LG Gram 14 costs $1600 USD, somehow manages to be one of the slowest Core i7 Ice Lake laptops you can buy

[Redaktion]

If you're looking for a super-light Core i7-1065G7 laptop, then the LG Gram 14 would be tough to beat. If you're looking for good Core i7-1065G7 performance, however, then almost any other laptop with the same CPU would outperform the LG.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/LG-Gram-14-costs-1600-USD-somehow-manages-to-be-one-of-the-slowest-Core-i7-Ice-Lake-laptops-you-can-buy.465702.0.html

[william blake]

apple is the undisputed leader by the lowest performance per money.
how about article?

[Joschn]

See, it's articles like this why it gets harder and harder for me to appreciate your site.

First, the price and config you're touting seem completely wrong:
The standard 8G/256G Gram 14 (the RAM/SSD config in your review) has a list price of 1200USD on LG's homepage, costs 1100 on amazon.com ATM and comes with a i5-1035G7.

The 8/256 version with a i7-1065G7 says COSTCO EXCLUSIVE - all caps theirs - has no price and can't be found anywhere else (and not even on Costco's homepage anymore, where google cache says it still only cost 1099$).

And even then...yeah, sorry, the inevitable comparison with the MBA: You're still left with a laptop that easily bests (and sometimes soundly trounces) the latter in performance, noise, heat AND battery life (yes, every single one), while still being 300g lighter.

This would be highly impressive even at the 1600$ point (for which you actually get an i7/16GB/512GB config) and regardless of the CPU used.

Yet the first thing I read is - IMHO completely misplaced - mockery.

[Qyygle]

See, it's articles like this why it gets harder and harder for me to appreciate your site.

First, the price and config you're touting seem completely wrong:
The standard 8G/256G Gram 14 (the RAM/SSD config in your review) has a list price of 1200USD on LG's homepage, costs 1100 on amazon.com ATM and comes with a i5-1035G7.

The 8/256 version with a i7-1065G7 says COSTCO EXCLUSIVE - all caps theirs - has no price and can't be found anywhere else (and not even on Costco's homepage anymore, where google cache says it still only cost 1099$).

And even then...yeah, sorry, the inevitable comparison with the MBA: You're still left with a laptop that easily bests (and sometimes soundly trounces) the latter in performance, noise, heat AND battery life (yes, every single one), while still being 300g lighter.

This would be highly impressive even at the 1600$ point (for which you actually get an i7/16GB/512GB config) and regardless of the CPU used.

Yet the first thing I read is - IMHO completely misplaced - mockery.

Maybe it's the lack of reading comprehension that makes appreciation hard. The whole point of the article is that LG's implementation of a 10th gen i7 is barely improvement on some 8th gen i5s for a significant amount of money at that.
You quote pricing based on an i5 spec'd model, which was not the spec NBC reviewed. $1,600 is LG's own pricing for an i7 spec'd model AS REVIEWED. Why bother bring up the base models when the only matching components were RAM and storage?? The subject is CPU and GPU performance.

Finally, compared to a MBA, sure maybe the Gram is a fine option. But in the windows world, where the XPS, Spectre, Blade Stealth, multiple Lenovo options all exist, with performance matching what you pay for, in chassis that are just as good, I think NBC's point becomes clear no?

[Joschn]

You quote pricing based on an i5 spec'd model, which was not the spec NBC reviewed. $1,600 is LG's own pricing for an i7 spec'd model AS REVIEWED. Why bother bring up the base models when the only matching components were RAM and storage?? The subject is CPU and GPU performance.

See, but that's the thing: There is no model with those specs priced that way by LG (as I've clearly written).

And regarding the *only* difference - i5-1035G7/i7-1065G7 - the differences between those two are marginal (slightly lower clocks, slightly smaller cache, identical GPU), thermal design gives a much higer variability than the choice of either. (If anything, one could critizise intels naming scheme...) Admittedly one could argue whether the i7 makes sense in this machine, but the fixation on "i5 vs i7" only falls rather short.

Finally, compared to a MBA, sure maybe the Gram is a fine option. But in the windows world, where the XPS, Spectre, Blade Stealth, multiple Lenovo options all exist, with performance matching what you pay for, in chassis that are just as good, I think NBC's point becomes clear no?

But the LG Gram is significantly lighter and has an even higher emphasis on battery life, thermals and noise than any of those. Of course, if this is sidelined and the focus remains on "LOL slow i7", no wonder we don't get more of those cool&quiet-under-load, long-life machines...

[Qyygle]

See, but that's the thing: There is no model with those specs priced that way by LG (as I've clearly written).

And regarding the *only* difference - i5-1035G7/i7-1065G7 - the differences between those two are marginal (slightly lower clocks, slightly smaller cache, identical GPU), thermal design gives a much higer variability than the choice of either. (If anything, one could critizise intels naming scheme...) Admittedly one could argue whether the i7 makes sense in this machine, but the fixation on "i5 vs i7" only falls rather short.
...
But the LG Gram is significantly lighter and has an even higher emphasis on battery life, thermals and noise than any of those. Of course, if this is sidelined and the focus remains on "LOL slow i7", no wonder we don't get more of those cool&quiet-under-load, long-life machines...

Again, this goes back to the point of this article no?
If the focus was on thin, light, long battery life, thermals and noise: a fanless coreM processor should have been the go to.

If you advertise and price a top spec core i7 and end up delivering last gen core i5 performance, then you deserve to be laughed at.
A lot of this is the fault of Intel, along with the generic consumer mindset of 'i7 is best, I need the best'. This laptop would've been served better with an i5, i3, or even lower CPUs but it wasn't, and neither was it priced that way.
It doesn't seem to merit the criticism of the article however, since the content is correct. The Gram underperforms and is overpriced for what you get.
"...These details all suggest that LG is content with minimizing processor performance if it means having a lighter and quieter Ultrabook than the rest. It's a trade-off that some users might not mind but more should be aware of."