

Asus Zenbook UX301 is the best I could find for you. Not sure if it's worth the price, but it looks amazing.

They are decent enough for such a price point. Again, find a comparable Windows laptop (1440p display or better, Intel CPU with Iris graphics, SSD) and you will pay the same amount or more.

If a 1080p display is enough, you could get something for $1000 without problems.

You can get much better performance for the same price, or the same performance for a lower price with a Windows machine. If you have disposable income, and since you're already in the Apple ecosystem, a retina Macbook Pro (rMBP) might be the best for you. If you do choose a rMBP, look for a 15" option around the same price. They perform much better than the 13". The late 2013 13" with the i7-4558U is also high-performance.

Minecraft uses OpenGL to render, so it's compatible with many platforms. Performance is comparable between Windows and OS X.

The HD 4000 graphics is not optimal for Minecraft at native resolution. It works at 720p, but spending so much for an excellent display is wasted if it has to run at 720p at below 60 FPS.

This is basically the equivalent of the late 2013 i7 256GB rMBP. It truly is a great machine, but a bit exorbitant like rMBP. The graphics are much better, and since the resolution is lower, it will run casual games like Minecraft very well. Still, it is very pricey, but one of the only things that can match the rMBP late 2013 i7.

Edit: By the way, the only thing that matters inside the Macbook bubble is the graphics. The CPU and RAM on any of the Apple computers are effectively the same in your scenario. If you have videos stored in mp4 containers, and you know how much your library size is, you can adjust the SSD capacity accordingly.

When I say HD4000 works at 720p, understand that you need to turn down settings. You need to limit the performance of that display. Even then, you will not get above 60 FPS.

No card, just a valid question to a blanket attack.

Never said anything about "gaming Mac's". Nor did I ever say that you couldn't get a PC that outperformed rMBPs...

>I've looked, and none of the comparable price PC's I've seen had it all. They all skimp somewhere, whether it be the form factor, the components, the display, or the battery life.

Asus computers can have more ram, better graphics, etc, etc, but almost never have a quality screen like the retina display. The ones that you talk of that outperform and are cheaper are also almost exclusively plastic, thicker, and have 3-4hrs of batter life, if that. I also said that 100% comparable PC's that compare in every aspect do exist, but are often more expensive than their MBP counterparts. For Asus, this is probably the best example. It's got a comparable screen, form factor, battery life, performance (though the screen and processor are a bit short of the rMBP). It's $100 more than the comparable rMBP. Really, I should even insist on the one step up Asus ($1700) for a more comparable processor.

Same thing with Samsung regarding the "cheaper outperforming" options. As far as across the board comparisons, this is probably the best comparison I could find. It has a slightly better processor, and, amazingly, a slightly better display. But it's still $280 more than the comparable rMBP. Hell, for $100 less than that one, you can get the top level 13.3 rMBP with the comparable processor and the doubled storage space of 512gb.


TL;DR Compare oranges to oranges and be surprised..